The joke goes that when an American government delegation visits Africa, they give a lecture. When a Chinese government delegation visits Africa, the give a hospital. The unspoken subtext is that of course, the Africans are too backward and primitive, see, to know what is good for them or who their friends are....
Kirby might as well just quit beating around the bush and say "Muh White Man's Burden!" and be done with it.
Buyer beware for sure and as someone who has family links to Pakistan I get how the china money comes with all sort of strings, but so does US money. That's where the hypocrisy of it is. US uses its money as a means of influence as well, which is totally fair since the lender/giver always has the upper hand. The arrogance that's grating is that American diplomats talk like they are purely benevolent, whereas when you deal with the Chinese you know it's purely commercial.
It's hard to tell if American diplomats are really this ignorant or don't realize the level of hypocrisy they give off by these comments or just that they don't care. How many countries have gone bankrupt from bad deals with the IMF/world bank etc
Absolutely no disagreement with the general point about the arrogant and patronizing tone of most State Department lectures. But that doesn't change the fact that many Chinese Belt and Road "investments" were highly exploitative. China was getting less developed countries to pay relative high prices for Chinese infrastructure services that China was desperate to keep occupied for internal political reasons. And anyone who knew the first thing about this infrastructure always knew that most of the BRI projects were never going to produce anywhere near the revenues needed to repay the Chinese. Obviously the US has no comparable ability to build railroads and ports that they could have offered. A respectful US discussion could have acknowledged that if the Chinese were offering big projects at extremely low prices, it would be smart to consider them. But make sure they are offering what the local economy really needs (not what the Chinese are desperate to sell) and does so on terms that won't create punishing debt obligations down the line.
The joke goes that when an American government delegation visits Africa, they give a lecture. When a Chinese government delegation visits Africa, the give a hospital. The unspoken subtext is that of course, the Africans are too backward and primitive, see, to know what is good for them or who their friends are....
Kirby might as well just quit beating around the bush and say "Muh White Man's Burden!" and be done with it.
Buyer beware for sure and as someone who has family links to Pakistan I get how the china money comes with all sort of strings, but so does US money. That's where the hypocrisy of it is. US uses its money as a means of influence as well, which is totally fair since the lender/giver always has the upper hand. The arrogance that's grating is that American diplomats talk like they are purely benevolent, whereas when you deal with the Chinese you know it's purely commercial.
Look at Haiti (as but one example) if you want to see what our development aid can accomplish for a country.
The only self reflection Kirby seems to do is look in the mirror every morning and say, "Damn, I look good."
The US acts like it has dementia. So it's fitting to have the president it has now.
It's hard to tell if American diplomats are really this ignorant or don't realize the level of hypocrisy they give off by these comments or just that they don't care. How many countries have gone bankrupt from bad deals with the IMF/world bank etc
Absolutely no disagreement with the general point about the arrogant and patronizing tone of most State Department lectures. But that doesn't change the fact that many Chinese Belt and Road "investments" were highly exploitative. China was getting less developed countries to pay relative high prices for Chinese infrastructure services that China was desperate to keep occupied for internal political reasons. And anyone who knew the first thing about this infrastructure always knew that most of the BRI projects were never going to produce anywhere near the revenues needed to repay the Chinese. Obviously the US has no comparable ability to build railroads and ports that they could have offered. A respectful US discussion could have acknowledged that if the Chinese were offering big projects at extremely low prices, it would be smart to consider them. But make sure they are offering what the local economy really needs (not what the Chinese are desperate to sell) and does so on terms that won't create punishing debt obligations down the line.