1306:
global rich corporation, it's really no surprise to see capital primarily flowing from the poor nations to the richer ones and that IMF conditional loans and further rounds of finance, is what systematically drives them into debt traps for the last 4 decades. Allegations have been made because the IMF and World Bank has actually used indebtedness to extract political leverage. As when the economy goes bad but debts needs to be repaid. The country typically has to go to the IMF for a bailout despite the IMF conditions for that debt, as well as the bailout, is what leads to increased poverty rates and lower economic growth and a vicious cycle. In this view, China is the only major alternative where global south countries can borrow from, without needing conditions. And they can choose how much to borrow and are not forced. It's offensive to imply they don't know how much to borrow but at least they have an option to escape IMF austerity and choose their own policies. And the parties with a well documented history of repeatedly exploiting debt traps to force policies is the IMF and World Bank and to not mention them in an article that is generally about exploiting debt. But give so much estate to mention
Chinese cases where one is really using a Crystal Ball to predict it will occur, but hasn't. That would be not
2065:
sources cited in the article that endorse
Chellaney's picture in various ways, as well as material that isn't clearly for or against or is only for or against certain aspects of the theory. I know that at least some recent sources claim that experts have broadly agreed against at least certain aspects of Chellaney's hypothesis, but it's not like the entire article reads as a systematic refutation of everything anyone has ever put under the DTD umbrella. If we were really going to honestly survey all the sources and give an accurate summary of the positions they take in the lead, I think we would need to do a lot more work than just looking at a few sources as representative of the "rebuttal" side and stopping at that, which is why I think we should focus on the rest of the article for now and not try to overcharacterize the debate in the lead at this point. Simply saying "it's controversial" is plainly true. I think anything else, beyond something detailed and nuanced that really properly surveys the whole debate, is going to give readers the wrong impression. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1965:. Part of the theory is that the BRI represents a kind of grand malicious plan by the Chinese government, and that I have heard a lot of pushback against especially in more recent writing. People will say that the loans and the results have been too varied for that to be true, and that in any case the countries that are in trouble are in debt to a lot of different sources, not just China, etc. That's not really just like, tossing Chellaney's thesis to the ground absolutely or something—it's kind of just presenting a different picture, not one directly opposed but more just different (and what would "directly opposed" look like anyway? it's a complicated, multifaceted idea). But also, to be honest, I don't feel like I've totally explored the contemporary writing on it yet, and I don't think this article does either, so I think we could easily discover that there's more support for it in some sources today than either of us realize right now. We have to let the sources lead the way. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1982:) quotes analysts saying things like, "Laos is so heavily indebted to China that their negotiating position is compromised...It's having to borrow just to service the debt. That's the definition of a debt trap," and, "If you see your country becoming a colony of China, you see a government that is totally corrupt, and you cannot speak up because if you do you might be killed - would you want to stay?" I'm sure Chellaney would see all this as in line with his analysis. At the same time, the comments of the experts in the Associated Press article I've used in a couple places, where they say that the loans have come from dozens of banks and can't all have been coordinated "from the top," doesn't exactly conflict with the framing in that BBC article. Chinese banks didn't have to make loans to Laos with "ill intent" per se for things to have worked out the way that article portrays—perhaps that's more just how things went in practice. You
1166:"What makes some nations sink deeper into Chinese debt, despite the risks of mortgaging their foreign-policy autonomy to Beijing?...The answer is several factors, including the comparative ease of borrowing from China, with IMF lending normally carrying stringent conditions and oversight. China does not evaluate a borrower state's creditworthiness, unlike the IMF, which will not lend if its assessment indicates that additional loans could drive the country into a serious debt crisis. Indeed, China is happy to lend until nations face a debt crisis because of the greater leverage it gives Beijing....Typically, China starts as an economic partner of another country, only to gradually become its economic master. In fact, the more desperate a borrower country's situation, the higher the interest rates it will likely pay on Chinese loans." (this is Chellaney, of course)
1176:"Credit from private capital markets or from Chinese policy banks also allowed governments to avoid the conditions typically attached to funds borrowed from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and various regional development banks. These conditions—some specific to a funded project, others related to macroeconomic policy—often were viewed as constraining debtor governments’ autonomy. Loans from China or international bond issues typically were more expensive, in interest rate terms. But they came without formal conditionality, though they might have included implicit promises to grant favorable market access to China, among other things."
1927:
do feel like there's enough room to state that there's been a lot of controversy, and a lot of people both for and against it in certain ways—that much is obvious from the article at present—so I think we should just stick to that for the time being. I think we should try to develop the rest of the article more before we say anything more certain than that in the lead—there's a lot of existing sources that are still kind of undercharacterized and I've also had an easy time finding relevant sources that still aren't cited anywhere here, so in a way we still have a lot to find out about how this topic actually comes off in what's been published. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1196:(That was me getting a little distracted...I think the more central point here is just that "diplomacy" implies state-to-state relations and "debt-trap diplomacy" specifically has always been used with regards to China's bilateral relations in the sources, whereas the IMF and World Bank and so on are not even state actors in themselves.) If we really want this article to be about the idea of debt-trap diplomacy in particular, and not just about possibly-malign lending to states in general, I don't really see how the "IMF and World Bank" section in this article belongs given all this, at least not in its current form. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1957:
picture you get is pretty heterogenous. The lead has to follow from the body of the article, and what I wrote there is absolutely borne out by the article, that many people have both endorsed and rebutted DTD. When the article is more developed and pulled-together, maybe it will be clearer how we could say something more specific. Given that, I think we should focus on the rest of the article for now and leave further developing the lead for later. In my opinion, the existing lead is "safe" for now, in that it does at least follow from what the rest of the article says.
1146:"Sri Lanka's efforts to borrow more have been thwarted by downgraded ratings. Bonds were reduced to junk status...Local analysts believe an agreement with the IMF would help with financial markets, and enable Sri Lanka to borrow again...'An IMF program puts Sri Lanka on a debt-sustainable path, and that creates credibility when you go to the markets,' said Murtaza Jafferjee, managing director of JB Securities, a financial consultancy in Colombo. 'After the Moody's downgrade, and without an IMF program, Sri Lanka will not be able to access the markets.'"
453:
1261:. When the sources we have explicitly discuss "debt-trap diplomacy," that's what they're talking about every time. Whether or not this is a meaningful distinction to draw between what China might be doing and what the IMF or World Bank does is just not up to us as Knowledge editors. The sources we actually have tend to contrast them more than equate them (as you can see from the quotes I cited above). Perhaps they're wrong to do that, their perspective is shallow, etc., but Knowledge isn't the right place to fight that fight. See
1182:
heavy cuts to public spending or privatization of state-run companies, especially if the country has poor credit. Chinese banks (and private lenders) are portrayed as lending to countries with poor credit without imposing these kinds of conditions, but instead charging higher interest rates and being less cautious about whether the country can repay or not. China in particular of course has been accused of all-but-planning for borrowing countries to default as a way of gaining leverage over them, hence the "debt-trap diplomacy."
2491:
rejected by most sources. I am suggesting the sentence in the lead, "As of at least 2024, the idea of a
Chinese debt-trap is a minority view." This seems to me to be a fair summary of what is already in the body (lead summarizes the body). But, it has been templated. One alternative is a list of the many sources rejecting the hypothesis of a Chinese debt trap, but that seems to be too tedious. I am open to other phrasings that address this to avoid the need to template and am curious what other views exist.
1302:
major party in the entire world that engages in debt trap diplomacy is China alone. So either specify the article is specifically on China's conduct, or agree it's an article generally about diplomacy that systematically creates and exploits debt. If it's the latter then IMF more than warrants a mention given both qualified allegations and history, and should have much more paragraphs of content dedicated to each historic examples, compared to the paragraphs of China's non existent cases.
1522:
anything about "debt-trap diplomacy" per se. I also feel like a lot of the article reads in a rather rambling and hard-to-follow fashion at present even where the information is relevant, because so much of it is just long lists of studies and news articles added by different people over the years without much effort to give it a larger sense of flow or show what interactions and commonalities exist between the sources. I'm gradually trying to do something about those issues.
548:
527:
443:
422:
1434:
discussion above, The Debt Trap: The IMF and the Third World by Cheryl Payer was published in 1975. It is called a debt trap in the old days. But after 2017, a new term has come up but has the meaning is the same. So you can't both claim the word itself now means a general systematic exploitation of debts and then use mental gymnastics to also claim that IMF doesn't qualify because despite it's being accused of the very same action defined in the article lead,
1915:
various parts of the idea since it first came around, and at this current time in history I do think there's support for the idea that a bulk of commentators have sided against at least the idea that the BRI has had some sort of secret malicious overarching plan behind it. That's not quite the same as it being totally rebutted universally, and there are still very contemporary news stories that are more written more in line with
Chellaney's framing (e.g.
1221:, but to continue the IMF policies to get another round of IMF money, instead of refusing policies which as you put it, "open up their economy to international corporate plunder". And that same cycle of worsening their debt and then bailing them out, has persisted for decades. And is why they get criticized because IMF isn't a charity and knows austerity harms the economy, but has not stopped, and has been criticized for continuing that.
653:
632:
237:
663:
315:
937:
919:
1877:
referenced any court of law anywhere in the world that I've seen to indicate an asset in Africa or Sri Lanka or anywhere else has been surrendered. Sri Lanka ofcourse was a 99 year-land lease no different than the USA's land-lease in Panama for the canal. Or UK's of
Kowloon/Hong Kong or again USA's Guantanamo Bay in Cuba which is also a leased bit of land. Given it hasn't happend Debt Trap is still just a theory.
558:
2304:
847:
826:
207:
1068:
business-friendly, laissez-faire economic ideology on desperate countries that might not want this but can't afford to say no, thus opening up their economy to international corporate plunder from the moment they sign and all that. When trying to explain why a country might fall prey to debt-trap diplomacy, commentators often explicitly contrast it to the approach of IMF and World Bank,
1055:
person to raise this issue here, but it doesn't seem like it's gotten any resolution still. I get the feeling that different contributors to this article have had clashing ideas about its scope: some want it to be about "predatory lending to countries generally" so to speak, while others want to stick to sources that specifically discuss the kind of activity
Chellaney was commenting on.
1480:
to make large volumes of content to accuse China of doing debt trap diplomacy in Africa back in the early days of 2017. But in 2023, when there's increasingly more evidence to disprove the allegations, then the article really shouldn't have a mega sized volume of filler content, when major outlets like
Bloomberg have to admit the allegations are overblown and without factual basis.
272:
391:
362:
1476:
disinformation but have also made certain corrections later on. A lot of disinfo was made in the early years of 2017 and 2018, and it be a grave error to present whatever news say then, with too much weight and have a higher ratio to more recent content that inevitably emerged to disproves the narrative with quality studies, that was absent in the early years.
1529:. I keep trying to emphasize that perspective because I really think that's part of what this article needs to be more comprehensible to a reader. To the extent that such material is out there, the reader will understand that the political consensus is now against it if we frame things more chronologically, which I really think would help in places.
758:
737:
1386:
debt has spiraled to 26% of its gross domestic product...Beijing's power to dim all lights in Laos leaves little wiggle room for its tiny neighbor, already reeling under its staggering debt obligations...What makes some nations sink deeper into
Chinese debt, despite the risks of mortgaging their foreign-policy autonomy to Beijing?
1987:
generalize from Laos whatever you might decide is going on there. You can kind of see even just from this why I feel like it's hard to characterize the "overall conclusions" analysts have come to, at least in terms of how the picture we have of the issue so far makes things look. We have to be very careful to avoid
2393:
removed information about the economic materialization of the hambantota port, and wanted to be tagged to this section of the talk page. Information should be returned, not removed. reasons are cited above. Stages are early, but I prepared this talk page to prepare for the eventual materialization of
1986:
draw a conclusion from these two stories (not that I would necessarily) that
Chellaney was wrong about the "geostrategic plan" part but not about the results, at least where Laos is concerned. Of course, also, in different countries, the situation is really different, so it wouldn't be appropriate to
1821:
Overall, the article suffers from a conceptual problem. The "debt-trap diplomacy" usage was coined, or at least popularized, with regard to China's lending. However, the underlying hypothesis has not been supported as to China. To borrow language from some of the academic sources, the idea of
Chinese
1479:
If you are advocating for tightening up the entire article, you should be reducing and trimming the large amount of unsubstantiated chapters that insist China is committing debt trap diplomacy in Africa, and irrelevant unrelated remarks about bribery in the Pacific islands. it may had been acceptable
1063:
between nations", in which a rich country "tricks" a poor country into taking on loans it probably can't repay at attractive-looking interest rates and then seizes its assets or forces it to adopt policies that favor the rich country as a sort of collateral when it falls behind on payments, expanding
1054:
per se. The pure phrase "debt trap" definitely does get use in reference to both organizations and has for decades, but since they're not themselves sovereign states I don't think it's surprising that commentators refrain from describing their activity as "diplomacy". I can see that I'm not the first
2506:
It is observable now to most who care to research into it that the concept of Chinese debt trap diplomacy is facing significant push back by a large body of scholarship. I don't think there is any source so far that directly states that it is a minority view and the lead already states the existence
2162:
saying that such a circumstance could happen in the future, or they only make mention of a "debt trap" in passing, which is not the same as debt-trap diplomacy. Please back up your additions with direct quotations as they are being challenged. Where in the references do they claim that the situation
1909:
I was thinking before that it made sense to wait to do anything with the lead until more of the rest of the article had congealed more thoroughly (if that makes sense :P). At this point, though, since the lead seems like it keeps being a focus of conflict and confusion and so on, I'm putting forward
1568:
Some friendly advice is that you had quoted Braham above saying that China doesn't check borrower's ability to pay back. That overgeneralization don't pass the pub test as there's always risk in lending. But China is also proven to assess creditworthiness of Pacific islands, as well as having signed
1437:
people only say systematic predatory lending and debt trap accusations about IMF. The difference between them is too arbitrary. So I reiterate either note in the article introduction to be clear that it doesn't refer to allegations made towards IMF for systematically pushing countries into debt trap
1419:
does but there's a lot of places where it gets off-track, and if we're going to change the lead, we ought to tighten up the rest of the article too. So, I'm here advocating for tightening up the entire article. There's a story to the phrase "debt-trap diplomacy" that's getting lost in the noise, and
1348:
Sometimes this is a frustrating endeavor, to put it lightly, if you personally don't have much respect for how an issue has been framed in the available source material. In that case, though, the right thing to do is to go off Knowledge into the rest of the world and try to change people's views. If
1185:
That brings me back to my original reason for starting this thread: I don't think what the IMF and World Bank do really fits the idea of debt-trap diplomacy, whether their interest rates are lower or higher or whatever—their approach might be bad for the borrowing countries, arguably, but it doesn't
1076:
Criticism of the IMF and World Bank and criticism of debt-trap diplomacy both concern supposedly-manipulative lending to sovereign states, it's true, but they describe different strategies and couch them in different language, and one is applied specifically to bipolar relations between states only.
1058:
My hunch is that if we're going to call the article "Debt-trap diplomacy", the latter framing makes more sense. The phrase "debt trap" is very general—there are plenty of sources that use it just to refer to the activity of loan sharks towards private individuals and so on. "Debt-trap diplomacy" has
2130:
This seems rather disingenuous. If we are not depending on the expertise of experts and representing their views, then who should we depend on? Knowledge allows sources regardless of bias but it's obvious that certain sources are more reliable than others, academic publications ideally being one of
2110:
I disagree. Chellaney's perspective, the debt trap diplomacy, and support for it absolutely does necessitate accusations of an overarching malicious plan to increase diplomatic, political, and material power by the Chinese state. Without that aspect, there is no debt trap diplomacy. It has not been
2004:
The source given does not mention debt trap diplomacy at all. There was already a slew of deletions from this article because they failed to mention debt trap in any way. If we are going to represent all sources with a reference to debt trap or rather debt trap related to China, then the article is
1926:
be room to state in the lead that the preponderance of experts is against it at least in certain ways, but I don't feel like the rest of the article makes it clear how that should work right now, since most of it doesn't really add up to any strong conclusions in any direction at present kind of. I
1825:
One way to address this problem is through the examples of IMF debt traps and the like, and to interpret the scope of the article more broadly to address sovereign "debt traps." This is preferable to requiring the word "diplomacy" also, which would likely result in a too-narrow focus on the Chinese
1551:
I don't think I need to tell you that trusted sources doesn't mean they are 100 percent correct. Older sources had used to quote Sri Lanka's port as being forced to be ceded to China and they quoted Brahma. They were incorrect to do so despite being major outlets. But I do appreciate you taking the
1501:
support the definition used in the first paragraph of the lead as I think it's too general. If this article was just about countries being trapped in debt, it could have been created long before 2017, because as you say that concept is far older and accusations about that have been levelled at many
1403:
The whole conversation in the academic and popular press has been all about that idea specifically. Whether people have argued that it's a genuine problem, a fake idea, a half-truth, a distraction, or anything else, that's always the topic of discussion, so we're obligated to use that framing. Even
1313:
The WB and the IMF have systematically made loans to States as a means of influencing their policies. Foreign indebtedness has been and continues to be used as an instrument for subordinating the borrowers | (The World Bank: a never-ending coup d’état. The hidden agenda of the Washington Consensus,
1248:
to detail their sins in. The state of this article at present makes it challenging for the reader to actually understand the life of the phrase "debt-trap diplomacy" over the course of the time it's seen use in the political discourse, partially because a fair amount of the information in it is not
1239:
Sure, I'm not trying to debate any of that, it's just that this article is called "Debt-trap diplomacy", a phrase which first saw use in the late 2010s to describe aspects of China's foreign policy and has never been used in any of the sources cited here for any other purpose. We have articles like
1181:
You probably get the picture: a common take seems to be that the IMF and similar organizations actually give loans at lower interest rates than Chinese state banks or private lenders, but they won't lend unless the borrowing country agrees to arguably-onerous terms mean to "fix" their economy, like
1116:
When has an IMF / World Bank loan been cheaper in a non- 'first world' country? The claim is that the debt trap is harming non-developed countries who cannot pay it back. Not first world ones who get the lowest interest rates. The rates are based upon a nation's credit worthiness, which are based
1100:
As I continue to read the sources, I want to note, at least as far as China specifically vs. the IMF and World Bank, I'm seeing that sometimes the narrative around interest rates is the opposite—that the interest rates of loans from Chinese state banks are supposedly onerously high, and the IMF and
2035:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think you're overemphasizing what you see as the "against" side in the lead. How does the existing article support that degree of emphasis on that "strongly against" framing, the one you're taking in the second paragraph? I tried to explain in detail just now why I don't
1941:
Admirable as the effort to improve this is, the current text best provides a false balance through the notion of "widely endorsed and widely rebutted" and through presenting the theory on its terms but not explaining why it has been rebutted. But perhaps it is best to work from a version like this
1385:
China's debt-trap diplomacy, redolent of colonial-era practices, has claimed its latest victim -- the small, resource-rich nation of Laos. Struggling to pay back Chinese loans, Laos has handed China majority control of its national electric grid at a time when its state-owned electricity company's
1290:
Is the article only about diplomatic conduct of China alone, and nobody else when it comes to exploiting debt? If so then they should then make that clearer on the introduction chapter. Because it gives the impression that only China is the one that engages in debt trap diplomacy, and nobody else.
1085:
debt-trap diplomacy, since I think that's much more how the IMF and World Bank actually come up in articles that touch on the idea of debt-trap diplomacy directly. I have to say, I'm not sure there's really enough material directly focused on that comparison to justify there being a whole separate
1049:
I went to add a mention of that aspect of the article to the lead, both because it's presented as a major section in the article right now and because I thought it might help the reader understand the full breadth of the term "debt-trap diplomacy" at a glance. However, in actually looking into the
2078:
I disagree on the characterization of the article's contents on Chellaney's views. Yes there are supporters but practically none of them are academic studies, where supporting opinions are a distinct minority, and are mostly relegated to political editorials or news sites. Even news sites such as
1914:
want it to say in very strong terms that DTD has been totally rebutted and no one sticks to it anymore at all and that sort of thing. I really don't feel like the rest of the article supports that stance at present, at least not so strongly—there are certainly some commentators that have disputed
1537:
not our place to say outright in wikivoice that he was wrong or that his thesis has no basis. We have to let the sources speak for themselves—when they say he's wrong, we can report that they say that, but we need to stay above the debate ourselves. It's not a self-evident matter like water being
1391:
Given all this, I feel the opening paragraph in the lead rather misleads people (:P) about the precise way the phrase "debt-trap diplomacy" has actually been used in the published political discourse, and I do indeed worry that it's giving editors that newly arrive on this article the wrong idea.
1305:
Allegations have been made at IMF and World Bank loans, as poor nations are forced to abide to shameful conditions that remove restrictions on capital that flow freely from global south to tax havens run by the richest IMF member states. And along with austerity and preferential treatment of the
1301:
What's not neutral is to create an article that appears to be generally about criticising parties for exploiting debt traps and yet only mention China despite few to none of the examples have been proven cases. But the IMF who has a long history of doing so, is what's to be omitted as if the only
1252:
Our goal here isn't to lambast all the actors ever guilty of trapping countries in debt, it's to fairly and proportionally summarize the eligible sources that touch on the "debt-trap diplomacy" idea, which is something much more specific. Note that neither of the sources you cited use the phrase
2369:
The debt-trap hypothesis has not been borne out. It becomes a bit strange to have an article styled after a minority position and need to spend so much time on the evidence and analysis showing it to have been wrong. The page is fairly quiet these days, and I doubt you will get much feedback in
2064:
Why should we spend a whole paragraph in the lead just summarizing the positions of "critics" in that manner? Is that really better than just saying "it's controversial" right now? I don't see how the text of the article itself supports that degree of emphasis on the "rebbutal" angle. There are
1956:
I appreciate your consideration. As far as there being a false balance goes, like I said, I don't the article really bears out the conclusion you're coming to, that it's been absolutely rebutted. Most of the article is just long lists of studies and summaries of news stories and things, and the
1840:
It's called "Debt-trap diplomacy". That means something really specific in the published material we have that uses it, much more specific than "debt trap". It's not our place to consider the pros and cons of one or the other framing—we have to stick to how the sources frame it. There are other
1560:
Yet the article today exemplify the wp:crystalball problem where it often repeats false claims made by Braham with a very high ratio, where it generates undue bias to that specific point-of-view when you quote him so much. He is the one who started an unprofessional myth that claimed that China
1294:
Still, Knowledge should not be the place to predict things that have not happened. So many chapters created for China on debt trap diplomacy on Africa despite African governments owe three times more debt to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the
1193:
When China has been demanding things of countries that can't repay, they have a different tenor from what the IMF would ask, too—ceding management of public resources to Chinese companies, foreign policy concessions, etc., more just stuff in China's interest. To the extent that the IMF might be
2359:
For instance, numerous paragraphs characterize China's port projects and lending practices in Sri Lanka as debt-trap diplomacy. However, with the port in Sri Lanka yielding positive economic results and the financial agreements proving beneficial to the country's economy, these allegations are
2079:
Bloomberg that had ridiculous anti-China articles like the microscopic spy chips claims without any evidence do not support Chellaney's views. Studies and findings since the genesis of the concept in their majority have characterized debt-trap diplomacy as either complicated or outright false.
1876:
As far as I am aware. In order for ANY entity to take over another entity there must be some form of tribunal or court that instructs both parties that the asset is being seized/ taken from one and given to the other. What's been printed as so called mostly opinionated "journalism" has NEVER
1580:
As for IMF, maybe a suggestion is that to put in lede that whenever the media uses the term of debt trap diplomacy, they are only referring to Chinese lending. They do not use the same term when criticizing the IMF of predatory lending and debt trap. It's a true distinction and a more accurate
1532:
On that note, I do actually agree that, at this point, the overall consensus in the political discourse seems to be that Chellaney was off the mark in various ways. The article should reflect that, for sure, and it naturally will if we just focus on summarizing everything in a proportional and
1217:
Seems like projecting on what IMF has been guilty of. Britannica explains it aptly, as long as IMF is needed to bail countries out, the borrower will continue harmful policies without reform. Bailouts is what leads to long term dependency. And they sell their policies onto low income countries
993:
Interesting when he starts talking about interest rates of China V.s. the west and how much debt is owed to Chinese Creditors v.s. non Chinese private lenders. Roughly 19:00 mins into the interview. Interestingly enough he says: Western loans for African nations is higher with about 12% of the
2490:
The challenge in this article is it arose with the 'Chinese debt-trap' hypothesis, which to date has been shown to be wrong. We need to find a way to address the fact that as the body of the article shows (see the extensive rebuttal section), the hypothesis has not been borne out and has been
1880:
Trinidad and Tobago's new finance minister just today (11 November 2023) said the same as the predecessor. The loans from China are *still* the lowest he's seen out there. And then he explained how much of T&T's debt was owned by China to stop the fake new press from jumping all over it.
1521:
To me, the main things in this article that are filler are things that have no direct bearing on the "debt-trap diplomacy" conversation. The "IMF and World Bank" section reads that way to me, as do some of the passages that just talk about Chinese lending or the BRI without really bringing up
1407:
There's no intrinsic reason why the article has to focus on China for all time or anything, but China should naturally feature in the discussion here at this point in history just because that's all that people seem to have ever referred to when they say "debt-trap diplomacy" in the published
1564:
So as an editor, you should ideally fact check his quotes before adding it in. An example is quoting him say, "When a new government took power, Sri Lanka was on the "brink of default" and the new government had no choice but "to turn around and embrace China again". But that's a very easily
1555:
And if you really care about integrity of Knowledge and for the article. Then I leave you with what I had said yesterday, that Knowledge should not be a page that predicts the future, and use a crystal ball to predict things that have not happened. Turns out there's a page dedicated to that.
2049:
Ah, and I thought this was fairly lukewarm, actually. This is all drawn from sources already discussed in the body and which I identified in my edit summary. Is it the language of "rebuttal" you're focused on? It could say something like "Critics of applying the theory to China point to..."
1433:
Lead in the article defines it as predatory lending and using debts for political leverage. If you are going to use that as a definition then you should understand that accusations "debt trap" and "predatory lending for political gains" is synonymous. Originally as LilAhok had noted in talk
1067:
Of note, what the IMF and World Bank do is somewhat different from this. They impose (arguably malicious or self-interested) conditions on the borrowing country more at the beginning, as a condition of lending at all; when commentators criticize them, they tend to portray them as foisting a
1475:
I am trying to understand your view and seem like someone who really cares for this article in good faith but I do think the sources themselves are an issue as many are more propaganda than showing evidence that China is guilty of it. I know news like AP and NYT have pushed Iraqi WMD style
1572:
So the article really should not be quoting Chellaney given he has a propensity to make up significant propagandistic errors that he helped make famous. People now believe Sri Lanka Port was a debt to equity swap thanks to him alone. But I appreciate your fast reply and when you say
1569:
up to G20 guidelines guidelines on financing and have a debt sustainability framework that is virtually identical to the IMF's framework. It shows this Chellaney's overgeneralization as something that should not be in the article for many reasons, even if the major outlets quote him.
1136:"The IMF and World Bank say taking losses on their loans would rip up the traditional playbook of dealing with sovereign crises that accords them special treatment because, unlike Chinese banks, they already finance at low rates to help distressed countries get back on their feet."
1400:(whether true or not) of China "collateralizing loans" to "take control of infrastructure projects" or "other strategic assets," leading to borrower countries "mortgaging their foreign-policy autonomy to Beijing" in a manner "redolent of colonial-era practices".
1073:(Many sources actually paint a picture where Chinese banks, like most private lenders, charge higher interest rates than the IMF and World Bank, but don't impose the same kinds of up-front conditions, making their loans more attractive to some governments.)
1070:
explaining that debt-trap diplomacy loans look more attractive up front because borrowing governments imagine or hope they can repay and avoid the bad conditions, and because they tend to come at nicer-looking interest rates than the IMF and World Bank's
1505:
It's not our place to say whether AP or NYT is publishing disinformation or propaganda. They may be, and certainly they've been wrong in the past as you say, but there's a wide consensus on Knowledge that those are trusted sources as you can see on the
1502:
other actors aside from China. However, this article was created specifically to document the political discourse around Chellaney's 2017 thesis, which is why it's called "Debt-trap diplomacy" and not merely "Sovereign debt trap" or something like that.
2408:
I think the SCMP article establishes the relevance of an update on the port's success. All the existing commentary we cite is 6-7 years out of date, and as SCMP explains, the actual realities of the port in 2024 undermine a lot of the 2017 narratives.
1224:
They get criticized for both worsening and benefiting from a debt crisis and not allowing others to be bailed out without accepting further conditions, and so uses a debt crisis opportunistically to cement a long term dependency on their policies.
2360:
disproven. Chellaney's argument about China's debt-trap diplomacy, particularly citing deals with Sri Lanka, has been debunked by the outcomes. Speculating about future consequences when the actual results are evident is unwarranted and undue.
2363:
1374:
China has also pushed back on the idea, popularized in the Trump administration, that it has engaged in “debt trap diplomacy,” leaving countries saddled with loans they cannot afford so that it can seize ports, mines and other strategic
1081:, because the sources themselves don't really do that. It's not that we shouldn't mention the IMF and World Bank at all, but more that we should capture how the sources we have compare and contrast the approach of the IMF and World Bank
1190:
as collateral when they run into trouble with the loan. (At this point people seem to have agreed that China hasn't really had a grand plan like that either, but that's what I understand the idea of debt-trap diplomacy as in any case.)
1363:
Some critics claim that China is using "debt trap diplomacy"—collateralizing loans with resource revenues or taking control of infrastructure projects after repayment difficulties—to gain strategic footholds, especially in Asia and
2355:
As the outcomes of projects become evident, it seems necessary to either remove or significantly condense sections of the article that critique certain projects as debt traps, given that the results demonstrate otherwise.
1822:
debt-trap diplomacy is a "myth." Our result here is an article based on an unsupported hypothesis which consequently means a great deal of information is spent rebutting or showing how the hypothesis has not been borne out.
153:
994:
financing amount being due to insurance rate based on African nation's credit ratings. China's loans are only at 2.5-2.7% interest rate meaning the west *is* the debt trap taking far more money from African nation's.
2316:
1442:, and exclude the very parties that, in comparison to Chinese lending, have also had allegations of pushing poor countries into debt trap and systematically extracting political power when those countries default.
2423:
The first part of the edit, which talks about how busy the port currently is, is good and should stay. Am I remembering that the adjective was “bustling”? Maybe a more simple adjective to address the scope, like
2223:
1960:
Plus, it's not such a black-and-white issue of rebutted or not. There are many ways it can be right or wrong. The most solid case, I think, for an expert consensus against any part of it, is in terms of China's
1291:
You should mention the specific term doesn't refer to others who commit systematic exploitation of debts and should make a note that allegations against IMF to exploit debt traps are not part of this article.
2364:
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3261398/chinese-debt-trap-sri-lankas-hambantota-port-set-debunk-narrative-its-success?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=3261398&utm_medium=share_widget
2106:
a bulk of commentators have sided against at least the idea that the BRI has had some sort of secret malicious overarching plan behind it. That's not quite the same as it being totally rebutted universally
1298:
And the article is looking more as a propaganda piece by giving the impression that Chinese debt trap diplomacy is real in Africa. Despite no empirical substantiation to prove that it's occuring.
1791:
1218:
despite such neoliberal policies later hurts economic growth and sustainability and worsened inequality. Those countries often don't have much choice after IMF has aggravated their debt issues
1642:
1862:
I'm thinking about the pros and cons of the scope. There have been arguments over including or excluding non-diplomacy debt-trap, which should all go into other articles if I understand you.
1352:
Since it sounds like you're concerned about how the article should define "debt-trap diplomacy," let's take a look at a few definitions of debt-trap diplomacy in the sources. Here's one from
2626:
2541:
1415:
The only reason I haven't already tried to change the lead is because the lead should summarize the body of the article, and I don't think the article itself really makes all this clear. It
2556:
1552:
time to reply to me so quickly. So owe you the courtesy to tell I likely will not respond back promptly for the rest of the year as have certain affairs in real world to really focus on.
2616:
2601:
901:
891:
808:
798:
1404:
if we personally find the whole conversation tiresome, or even intellectually dishonest, we have to put our own feelings aside in our role as Knowledge editors and follow the sources.
1826:
case (ironically, where concerns of "debt-trap diplomacy" have been shown to be wrong or unsubstantiated). We do not wish to place undue emphasis on a marginal theory, after all.
2621:
2606:
1396:
about extending loans to countries "partially, or solely, to increase the lender's political leverage" as the lead currently says. You can see that it's specifically about the
2225:. The article does not mention any critic. this sounds more like an oped. WSJ doesn't mention the word. WSJ article is a story about a handful of people and their experiences.
372:
147:
1483:
In fact there is not a single information in any of those chapters that proves debt trap diplomacy after all these years and should be trimmed if it is not relevant proof.
1910:
the version I just put in place as a reasonable summary of what I think the article can support right now. I know there are a lot of editors, it seems like at least, that
867:
774:
198:
2611:
2596:
1695:
1561:
forced Sri Lanka to give up a port in exchange for cancelling a billion dollars in Chinese debts which Sri Lanka couldn't pay. He was proven wrong at so many levels.
1101:
World Bank's interest rates would be more favorable (provided they were willing to lend). I don't think this really changes my overall argument here, though. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1438:
and exploiting them and this is specifically for China only. Or keep status quo. But is just not neutral to present the term in lead of article as generally about
2551:
499:
765:
742:
1617:
854:
831:
2507:
of the pushback. Perhaps a statement on the current state of the theory not having born out anything in concrete terms would be easier to find citations for.
1792:
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2023/04/20/demystifying-chinese-overseas-lending-and-development-finance-why-china-became-the-worlds-largest-official-bilateral-lender/
1507:
1343:
attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. (emphasis mine)
948:
924:
292:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
44:
2454:
This article should not just focus on China. There are many historical examples of this approach being used by other countries throughout modern history.
1222:
2571:
1249:
actually part of that story, and partially because the over-general scope of the article has lead to parts of that story being somewhat neglected so far.
1156:"Several organizations have sketched out escape routes from the debt trap, including more low-cost lending from multilateral banks like the World Bank."
614:
604:
79:
1575:
reader will understand that the political consensus is now against it if we frame things more chronologically, which I really think would help in places
1296:
2586:
719:
709:
2531:
2268:
It also doesn't address that there is a difference between debt trap and debt trap diplomacy and no material has been cited addressing this. Unless
1769:
1435:
1219:
2021:
I think you are mostly responding to a position that I'm not taking in my edits, so I'm not quite sure how to respond or whether you expect me to.
1806:
There have been discussions, not just recently, about whether it should cover debt-trap, debt-trap diplomacy, or both. What are the pros and cons?
1412:(not just "debt trap") in regards to a country other than China, I would almost certainly support its use here; I just haven't come across one yet.
2576:
2546:
2536:
2005:
no longer about debt trap diplomacy but rather a "debt trap" in general or perhaps "debt traps related to China" would be a more accurate title.
2591:
1186:
really fit the picture of luring countries into attractive-looking but unrepayable debt and then forcing the country into doing various things
509:
279:
85:
1525:
Likewise, even if some of the material published in 2017–18 seems misguided today, we should definitely still describe it here because it's
1339:
Achieving what the Knowledge community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and
580:
1723:
2566:
2561:
685:
1758:
2581:
194:
190:
168:
475:
253:
to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to
135:
1942:
which is less burdened by prior minutiae and reliance on sources that existed at time when there was less evidence to analyze.
571:
532:
295:
283:
243:
99:
30:
1882:
1027:
I am speaking to the facts or possible biases of the article. Do you have anything to contribute comment wise to the topic?
676:
637:
104:
20:
989:
Senegal's president, Macky Sall explains the 'lies' the western media is saying about him and China in interview. (30mins)
2374:
and start making some edits. At a minimum, I am willing to review them and offer another view where necessary or helpful.
2111:
rebutted universally, but it is clearly in the majority within academic studies, which the current lead already reflects.
1510:
page. If we have other reliable sources that make claims like that towards their articles on this topic, we can cite them
1077:
If we take the initiative to group both types of commentary under the banner of "Debt-trap diplomacy", I think it's a bit
258:
74:
2158:, you have been adding citations which do not substantiate debt trap diplomacy to the article. They are either cases of
402:
254:
250:
2430:
I likely have some recent Hambantota material I can add as well to address the issue of the Hambantatoa (non-)example.
466:
427:
340:
65:
2189:
addition where it is not mentioned in the body. Note that debt traps and debt trap diplomacy are not the same thing.
1194:
self-interested, their policies seem more to favor "global finance"/Chicago School fans/etc. more than any one state.
129:
1780:
474:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
206:
185:
2181:. Neither Debt trap nor debt trap diplomacy were mentioned once in the body of the articles. One article says it
2126:
there might be room to state in the lead that the preponderance of experts is against it at least in certain ways
1770:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/imf-and-world-bank-have-lost-all-legitimacy-we-need-new-alternatives/
368:
344:
217:
125:
1538:
wet; it's a complicated and highly controversial political issue and we have to handle it accordingly. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1586:
1488:
1447:
1420:
it would come through if we would put aside our preconceptions and start from the sources themselves. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1321:
1230:
770:
301:
109:
1059:
been framed much more particularly as a (rather hypothetical) geopolitical strategy rather in the vein of "
236:
175:
2476:
1667:
1257:(always China in the sources) luring another country into bad debt as a way of gaining leverage over them
2276:
can provide a direct quotation substantiating the addition as debt trap diplomacy, it should be removed.
1518:
says, "Knowledge aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence."
1086:"IMF and World Bank" section, although I think they certainly deserve a mention in various places. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
2496:
2435:
2379:
2055:
2026:
1947:
1890:
1831:
1122:
1032:
999:
408:
323:
2427:
I don’t suggest the “is poised…” sentence. At least as written, that veers too close to WP:CRYSTALBALL.
1919:), so it's really not like the idea has been totally abandoned in the political discourse or anything.
1408:
political discourse. If you can find a reliable source that actually talks about "debt-trap diplomacy"
2370:
advance on the Talk page. You're right that significant revision would be helpful. I think you should
2131:
them, while random political editorials and news sites being a second or third choice in reliability.
2512:
2281:
2194:
2168:
2136:
2116:
2084:
2010:
1557:
1759:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-17/the-myth-of-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-in-africa
390:
361:
1867:
1811:
348:
161:
55:
24:
2395:
2255:
2229:
866:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
773:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
684:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
579:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2340:
2320:
2307:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
2242:
2070:
2041:
1996:
1970:
1932:
1854:
1582:
1543:
1484:
1443:
1425:
1317:
1274:
1226:
1209:
1201:
1106:
1091:
1010:
222:
141:
70:
2472:
2414:
2399:
2259:
2233:
2159:
1846:
442:
421:
289:
51:
2492:
2431:
2375:
2371:
2213:
2051:
2022:
1943:
1886:
1827:
1735:
1440:
any country or institution pushing poor countries to debt and then exploiting that debt trap
1283:
1118:
1060:
1028:
1018:
995:
563:
547:
526:
219:
2508:
2328:
2277:
2190:
2164:
2132:
2112:
2080:
2006:
1988:
1354:
1078:
668:
2460:
2248:. adding more sources does not improve the quality of the statement. sources are dubious.
1863:
1807:
1565:
disproven opinion, considering Sri Lanka can turn to the IMF anytime, but chose not to.
1515:
1331:
1307:
1262:
662:
652:
631:
2525:
2336:
2251:
2185:
become a debt trap while the other one does not mention it at all. The same goes for
2066:
2037:
1992:
1978:
You know, actually, to give a specific example, the news article I mentioned before (
1966:
1928:
1850:
1539:
1421:
1287:
1270:
1205:
1197:
1102:
1087:
1050:
sources, I don't really see the IMF or World Bank described as engaging in debt-trap
1473:"if we would put aside our preconceptions and start from the sources themselves. 🍉"
314:
2410:
1266:
943:
458:
936:
918:
2390:
2324:
2303:
2271:
2209:
2153:
1842:
1781:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030639687501600414?journalCode=racb
1739:
1014:
1979:
1922:
I think it's possible that as the article becomes more highly organized, there
1916:
221:
2516:
2500:
2480:
2439:
2418:
2403:
2383:
2344:
2285:
2263:
2237:
2217:
2198:
2172:
2140:
2120:
2088:
2073:
2059:
2044:
2030:
2014:
1999:
1973:
1951:
1935:
1894:
1871:
1857:
1835:
1815:
1590:
1546:
1492:
1451:
1428:
1325:
1277:
1245:
1234:
1212:
1126:
1109:
1094:
1036:
1022:
1003:
990:
863:
658:
553:
448:
576:
339:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
304:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
846:
825:
681:
858:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
859:
2147:
Please do not references which do not substantiate debt trap diplomacy
1618:"China's loans pushing world's poorest countries to brink of collapse"
2228:
Describing it as potential debt trap diplomacy is original research.
1991:
with something this elaborate (not to mention still-evolving). 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1497:
I think we're talking past each other a bit, maybe. I emphatically
1349:
you get far enough, the relevant Knowledge articles should follow.
471:
1668:"Crisis and Bailout: The Tortuous Cycle Stalking Nations in Debt"
2254:
if the info is to be included, statements should be attributed.
1253:"debt-trap diplomacy" anywhere, nor do they discuss the idea of
757:
736:
1131:
Here's some of what I've read that made me write that addendum:
1241:
1013:, is there a concrete suggestion here to improve the article?
384:
356:
309:
266:
231:
223:
15:
1643:"Sri Lanka turns to China rather than IMF to avoid default"
1696:"Why do so many Asian nations want to be in China's debt?"
2246:
2186:
2178:
1722:
Mosley, Layna; Rosendorff, B. Peter (January 1, 2023).
1117:
upon risk to lender in the capitalist financial model.
160:
769:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
680:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
575:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
470:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1689:
1687:
2204:It's fair to say that they are being described as
2627:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
2542:Knowledge articles that use South African English
1717:
1715:
1045:On the relevance of the IMF + World Bank material
2617:Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
2557:C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
257:regarding potentially objectionable content and
249:Images or details contained within this article
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2602:Mid-importance International relations articles
2351:Materialization of projects and article rewrite
2298:Wiki Education assignment: Global Extractivism
876:Knowledge:WikiProject Finance & Investment
2622:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
2486:Conceptual framing and avoiding false balance
1611:
1609:
1533:well-ordered fashion. At the same time, it's
879:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment
783:Knowledge:WikiProject International relations
174:
8:
2607:WikiProject International relations articles
786:Template:WikiProject International relations
1380:Chellaney himself, who introduced the idea:
958:Knowledge:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
1641:Macan-Markar, Marwaan (October 12, 2020).
961:Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
913:
820:
731:
626:
521:
416:
327:, which has its own spelling conventions (
2612:C-Class Finance & Investment articles
1841:articles about just "debt trap", such as
251:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable
2597:C-Class International relations articles
1514:, but we can't ourselves take sides. As
1064:the rich country's sphere of influence.
2222:The economic times article is terrible
1605:
915:
822:
733:
628:
523:
418:
388:
2125:
2105:
1694:Chellaney, Brahma (October 26, 2020).
1666:Cohen, Patricia (September 18, 2023).
2552:Mid-importance China-related articles
2177:To be clear, I am talking about this
1724:"The Unfolding Sovereign Debt Crisis"
347:, this should not be changed without
7:
1314:Mumbai: Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, 2007)
855:WikiProject Finance & Investment
852:This article is within the scope of
763:This article is within the scope of
674:This article is within the scope of
569:This article is within the scope of
464:This article is within the scope of
1204:12:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC) 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
766:WikiProject International relations
371:on 13 December 2018. The result of
23:for discussing improvements to the
2312:
2308:
14:
2572:Low-importance Sri Lanka articles
882:Finance & Investment articles
2587:Low-importance politics articles
2315:. Further details are available
2302:
2036:think that's appropriate. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1616:Condon, Bernard (May 18, 2023).
935:
917:
845:
824:
789:International relations articles
756:
735:
661:
651:
630:
556:
546:
525:
451:
441:
420:
389:
360:
313:
270:
235:
205:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2532:Knowledge objectionable content
2163:is a debt trap diplomacy case?
896:This article has been rated as
803:This article has been rated as
714:This article has been rated as
609:This article has been rated as
589:Knowledge:WikiProject Sri Lanka
504:This article has been rated as
367:This article was nominated for
294:Content must be written from a
278:The subject of this article is
259:options for not seeing an image
2577:WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
2547:C-Class China-related articles
2537:Knowledge controversial topics
1577:. I hope you can do just that.
1023:03:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
1004:09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
964:Guild of Copy Editors articles
694:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
592:Template:WikiProject Sri Lanka
407:It is of interest to multiple
255:Knowledge's content disclaimer
1:
2592:WikiProject Politics articles
2335:— Assignment last updated by
2245:- Just read the recent edit.
1895:01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
870:and see a list of open tasks.
777:and see a list of open tasks.
697:Template:WikiProject Politics
688:and see a list of open tasks.
583:and see a list of open tasks.
478:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2286:03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
2264:08:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2238:08:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2218:03:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2199:03:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2173:03:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
2141:21:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2121:21:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2089:20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2074:18:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2060:18:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2045:17:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2031:17:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2015:21:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2000:16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
1974:16:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
1952:16:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
1936:15:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
1872:05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
1858:16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
1836:21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
1816:20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
1591:10:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
1547:09:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
1493:08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
1452:08:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
1429:01:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
1326:09:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
1278:03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
1235:15:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
1213:12:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
1127:15:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
1110:06:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
1095:04:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
1037:20:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
2517:05:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
2501:04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
2459:Roos, Jerome (2018-02-01).
1740:10.1525/curh.2023.122.840.9
1259:after they approach default
985:Senegal President Interview
484:Knowledge:WikiProject China
288:When updating the article,
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2643:
2567:C-Class Sri Lanka articles
2562:WikiProject China articles
902:project's importance scale
809:project's importance scale
720:project's importance scale
615:project's importance scale
510:project's importance scale
487:Template:WikiProject China
2582:C-Class politics articles
2481:17:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
930:
895:
840:
802:
751:
713:
646:
608:
541:
503:
436:
415:
290:be bold, but not reckless
244:Knowledge is not censored
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2440:16:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
2419:08:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
2404:03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
2384:19:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2345:21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
873:Finance & Investment
832:Finance & Investment
2461:"The New Debt Colonies"
1330:To quote directly from
780:International relations
771:International relations
743:International relations
1388:
1377:
1366:
1345:
1316:
1178:
1168:
1158:
1148:
1138:
490:China-related articles
397:This article is rated
282:and content may be in
75:avoid personal attacks
1383:
1372:
1369:The Associated Press:
1361:
1337:
1311:
1174:
1164:
1154:
1144:
1134:
955:Guild of Copy Editors
949:Guild of Copy Editors
925:Guild of Copy Editors
572:WikiProject Sri Lanka
324:South African English
296:neutral point of view
199:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1802:scope of the article
946:by a member of the
677:WikiProject Politics
345:relevant style guide
341:varieties of English
105:No original research
2319:. Peer reviewers:
343:. According to the
25:Debt-trap diplomacy
2465:Viewpoint Magazine
2317:on the course page
1672:The New York Times
595:Sri Lanka articles
403:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1847:predatory lending
1527:part of the story
1508:Perennial sources
980:
979:
976:
975:
972:
971:
942:This article was
912:
911:
908:
907:
819:
818:
815:
814:
730:
729:
726:
725:
700:politics articles
625:
624:
621:
620:
520:
519:
516:
515:
467:WikiProject China
383:
382:
355:
354:
308:
307:
265:
264:
230:
229:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2634:
2468:
2347:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2275:
2157:
1794:
1789:
1783:
1778:
1772:
1767:
1761:
1756:
1750:
1749:
1747:
1746:
1719:
1710:
1709:
1707:
1706:
1691:
1682:
1681:
1679:
1678:
1663:
1657:
1656:
1654:
1653:
1638:
1632:
1631:
1629:
1628:
1622:Associated Press
1613:
1061:subprime lending
1009:Keeping in mind
966:
965:
962:
959:
956:
939:
932:
931:
921:
914:
884:
883:
880:
877:
874:
849:
842:
841:
836:
828:
821:
791:
790:
787:
784:
781:
760:
753:
752:
747:
739:
732:
702:
701:
698:
695:
692:
671:
666:
665:
655:
648:
647:
642:
634:
627:
597:
596:
593:
590:
587:
566:
564:Sri Lanka portal
561:
560:
559:
550:
543:
542:
537:
529:
522:
492:
491:
488:
485:
482:
461:
456:
455:
454:
445:
438:
437:
432:
424:
417:
400:
394:
393:
385:
364:
357:
320:This article is
317:
310:
274:
273:
267:
239:
232:
224:
210:
209:
200:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2642:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2522:
2521:
2488:
2458:
2452:
2450:Not just China?
2394:some projects.
2353:
2334:
2309:22 January 2024
2300:
2269:
2151:
2149:
1907:
1804:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1790:
1786:
1779:
1775:
1768:
1764:
1757:
1753:
1744:
1742:
1728:Current History
1721:
1720:
1713:
1704:
1702:
1693:
1692:
1685:
1676:
1674:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1651:
1649:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1626:
1624:
1615:
1614:
1607:
1355:Current History
1047:
987:
963:
960:
957:
954:
953:
881:
878:
875:
872:
871:
834:
788:
785:
782:
779:
778:
745:
699:
696:
693:
690:
689:
669:Politics portal
667:
660:
640:
594:
591:
588:
585:
584:
562:
557:
555:
535:
489:
486:
483:
480:
479:
457:
452:
450:
430:
401:on Knowledge's
398:
349:broad consensus
271:
226:
225:
220:
197:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2640:
2638:
2630:
2629:
2624:
2619:
2614:
2609:
2604:
2599:
2594:
2589:
2584:
2579:
2574:
2569:
2564:
2559:
2554:
2549:
2544:
2539:
2534:
2524:
2523:
2520:
2519:
2487:
2484:
2470:
2469:
2451:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2428:
2425:
2387:
2386:
2352:
2349:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2249:
2226:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2128:
2123:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2019:
2018:
2017:
1958:
1906:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1878:
1838:
1823:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1784:
1773:
1762:
1751:
1711:
1683:
1658:
1633:
1604:
1603:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1578:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1553:
1536:
1530:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1513:
1503:
1500:
1481:
1477:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1418:
1413:
1411:
1405:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1389:
1381:
1378:
1370:
1367:
1359:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1335:
1303:
1299:
1292:
1260:
1256:
1250:
1189:
1183:
1179:
1172:
1169:
1162:
1159:
1152:
1149:
1142:
1139:
1132:
1084:
1053:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
986:
983:
978:
977:
974:
973:
970:
969:
967:
940:
928:
927:
922:
910:
909:
906:
905:
898:Low-importance
894:
888:
887:
885:
868:the discussion
850:
838:
837:
835:Low‑importance
829:
817:
816:
813:
812:
805:Mid-importance
801:
795:
794:
792:
775:the discussion
761:
749:
748:
746:Mid‑importance
740:
728:
727:
724:
723:
716:Low-importance
712:
706:
705:
703:
686:the discussion
673:
672:
656:
644:
643:
641:Low‑importance
635:
623:
622:
619:
618:
611:Low-importance
607:
601:
600:
598:
581:the discussion
568:
567:
551:
539:
538:
536:Low‑importance
530:
518:
517:
514:
513:
506:Mid-importance
502:
496:
495:
493:
476:the discussion
463:
462:
446:
434:
433:
431:Mid‑importance
425:
413:
412:
406:
395:
381:
380:
373:the discussion
365:
353:
352:
318:
306:
305:
275:
263:
262:
248:
240:
228:
227:
218:
216:
215:
212:
211:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2639:
2628:
2625:
2623:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2605:
2603:
2600:
2598:
2595:
2593:
2590:
2588:
2585:
2583:
2580:
2578:
2575:
2573:
2570:
2568:
2565:
2563:
2560:
2558:
2555:
2553:
2550:
2548:
2545:
2543:
2540:
2538:
2535:
2533:
2530:
2529:
2527:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2485:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2466:
2462:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2449:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2426:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2392:
2389:
2388:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2350:
2348:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:DonJohnson101
2318:
2305:
2297:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2273:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2250:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2224:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2161:
2155:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2129:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2109:
2107:
2104:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1934:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1918:
1913:
1904:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1801:
1793:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1777:
1774:
1771:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1741:
1737:
1734:(840): 9–14.
1733:
1729:
1725:
1718:
1716:
1712:
1701:
1697:
1690:
1688:
1684:
1673:
1669:
1662:
1659:
1648:
1644:
1637:
1634:
1623:
1619:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1583:KirklandWayne
1579:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1558:WP:NOTCRYSTAL
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1534:
1531:
1526:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1511:
1509:
1504:
1498:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:KirklandWayne
1482:
1478:
1474:
1471:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:KirklandWayne
1441:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1416:
1414:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:KirklandWayne
1315:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1227:KirklandWayne
1223:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1082:
1080:
1074:
1072:
1065:
1062:
1056:
1051:
1044:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
984:
982:
968:
951:
950:
945:
941:
938:
934:
933:
929:
926:
923:
920:
916:
903:
899:
893:
890:
889:
886:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
851:
848:
844:
843:
839:
833:
830:
827:
823:
810:
806:
800:
797:
796:
793:
776:
772:
768:
767:
762:
759:
755:
754:
750:
744:
741:
738:
734:
721:
717:
711:
708:
707:
704:
687:
683:
679:
678:
670:
664:
659:
657:
654:
650:
649:
645:
639:
636:
633:
629:
616:
612:
606:
603:
602:
599:
582:
578:
574:
573:
565:
554:
552:
549:
545:
544:
540:
534:
531:
528:
524:
511:
507:
501:
498:
497:
494:
477:
473:
469:
468:
460:
449:
447:
444:
440:
439:
435:
429:
426:
423:
419:
414:
410:
404:
396:
392:
387:
386:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
359:
358:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
319:
316:
312:
311:
303:
299:
297:
291:
287:
285:
281:
280:controversial
276:
269:
268:
260:
256:
252:
246:
245:
241:
238:
234:
233:
214:
213:
208:
204:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2489:
2473:Onceinawhile
2471:
2464:
2453:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2333:
2301:
2208:debt traps.
2205:
2182:
2176:
2150:
2067:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
2038:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1993:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1983:
1967:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1962:
1929:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1923:
1921:
1911:
1908:
1851:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1805:
1787:
1776:
1765:
1754:
1743:. Retrieved
1731:
1727:
1703:. Retrieved
1699:
1675:. Retrieved
1671:
1661:
1650:. Retrieved
1646:
1636:
1625:. Retrieved
1621:
1600:
1574:
1540:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1472:
1439:
1422:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1410:specifically
1384:
1373:
1362:
1353:
1338:
1312:
1271:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1206:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1198:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1192:
1175:
1165:
1155:
1145:
1135:
1103:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1088:🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟
1075:
1069:
1066:
1057:
1048:
988:
981:
947:
897:
853:
804:
764:
715:
675:
610:
570:
505:
465:
459:China portal
409:WikiProjects
376:
336:
332:
328:
321:
293:
277:
242:
202:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2493:JArthur1984
2432:JArthur1984
2376:JArthur1984
2313:10 May 2024
2243:WP:OVERCITE
2052:JArthur1984
2023:JArthur1984
1944:JArthur1984
1887:CaribDigita
1843:debt crisis
1828:JArthur1984
1700:Nikkei Asia
1647:Nikkei Asia
1284:CaribDigita
1255:one country
1119:CaribDigita
1029:CaribDigita
1011:WP:NOTFORUM
996:CaribDigita
944:copy edited
322:written in
148:free images
31:not a forum
2526:Categories
2509:Qiushufang
2329:Salinass22
2278:Qiushufang
2191:Qiushufang
2165:Qiushufang
2160:WP:CRYSTAL
2133:Qiushufang
2113:Qiushufang
2081:Qiushufang
2007:Qiushufang
1745:2023-10-11
1705:2023-10-11
1677:2023-10-11
1652:2023-10-11
1627:2023-10-10
1601:References
1246:World Bank
1188:afterwards
864:Investment
2372:WP:BEBOLD
2206:potential
2071:𔑪talk〗⇤
2042:𔑪talk〗⇤
1997:𔑪talk〗⇤
1971:𔑪talk〗⇤
1933:𔑪talk〗⇤
1864:CurryCity
1855:𔑪talk〗⇤
1808:CurryCity
1544:𔑪talk〗⇤
1426:𔑪talk〗⇤
1392:It's not
1295:interest.
1275:𔑪talk〗⇤
1210:𔑪talk〗⇤
1202:𔑪talk〗⇤
1107:𔑪talk〗⇤
1092:𔑪talk〗⇤
1052:diplomacy
991:INTERVIEW
586:Sri Lanka
577:Sri Lanka
533:Sri Lanka
302:citations
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2337:Sancar27
2179:addition
2069:ම𛱘🥑《
2040:ම𛱘🥑《
1995:ම𛱘🥑《
1989:WP:SYNTH
1980:this one
1969:ම𛱘🥑《
1931:ම𛱘🥑《
1917:this one
1905:The lead
1853:ම𛱘🥑《
1849:. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1542:ම𛱘🥑《
1424:ම𛱘🥑《
1288:Mesocarp
1273:ම𛱘🥑《
1269:. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ
1208:ම𛱘🥑《
1200:ම𛱘🥑《
1105:ම𛱘🥑《
1090:ම𛱘🥑《
1079:WP:SYNTH
691:Politics
682:politics
638:Politics
369:deletion
300:Include
203:365 days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2411:Endwise
2396:LilAhok
2256:LilAhok
2230:LilAhok
1516:WP:NPOV
1512:as well
1417:sort of
1398:concept
1375:assets.
1364:Africa.
1332:WP:NPOV
1308:WP:NPOV
1263:WP:NPOV
900:on the
860:Finance
807:on the
718:on the
613:on the
508:on the
399:C-class
337:analyse
333:realise
284:dispute
154:WP refs
142:scholar
2424:“busy”
2391:Amigao
2325:Laveah
2272:Amigao
2252:WP:ATT
2210:Amigao
2154:Amigao
1963:intent
1912:really
1071:loans.
1015:Amigao
405:scale.
329:colour
126:Google
2183:could
1984:could
1924:might
1885:) --
1581:lede.
1535:still
1499:don't
1267:WP:OR
481:China
472:China
428:China
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2513:talk
2497:talk
2477:talk
2436:talk
2415:talk
2400:talk
2380:talk
2341:talk
2311:and
2282:talk
2260:talk
2234:talk
2214:talk
2195:talk
2187:this
2169:talk
2137:talk
2117:talk
2085:talk
2056:talk
2027:talk
2011:talk
1948:talk
1891:talk
1883:link
1868:talk
1845:and
1832:talk
1812:talk
1587:talk
1489:talk
1448:talk
1394:just
1341:then
1322:talk
1244:and
1231:talk
1123:talk
1083:with
1033:talk
1019:talk
1000:talk
862:and
377:keep
375:was
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1736:doi
1732:122
1242:IMF
1171:---
1161:---
1151:---
1141:---
892:Low
799:Mid
710:Low
605:Low
500:Mid
176:TWL
2528::
2515:)
2499:)
2479:)
2463:.
2438:)
2417:)
2402:)
2382:)
2343:)
2331:.
2327:,
2323:,
2284:)
2262:)
2236:)
2216:)
2197:)
2171:)
2139:)
2119:)
2087:)
2058:)
2029:)
2013:)
1950:)
1893:)
1870:)
1834:)
1814:)
1730:.
1726:.
1714:^
1698:.
1686:^
1670:.
1645:.
1620:.
1608:^
1589:)
1491:)
1450:)
1324:)
1265:,
1233:)
1125:)
1035:)
1021:)
1002:)
335:,
331:,
201::
193:,
156:)
54:;
2511:(
2495:(
2475:(
2467:.
2434:(
2413:(
2398:(
2378:(
2339:(
2280:(
2274::
2270:@
2258:(
2232:(
2212:(
2193:(
2167:(
2156::
2152:@
2135:(
2115:(
2083:(
2054:(
2025:(
2009:(
1946:(
1889:(
1881:(
1866:(
1830:(
1810:(
1748:.
1738::
1708:.
1680:.
1655:.
1630:.
1585:(
1487:(
1446:(
1358::
1334:,
1320:(
1310:.
1286:@
1282:@
1229:(
1121:(
1031:(
1017:(
998:(
952:.
904:.
811:.
722:.
617:.
512:.
411:.
379:.
351:.
298:.
286:.
261:.
247:.
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
