By
Aritra Banerjee
Africa-Press – Lesotho. Initially lauded as a groundbreaking vision for global connectivity, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has increasingly become a subject of intense scrutiny. Promising transformative infrastructure and economic growth, the initiative often delivers a starkly different reality: debt burdens, economic dependence, and compromised sovereignty. Beijing’s financial model has become synonymous with debt diplomacy from Asia to Africa and beyond, exploiting financial aid to consolidate strategic and geopolitical dominance.
Ports of Entrapment: A Strategic Play in the Indian Ocean Region
The Indian Ocean Region (IOR) exemplifies China’s approach to debt diplomacy. Beijing’s investments in ports such as Pakistan’s Gwadar, Sri Lanka’s Hambantota, and Bangladesh’s Payra are less about fostering regional development and more about advancing strategic interests. These ports—part of the broader BRI framework—serve as geopolitical footholds, linking China’s trade ambitions with its military aspirations.
Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port: A cautionary tale, this port was leased to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017 after Colombo failed to repay Chinese loans. What began as a dream of economic revitalization became a symbol of sovereignty compromised.
Pakistan’s Gwadar Port: Envisioned as a linchpin of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Gwadar has faced chronic underutilization and widespread criticism for prioritizing Chinese interests over local economic needs.
Maldives’ Laamu Atoll: Heavily reliant on Chinese funding, the Maldives faces a growing debt burden that threatens its fiscal independence. These projects often include opaque terms that disproportionately benefit Beijing, leaving host nations struggling to manage repayments.
A Model of Economic Dependency
The economic consequences of China’s BRI projects ripple across the globe. Nations enticed by the promise of development are burdened by unsustainable debts, often exacerbated by opaque contracts and high interest rates.
Pakistan: With nearly $69 billion owed to China, Islamabad’s experience with CPEC reflects the pitfalls of overreliance on Beijing. Financial irregularities, exorbitant energy tariffs, and security challenges have plagued the initiative, transforming surplus energy production into a liability.
Bangladesh: While initially welcoming Chinese investments, Dhaka has grown wary of Beijing’s tactics. Concerns over trade imbalances and debt sustainability highlight the risks of deepening financial ties.
Laos: The landlocked Southeast Asian nation’s high-speed railway project, financed by Chinese loans, has driven its external debt to over 60% of GDP, leaving its economy dangerously over-leveraged.
African Nations: From Kenya’s Standard Gauge Railway to Zambia’s power infrastructure, the story remains the same: investments that fail to deliver promised economic benefits while entrenching Chinese influence.
China’s Industrial Dumping Ground
China’s strategy extends beyond debt diplomacy. By fostering economic dependence, Beijing turns many BRI partner nations into dumping grounds for excess Chinese production. This influx of cheap goods undermines local industries, stifling long-term economic growth and innovation. Cambodia and Nepal, for instance, have seen domestic markets flooded with Chinese products, making it nearly impossible for local manufacturers to compete. Myanmar’s trade imbalance with China further illustrates the economic asymmetry characterizing these relationships.
Dual-Use Investments: Civilian Infrastructure or Military Assets?
China’s investments in the IOR and beyond often feature dual-use capabilities. Ports and railways ostensibly built for trade can be adapted for military purposes, enhancing Beijing’s strategic reach. This dual-purpose model—already evident in the South China Sea—poses long-term security risks for host nations. Infrastructure financed through Chinese loans becomes a tool for geopolitical leverage, undermining the autonomy of recipient states.
India’s Strategic Alternative
As China’s BRI draws global criticism, India has positioned itself as a credible alternative. New Delhi’s investments in projects like the Chabahar Port in Iran highlight a transparent, partnership-driven approach. Unlike Beijing’s debt-heavy model, India’s initiatives emphasize capacity building and economic sustainability. The operationalization of the North-South Economic Corridor, connecting Central Asia to global markets, demonstrates the potential for equitable regional development.
India’s broader initiatives, such as Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), focus on fostering maritime security and local empowerment, starkly contrasting China’s extractive economic practices.
The Cost of “Friendship”
The cost of China’s so-called friendship is steep for nations entangled in Beijing’s web. From the erosion of sovereignty to undermining local industries, the impact of BRI extends far beyond debt. The promise of connectivity and prosperity often masks a darker reality: a future dictated by dependency and compromise.
The message is clear as countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Laos grapple with the consequences of their economic entanglements with China. The allure of Chinese capital comes with strings attached, and the price of repayment often extends beyond dollars—it is measured in lost autonomy and constrained policy choices. For nations weighing closer ties with Beijing, these cautionary tales serve as a stark reminder: economic growth must not come at the expense of sovereignty.
moderndiplomacy
For More News And Analysis About Lesotho Follow Africa-Press