As far as I’m aware, China has been giving loans to various countries in Africa and building infrastructure in exchange for money and maybe some stuff like recognizing Taiwan as part of China. But why do people say China is imperialist for doing this? Is there truth to it or is it another strain of radlibs eating state department propaganda?
in Graeber’s Debt book, he talks about the history of debt in relation to the Middle Kingdom and it’s relations to other spheres of power and trading entities. Basically, the take home as I recall it, is that there is a long memory of understanding that it’s much more optimal to buy up your trade partner’s shitty debt (knowing you can’t really collect in full), take a haircut on payments, or otherwise forgive loans than it is to destabilize trade relationships because desperate (politically unstable) neighbors are unpredictable. this was the basic sovereign debt policy between the middle kingdom / imperial court and other countries it did business with.
when i read that, i remember realizing that China buying up lots of the US’ foreign debt wasn’t some power play as it was consistently reported in western media (because why else would someone buy up another’s outstanding debt, but to fuck them)… rather it was china doing it’s thing and keeping us at the table, because the overall trade relationship was working for them.
like, if China ever just plain decides to be half the dick economically that our media insists they are, we would be dead in the water.
