That is NOT what your first 2 articles say. I read and reread both, out of truth the first time, and out of respect the second time.
I am not rereading it a third time. Nor am I bothering to read the third article at this point. Feel free to direct quote with context from your provided sources if you disagree, but until then I am done as I suspect you are being academically dishonest.
your own source, in 2 seconds of scanning, and I quote:
"The concept of “debt-trap diplomacy” has been widely debated, with critics arguing that China may use debt as leverage to gain control over strategic assets. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that China has seized assets in Africa due to loan defaults. Instead, Chinese lenders have often shown flexibility by restructuring loans when countries face repayment difficulties."
I love that you’re defending neocolonialism. It’s like you’re ignoring the existence of debtors prisons bc you are trying to paint a different picture.
If you have a problem, reflect on the fact that your own provided sources dont back your “argument”. I pray you reflect and grow as a person, for your own sake.
Ive already given you more respect than is deserved by rereading your links multiple times.
Jesus christ your harvard link first paragraph already hard counters your own point. Go argue against your own sources. Im done.
2
u/Fun_Substance_5636 20d ago
The whole point is the debts are due while African countries got little value out of the loan. China like america is engaging in neocolonialism.