Miscellaneous News

Chish

Junior Member
Registered Member
India has supplied $3.5 billion of loans to Sri Lanka supposedly according to Indian media reports. While China was prepared to step in with $76 million for comparison
China has wised up with their foreign loans long before the Sri Lanka crisis. She no longer giving out easy money which usually backfired. China is avoiding "dept trapping" herself. When others own a few hundred millions to China, it is their problems. When they start to own billions, these loans become China's problems.
 

KYli

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Bloomberg) -- Near the tip of Nigeria’s Bonny Island, an arrowhead speck of land where the Atlantic Ocean meets the Niger Delta, a giant plant last year produced enough liquefied natural gas to heat half the UK for the winter. Most of it was shipped out of the country, with Spain, France and Portugal the biggest buyers.

Just 17 miles away in the town of Bodo, residents still use black-market kerosene and diesel to light wood stoves and power electricity generators. The fuel is manufactured with crude stolen from the foreign energy giants — Shell, Eni and TotalEnergies — that co-own the Bonny Island facility along with the Nigerian government.


“The gas here goes to Bonny and Europe to power homes and industries but we have no benefits from it,” said Pius Dimkpa, chairman of Bodo’s local community development committee. “Nothing comes to us.”

Nigeria has 3% of the world's proven gas reserves, yet has tapped almost none of it. Like most African countries, what has been extracted is mostly sent to Europe, which now wants to import even more to make up for supplies lost to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Italy in April struck fresh deals to buy gas from Angola and the Republic of Congo, while Germany has been looking to secure supplies from Senegal. That’s despite discouraging the use of gas and other fossil fuels around the world in pursuit of global climate goals, a case some European leaders made at the United Nations’ COP26 conference in Glasgow last November.

While African leaders are eager for the millions in revenue that the gas deals are likely to bring in, they're also calling out the sudden interest in their resources as a double standard that perpetuates the West’s exploitation of the region. They question why Africa must move away from dirty fuels — thereby delaying access for hundreds of millions of people to electricity — even as its gas is used to keep the lights on in Europe. Rich countries have been reluctant to fund pipelines and power plants that would facilitate the use of gas in Africa because of its emissions, yet haven’t delivered on promises to help finance green projects that could be an alternative source of energy.

Europe’s awkward position was on display at the Group of Seven leaders summit last month. The world’s most advanced economies walked back a climate commitment to halt financing for overseas fossil fuel projects, but indicated that exceptions would likely apply to projects that would allow for more shipments of LNG to their countries. In another climbdown, European Union lawmakers recently voted to classify gas and nuclear energy projects within the bloc as “green investments”, potentially opening up billions of euros in fresh funding.

That approach has irked African leaders who need fuel, any fuel, to lift millions out of poverty. “We need long-term partnership, not inconsistency and contradiction on green energy policy from the UK and European Union,” Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said in written comments. “It does not help their energy security, it does not help Nigeria’s economy, and it does not help the environment. It is a hypocrisy that must end.”

To be sure, sub-Saharan African governments share the blame for their underutilized gas reserves. Few countries have seriously invested in or reformed their power or oil and gas sectors, particularly Nigeria, where the Bonny Island plant has run at least 20% below capacity since 2021 because of pipeline theft and vandalism. Many African leaders support boosting gas exports to help their cash-strapped governments, but they also want access to financing that would allow them to harness the fuel’s potential to create domestic natural gas markets.

“They cannot just come and say, ‘We need your gas, I’ll buy your gas and we’ll take it to Europe,’” Gabriel Obiang Lima, energy minister of Equatorial Guinea, said at a press conference in May. “They need to give something back to us.”

Gas has long been controversial from a climate perspective: it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels but still generates carbon pollution and tends to leak the super-warming greenhouse gas methane. Europe's own stance on the fuel has shifted since the war began. Its top priority now is to buy up as much LNG as it can get its hands on, while countries including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands have turned to coal as a backup.

European politicians argue the fossil fuels are a band-aid needed to get the bloc through the current crisis, so it can avoid shortages and blackouts that could weaken support for sanctions against Russia. In theory, concurrent plans to ramp up renewable power much faster than previously targeted will balance the climate scale, resulting in lower emissions overall. But the EU has also hesitated to put in place policies that would curb energy consumption right now for fear of political backlash.

While the climate math may end up working out the way EU officials say it will, it’s a more difficult message to sell abroad.

The pathway being pushed by European leaders — that Africa moves straight to clean energy sources — isn’t viable unless rich countries, private investors and development banks help with funding. There’s ample sunshine and wind in Sub-Saharan Africa, which collectively uses less energy than Spain, but little infrastructure to harness it. Developing countries also face much higher financing costs for green projects because they’re seen as riskier investments. Adding to Africa’s frustration is that rich nations have failed to deliver on a target to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance that was supposed to have been met in 2020.

“The whole of the West developed on the back of fossil fuels — even as we speak some Western nations are deciding to bring coal back into their energy mix because of the war. So when the world wants to transition to zero carbon emissions, who has to do more?” said Matthew Opoku Prempeh, energy minister for Ghana, which has in the past few years made significant oil and gas discoveries. “Is the West saying Africa should remain undeveloped?”

The issue of climate finance will likely dominate this year’s COP27 talks in Egypt, which is set to focus heavily on solutions for Africa. The future of gas will also be a key topic given the host nation and many developing countries see it as a way to move away from coal, according to Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary of the UK, which hosted last year’s summit. “For them, gas is part of the transition."

The International Energy Agency, which last year called for an end to new fossil fuel developments, in a recent report argued that Africa should be allowed to exploit its gas resources. The continent’s share of historical global emissions would only rise to 3.5% from 3% even if it tapped every molecule of its known gas reserves. Universal energy access on the continent could be achieved by 2030 with $25 billion a year in investment — the equivalent of just 1% of the money pouring into the energy sector globally.

A recent spate of major discoveries has led to big private projects with fossil fuel giants including Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell spending tens of billions in Mozambique, Tanzania, Senegal and Mauritania to extract more gas for export. There are plans to grow existing LNG facilities in Nigeria and Angola that could help Africa produce 470 billion cubic meters of gas a year by the late 2030s, equal to about 75% of Russian output this year, according to consultants Rystad Energy. Almost all of it will be headed out of the region.

Meanwhile, there’s a dearth of new funding for power plants to burn gas within Africa. Governments and businesses have $100 billion in planned projects, including 35 gigawatts of gas-powered electricity, but can’t find the money to build most of them. Some countries have negotiated deals for some portion of gas extracted by foreign entities to be used domestically, and all are paid taxes by the companies, but the proceeds often aren’t enough to completely transform electricity grids and build major infrastructure.

Financing from institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and European Investment Bank for gas power projects has all but disappeared for climate reasons. There’s also a worry from private investors that they could end up as stranded assets as the world tries to reach net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

Projects such as Mozambique’s Central Termica de Temane power station, which secured $652 million of funding in December, have become increasingly difficult to get investment for, according to Mike Scholey, chief executive officer of the plant’s owner Globeleq Inc. The World Bank's International Finance Corp. and the US International Development Finance Corp., two key investors, have both taken steps to halt overseas funding of carbon-intensive projects.

Vicky Ford, the UK's minister for Africa, has suggested that the bar for any development financing to flow to gas proposals would be high. “The biggest challenge that the world faces is still climate change,” she said in an interview on May 17. “The long-term strategy must continue to be working towards renewables as well.” At home, her government is pushing for more exploration of North Sea oil and gas wells.

The turn to Africa for a short-term gas fix is “patronizing” and “hypocritical,” said Carlos Lopes, former head of the UN Economic Commission for Africa. It is “absolutely outrageous to say to the Africans that they should basically not look into the options that they have in front of them, and at the same time accelerate the request for gas for Europe because of the Russia-Ukraine war.”
 

Topazchen

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is a good idea. When I mentioned China's own equivalent to the NED, it should be a humanistic alternative to the Western hate-mongering NGOs. It should try to promote China's slogan of common prosperity.

There are already existing examples of such Chinese NGOs like the Confucius Institute. But these could still be improved further. These Chinese NGOs are still quite formal, rigid, and frankly quite lame when compared to Western NGOs. China could do some PR overhaul to make their NGOs more appealing to the younger average foreign citizen.

Now when so many countries are going through their issues. China could mobilize some NGOs to give relief to foreign citizens. For example, food shelters for the homeless, and volunteers for disaster relief. These are usually done by the Western NGOs and religious groups. China can put in some donations and get public donations to expand the budget. Just make sure that everyone knows that it's China and the Chinese people who are helping. There is no shame in announcing good deeds. People who received help from China must be taught to be grateful.

Another thing I that China can improve on is knowledge and people exchanges. In Pakistan and Africa. I noticed that there were alot of people-people exchanges. Africans can go to China to learn to become a train driver. Pakistanis can go to China to learn how to manufacture plane parts.

China can do more of that with Malaysians for example. There are already some training program in rail and construction. China can expand that to knowledge sharing on other things such as 5G technology. Teach some talented Malaysians the real potential of 5G. Off course don't forget to advertise Huawei in the meantime.

China could even share the dream of space to some talented 3rd world people. If any are good enough, they could become actual Taikonauts (not space tourists) to go to the Chinese Space Station to do some work there. Many people in the 3rd world can barely dream of going to space. Giving any of their citizens such opportunities can build a powerful bond. Nothing builds more PR than a space program. Let them see that the US only puts military people, and billionaires into space. But China can put the most talented of Pakistanis or Nigerians into space.
I've actually always thought about space PR.
Putting an African or South American or Pakistani or Indonesian in space would neutralize the State department's multi-billion anti-China propaganda budget.
 

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
Agree, although I personally believe english would be needed for many jobs and people in China still (scientist to engage with international community, businesses/sales people etc.).

Although in the grand scheme, this would still be the minority and not the majority.
Hopefully China will be exporting digital services to the West like a professional version of India. I’d much rather hire a Chinese software dev to work on my USA based app than an Indian guy or outfit.

With such highly educated people rolling off the production lines and not enough work to go around, they need to work online providing professional services to the world.

There is basically so much talent, at such a nice price, that I’d like build a whole online team in China once I figure out what project I want to do.

The other, amazing, thing is that the sheer number of potential language students in China means that even if a language was only taught to a minority of people that are interested in it, then that could actually result in China, and the Chinese people, being the worlds largest speakers of that language!

There could be more French, Spanish, German, Hindi and Italian speakers in China than the rest of the world combined. That’s nuts.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
If you are going to invest so much money you also need to protect it.

Myanmar is gone. Pakistan is also semi-gone (probably 100% gone after its current government economically collapses the country). Sri Lanka is gone (no way the CIA will let a China-friendly person come in power).


Did I miss those countries all getting wiped off the map? What we are seeing now are just fleeing blinks in time.

This is the fundamental limitation with western CIA lead regime change approaches - they are effective at creating chaos if left unchecked, but their own success will prove to be their own downfall because there is no deeper or longer term objective or commitment beyond setting the whole place ablaze in hatred and anarchy.

Sri Lanka is a classic example of CIA shock and awe with all the focus on the fireworks and zero thought on what comes after.

China might loose a lot from this collective idiocy, but China only owns 10% of the debt, who do you think owns the rest? If the West and India wants to spent $10 to burn $1 of China’s money, I think China will just say, have at it! Go nuts!

The very worst thing China can do is get sucked into foreign military misadventure(s) to protect some, in the grand scheme of things, insignificant investments in a bad neighbourhood. Especially when a significant proportion of the local population appears to have drank too deeply from the western Kool Aid jug.

That’s the good thing about modern China. They do not see the need to bring enlightenment to the ‘savages’ or similar white burden nonsense. Chinese involvement in most countries are purely transactional.

China aims to create win-win situations where both sides benefit, but if the other side proves to be idiots, well China will just wash their hands off them as China doesn’t owe them anything more. They can burn bridges (literally if they choose) and smash all the nice infrastructure China had built for them. Enjoy living in the mud then, because your western puppet masters sure as shit isn’t going to come and rebuild any of that for you.

If, after a while they see the light and come back to China, well China would be happy to do more business, provided previous losses were made good and additional risk premiums are baked into future deals.

There will be core strategic regions China cannot afford to let go to shit, but Sri Lanka is not one of them.
 

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Former Polish president suggests reducing Russia’s population​

The West should either change the Russian “political system” or instigate a massive uprising, Lech Walesa believes

The world will never be safe as long as modern-day Russia exists, former Polish president Lech Walesa
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
French broadcaster LCI on Friday, claiming that Russia is “imperial” in nature and will always seek to “keep annexing peoples.”
It would be “necessary to stir those peoples … to action” to bring Russia’s population “back to less than 50 million, the former president said, pointing to a potential forceful disintegration of the modern-day Russia…

Lmao. Are the poles finally willing to take their masks off yet?
 

KenC

Junior Member
Registered Member
This GT's article explains reasons for the debt crisis, which is mainly due to borrowing from the 'international' bond market, which is a whopping 47% of total external debt. China and Japan had 10% debt owed, while India has only 2%. The figure probably does not take into account India's recent aid/loan to Sri Lanka. As pointed out earlier, the West will suffer much more financial losses than China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

First, borrowing in international capital markets: After a devastating civil war ending in 2009, the government resorted to expensive borrowing from international bond markets for the reconstruction process. These sovereign loans, from mostly Western financial investors like American BlackRock and British Ashmore constitute the greatest part of the external debt of the country (47 percent). It was the scramble to repay some of this debt, that matured in 2017, that pushed the Sri Lankan government to offer the Hambantota Port for lease. China accepted the offer in return for $790 million that was used to repay the debt to the international markets, not to China.
 

getready

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The root cause of the difficulties in China-Australia relations in recent years lies in the insistence of previous Australian governments to treat China as an 'opponent' and even a 'threat,' Wang noted, adding that Australia's words and actions have been "irresponsible."
Wang Yi seem to lay the blame of deterioration sino aus ties mainly at feet of scomo govt.

I think he isn't that naive to think the underlying long standing US Aus security and anglo alliance isn't the root cause. Indeed the article goes on to say this precisely.

Probably he is giving a platform for the current albo govt to lower themselves out of this mess by blaming the previous admin. Doubt it will work but it's good diplomacy.
 

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
In the Japanese elections, LDP got enough seats to change the Japanese constitution. Article 9 can be abolished now. Has little practical meaning though. China, wisely, always assumed that Article 9 would never prevent the USA from pulling Japan into a war. And Japan's financials means Japan can not spend above 2% of its GDP even if it wanted.

Though I still find it interesting from a symbolic perspective. German re-armament, possible abolishment of article 9 of the Japenese constitution, a war in Europe, US efforts to discredit the UN... Post-WW2 order is evaporating before our eyes.
 
Top