Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Debt-trap diplomacy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. 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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sri Lanka Low‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

scope of the article

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? CurryCity (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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 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. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about just "debt trap", such as debt crisis and predatory lending. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. CurryCity (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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. (link) -- CaribDigita (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Global Extractivism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DonJohnson101, Laveah, Salinass22.

— Assignment last updated by Sancar27 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Materialization of projects and article rewrite

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.

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 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.

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

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 advance on the Talk page. You're right that significant revision would be helpful. I think you should WP:BEBOLD and start making some edits. At a minimum, I am willing to review them and offer another view where necessary or helpful. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao 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 some projects. LilAhok (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Endwise (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 “busy”

I don’t suggest the “is poised…” sentence. At least as written, that veers too close to WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I likely have some recent Hambantota material I can add as well to address the issue of the Hambantatoa (non-)example. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just China?

This article should not just focus on China. There are many historical examples of this approach being used by other countries throughout modern history.

Roos, Jerome (2018-02-01). "The New Debt Colonies". Viewpoint Magazine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual framing and avoiding false balance

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 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. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Qiushufang (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]