I was discussing it today with someone, who insisted it was neo colonialism.
I know, they’re saying that mainly out of brainworms rather than actually researching it, but there are parts of the deal that seem off to me.
China invested a fuck ton. An absolute fuckload. 0% interest loans, and even grants where they’d build massive infrastructure like airports and bridges for free. I can see how that sets them apart from colonial projects.
However, authority over the port was ‘awarded’ by Pakistan to a Chinese state run company, and terms were agreed upon by which China takes 90 percent of the profits, and Pakistan takes 10.
On the one hand, Pakistan wouldn’t be making any of that money if left to their own means, on the other, that profit balance seems harsh? I guess China have to make their money back after all that great investment somehow.
My defence of it is sure, the port ended up like that, but the rest of the investment didn’t. The whole Gwadar region has been transformed at an efficient cost (not bloated by profiteering capitalist contractors, as Iraq was), with non exploitative loans agreed upon by Pakistani leaders not placed in power by violence (as is usually the case with IMF loans - a coup happens first). Only the port has been taken over in such a way, and in time I predict that Pakistan’s relationship with China will be much to their own benefit.
The first response should always be to ask them to define the line between neo-colonialism and equitable exchange, and what would have to change about the exchange between China and Pakistan for it to not be neo-colonialism. Gotta nail those goal posts down before you take a punt or the posts will move.
You can pretty much guarantee that if China’s deal with Pakistan doesn’t count as a fair exchange, nothing does.
Yeah, as you suspect this is liberal media coverage distorting perspective with a very narrow scope. The port is a tiny part of the area that’s going to benefit as a result of the development. The trouble with opposing the neo-colon argument is that we have to do as much research as people who do it as a full-time job to fill in the data and scope that was deliberately omitted.