Why weaponising democracy against China will backfire on the US

By Chandran Nair

• Washington’s Summit for Democracy has made half the world a pariah by defining as ‘authoritarian’ any country that does not share its choice of political system

• But countries have grown sceptical of the West’s motives. It’s time the West accepted there is value in plurality

Unknown to most people, the United States has embarked on an exercise to divide the world into two blocks – “democracies” and “authoritarian” states. 

What’s more, the US defines “authoritarian” as any country that refuses to follow the prescriptions of the West with regard to the political system it adopts.

Yet the United Nations Charter, signed in 1945, did not mention the word democracy – because it is each nation’s sovereign right to pursue its own political system. And a nation’s choice is legitimised solely by its people.

America’s divisive exercise – the Summit for Democracy, to be held on December 9, 2021, in Washington – goes against the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Of the 101 countries invited, 28 per cent are categorised as “partly free”, while 3 per cent are considered “not free”. There is no “alternative political system” category. Thirty-nine European countries were invited, but only 17 African countries, four from South and Central Asia, and two from the Middle East. Notably, China is absent, and as a main theme of the summit is “Defending against authoritarianism” – this is thinly veiled belligerence on an international scale.

This means that of the 193 countries in the world, the US believes 92 are undeserving of its definition of international recognition and are essentially pariah states. That is almost half the world. But the world possesses a diversity of political systems that we must all learn to accept and work with to make multilateral cooperation more effective. Dividing the world into two camps is limiting, regressive, and a reflection of a Cold War mentality that is counter-productive.

Ultimately, this summit is yet another American attempt to curtail the rise of China and demonise it: post-summit, it is likely that countries will be expected to take action “in support of democracy”. Given the proximity of the Beijing Winter Olympics to the summit, we can expect to hear threats of boycotts and read scathing statements from Western politicians and commentators on China – some are already calling it the “Genocide Olympics”. This is part of a wider strategy to impose a pax Americana world order by weaponising the noble notion of democracy, bolstering Washington’s declining stature and hegemonic global influence.

This approach is not new. It is the age-old “with us or against us” strategy, and delivers all the consequences that a hegemon can inflict upon non-compliant states, including sanctions on the weak and the poor. Yet the more the West attempts to convince the world that China is the threat, the more it isolates itself in its own echo-chamber of Cold War-esque narratives.

The strategy, which is guaranteed to fail, raises three questions:

1. Why does most of the world not see China as the over-arching global threat?

2. Why is acceptance of a plurality of political systems essential for a multi-polar and more equal world?

3. Is there a need for the resurrection of a spirit of non-alignment in the new post-Western world?

In answer to the first question, decades of Western hypocrisy have undermined trust in its assessments of China. Decades of double standards have eroded the credibility of the West, from repeated invasions of Asian and Middle Eastern nations to exploitative behaviour across the world.

So why doesn’t the world view China as the villain despite the best efforts of the West to vilify it?

First, many non-Western nations were colonies of, or exploited by the West (and continue to be). They recognise the West is driven by the desire to maintain its economic superiority, which has come from centuries of imperial power. This is why non-Western countries have to be legitimised as “civilised and democratic” by Western gatekeepers if they are to be offered the opportunity to live peacefully and prosperously, without sanctions, trade wars, and real wars.

Second, many post-colonial nations have suffered from the neoliberal prescriptions of the West and seen how it has used the “spread” of democracy to deny them their own sovereign rights. They have seen how the West selectively uses human rights arguments to undermine the legitimate actions of other nations, while turning a blind eye to blatant human rights violations by Western-aligned states.

Third, non-Western countries may have qualms about the Chinese governance model and aspects of its foreign policy, but they also respect China’s successes. They are not fooled by biased Western reporting: they look at the facts, see the results, and visit China to understand it.

They see a government that has worked for the people and produced results. These non-Western nations want to produce the same results for their people, rather than adhering to more of the misleading and condescending Western rhetoric about democracy as a utopian fast-track.

Lastly, China has been ramping up its investment and relationship-building across the world – such as through the Belt and Road Initiative and coronavirus vaccine agreements.

So, what has China achieved that these countries seek to emulate? For starters, its poverty alleviation rate. In 1994, the government set a goal of lifting 80 million people out of poverty within seven years – by 2021, it had uplifted 800 million.

Additionally, over the last two decades alone, China’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita grew from US$940 in 2000 to US$10,410 in 2019. This is double the rate achieved by Russia, the second-fastest growing BRICS economy.

China has seen success abroad, too. Since 2000, China has spent US$843 billion on bilateral aid, spread across 13,427 projects in 165 countries. The People’s Liberation Army last fought a major conflict over 40 years ago, compared to the endless wars of the West. China made the decision to stop building new coal-fired power projects overseas in 2021, and it has already pledged 1.2 billion yuan (US$190 million) for climate cooperation with developing countries, and 1.2 trillion yuan being issued in green bonds.

China is not faultless; it has contentious issues of its own to tackle. The Uygurs are an example: China needs to do better at accounting for itself and communicating its version of events to the world.

Western criticism of the situation is an attempt to justify its moral authority and legitimise its rejection of other political systems. But it is a double standard.

The dire condition of America’s migrant camps on the border with Mexico (including disease and sexual abuse) or its grisly use of torture at Guantanamo Bay are not equated to failings of the democratic system. Yet a comparison of the same magnitude is readily made between Xinjiang and the ideologies of the Communist Party of China.

It is in China’s interest to come clean and work with bodies like the UN to reassure the world that these charges are either false or exaggerated.

But it is also only fair and in the interest of global peace that Western nations and their allies who are accused of war crimes – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine - allow UN investigations to be carried out.

Flying the democracy banner should not be used as cover to run roughshod over international norms, nor should “non-interference in internal matters” be a pathway to carrying out abuses.

The US would do well to remember that there is value in embracing different political systems for a more equal world. Why? Because China has demonstrated that a nation does not need to meet the West’s definition of “democracy” to achieve success for its people.

This is because democracy is not defined by simplistic notions about free speech or Western electoral processes. Democracy is the right of all peoples, and cannot be arbitrarily judged by the US.

According to the United Nations Charter: “The UN does not advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development”.

This is to say that the political systems of a country and its method of governance are important because they must ultimately serve the people, enable them to have a sense of participation, satisfaction and improvements to their quality of life. Democracy is just one approach to this, so it is reasonable to conclude that China has developed a successful governance system suited to its culture, history, and the needs of its population.

The need for other countries to pursue their own modes of governance may be rising. Faced with peak population, pandemics, technology overreach, climate change, resource constraints and the crisis of consumption-driven capitalism, each nation will have to adapt in its own way.

For many countries, the dated prescriptions of former imperial powers or settler communities (the US, UK, Australia, Canada) are unsuitable.

The West should recognise that diversity in political systems is the natural order of things in a complex and changing world, and can only enrich the global majority. Nations should learn from each other, encourage, even teach. This is what geopolitical equality looks like.

This brings us to the last of the three questions: given that other nations do not see China as the tyrant painted by the West, and that political plurality is a good thing, it is time to reverse the dangerous attempts of the West to confront China under the pretext of democracy.

This does not need to be done in a way that risks tension, or war. It can be achieved through the spirit of non-alignment.

Non-aligned nations must refuse to allow the West – driven by anxiety at losing its position – to divide and endanger the world. They must now address this and no longer remain subservient.

Non-Western countries have a right to be non-aligned: to determine the nature of their political and governance systems and be supported in the learning and building process. Where some go astray, diplomatic means should be used to persuade and encourage reforms built on mutual respect and understanding.

These nations should not be bullied by self-serving Western foreign policy into accepting a single political system that is clearly failing, even in the West – where some demand the right to not wear masks during a pandemic, or the right to carry guns.

The West must recognise that narrow interpretations of democracy can no longer be weaponised.

Fundamentally, the question is: what is the role of the state?

The answer is clear: to secure the right of its citizens to have safe and dignified lives devoid of drudgery and suffering.

When coupled with the existential threats of the 21st century, the irony is that the Chinese system of governance is in many ways the most suited to meeting this objective.

Lawyers add to damages suit for Chinese-American scientist Sherry Chen

Robert Delaney and Owen Churchill

    Sacked hydrologist is seeking US$5 million from US government after her dismissal on spying grounds was partially reversed

Chen’s case prompted Congress members to raise concerns that federal employees were being racially targeted

Lawyers for a Chinese-American scientist have filed a complaint against the US departments of commerce and justice to support a lawsuit seeking US$5 million in damages resulting from her partially reversed dismissal from a government job.

Charges against National Weather Service hydrologist Xiafen “Sherry” Chen – who had been accused of passing informa­tion about US dams to a Chinese official – were dropped in 2015 after nearly two dozen members of Congress signed a letter requesting an investigation into whether federal employees were being racially targeted. Chen has since remained on administrative leave.

The complaint – filed on November 1 by Chen’s lawyer, John Hemann of the law firm Cooley LLP, and announced on Tuesday – was made after Chen learned that the Commerce Department unit that investigated her – the Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS) – was disbanded following a Senate committee report that called it “a rogue, unaccountable police force without a clear mission”.

In 2019, Chen filed a civil suit against the two government departments, seeking accountability for wrongful prosecution. The separate complaint filed this month adds new accusations, including “intrusion into private affairs, false arrest, intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress”, and is required to give the government an opportunity to respond before the claims become part of the lawsuit.

“Sherry Chen’s successful and very private life was derailed when ITMS … launched an illegal criminal investigation of Ms Chen based entirely on one colleague’s false and racially charged accusations,” the complaint says. “ITMS had no legal authority to investigate her, and that what happened to her was part a discriminatory scheme to target employees of Chinese and Southeast Asian descent.”

The complaint continued that “even after the … administrative judge issued a scathing opinion that reinstated Ms Chen, the [Commerce Department] continued to refuse to acknowledge the injury it has caused Ms Chen. Instead, it continues to try to destroy what is left of Ms Chen’s professional career by refusing to let her set foot in the office and appealing the administrative judge’s decision”.

The departments of commerce and justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Tuesday’s development comes as pressure grows on President Joe Biden’s administration to address concerns that scrutiny of Chinese government espionage efforts has led to the racial profiling of Asian and Asian-American scientists and researchers by federal agencies.

The Biden administration has maintained a number of China-related policies inherited from the administration of former president Donald Trump. Those include the China Initiative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) programme ostensibly focused on bringing prosecutions in economic espionage cases but which advocacy groups say has disproportionately targeted those of Chinese descent.

Calls on the administration to axe the programme surged recently after its first case to go to trial ended in the defendant’s acquittal.

Hu Anming, a professor at University of Tennessee, was cleared of all charges in September after a federal judge ruled that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had intended to defraud Nasa.

But even when charges against individuals like Chen and Hu are dropped, rights groups warn that the reputational, financial and emotional tolls on them and their families remain.

On Monday, civil rights group Asian-Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) wrote to the Biden administration urging it to end the China Initiative, which it said had driven “fearmongering” and the criminalisation of Asian-American and Asian immigrant researchers.

“While we recognise that there are legitimate threats from China’s government, there are serious concerns of the DOJ profiling Asian-Americans and Asian immigrants and criminalising integrity issues under the ‘China Initiative,’” said John Yang, AAJC’s president.

One of the first actions taken by Biden as president was to issue a memorandum denouncing anti-Asian racism and providing guidance to the DOJ on how to process hate crime reports, amid a wave of discrimination against the Asian-American community during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“We urge federal agencies to follow President Biden’s commitment to combat racism and xenophobia against those of Asian descent and look forward to these efforts,” AAJC wrote in its letter.

Remember Mao’s famine, forget Churchill’s racism: how the West colonised Asian minds

• History, as taught by Western ‘victors’, defines other countries through their low points. We are constantly reminded of China’s Tiananmen moment, yet colonial atrocities from First Nations genocides to Bengal’s famine are diluted or covered up
  
  
• It is this selective retelling of history that enables the West to cling to an identity built on superiority and that has non-Westerners believing it. It is why some young Hongkongers have come to believe they are not Chinese

In late June and early July, First Nations communities in Canada found over 1,000 unmarked graves of children in Indian residential schools, which were run by the Roman Catholic Church from 1899 to 1997. This has led to activists burning Catholic churches and taking down statues of Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria.

These residential schools often coercively separated First Nations children from families, forcing them to speak English and learn European curriculums. Any attempt to dress, speak, or act like a First Nations individual was punished. There were 130 schools like this, with estimates that over 6,000 children died due to poor sanitation, little protection from the cold, or abuse from school staff. Similar practices existed in Australia, where up to one in three First Nations Australian children were taken by federal, state and church education initiatives. They are collectively referred to as the Stolen Generation, and it has led to social trauma and inequality that persists today.

However, these tragic events are largely hidden in Canada’s history, and certainly from international perceptions of the country. Instead, Canada has a global reputation for being friendly and polite, and is not known for this “cultural genocide”, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada described it in 2015.

But other countries around the world are absolutely defined by unsavoury moments in their history: global media will refer to Tiananmen Square when discussing China; to state-backed assassinations in discussions of Russia; to corrupt, incompetent leaders in African countries and dictators in Latin America.

Yet is America defined by “pioneers” destroying First Nations culture and committing genocide? No. Is Australia defined by settlers waging war on the First Nations people who until 1967 were not even considered citizens in their own country? No. Is tiny Belgium defined by its horrific colonial treatment of the population in Congo? No. The list is long.

Here, a pattern begins to emerge in how Western and non-Western countries are portrayed and perceived in lay understandings of historical events.

Common historical narratives of Western countries cover up or dilute colonial atrocities, war crimes and genocides. This includes even recent ones, such as the illegal invasion of Iraq. Sometimes these events are espoused as “building civilisation or bringing freedom”. Conversely, non-Western nations are defined by their historical stains, which cling to them like monikers, while the larger body of their histories are quieted or ignored. China’s celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Communist Party in July was invariably criticised with references to its dark past, including famine and the Cultural Revolution. Yet celebrations in the West are hardly ever viewed in the same way. For example, July 4 celebrations are rarely discussed with reference to the slaughter of First Nations Americans.

The world is woke to Western posturing, white privilege

This is not accidental. It is a selective retelling of history that enables the West to maintain its global dominance through the indoctrination of Westerners and non-Westerners alike – or as the brilliant French-West Indian political philosopher Frantz Fanon called it: colonisation of the mind.

It is critically important that young people understand what “colonisation of the mind” means so they begin to ask the right questions about their countries and the current world order. In the context of retelling history, it refers to how curated historical viewpoints are used to construct opposing identities in the minds of Westerners and non-Westerners, to the benefit of the former. For a Westerner, this identity is based on superiority: believing you and your culture are better than others, and that the West’s current global dominance is unrelated to the colonial rape of the world. For a non-Westerner, this identity is based on subservience: believing Western people and cultures are better than your own and should be emulated because they represent advancement and equality.

Some may scoff and consider this as outdated postcolonial rhetoric and an attempt to twist history or even a conspiracy theory. But to quote an oft-used phrase: “History is written by victors.” This aptly – if simplistically – explains why the world has been spoon-fed certain re-tellings of history, because the victors of the last few centuries have been Western colonialists and conquerors. In fact, the phrase itself is an example: it is attributed to Winston Churchill, though he did not invent it (the source is unknown). The man is lauded for the wisdom of a phrase that is not his own, but is he known for passing deeply racist foreign policy that resulted in the starvation of three million Bengalis? No. British students are taught about famines caused by Mao, but not those caused by Churchill.

It is in schools around the world where much of this conditioning occurs, through syllabuses that stem from Western colonial education systems, particularly those exported by France, Spain, Portugal and Britain. These curriculums were replicated in colonies across Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, India, and Japan, and their modern-day counterparts often do not explain how colonisation has enabled the West to continue its economic and cultural influence into the present day. Young people in Hong Kong are a good example, as they are taught through a British education system to dislike China and worship the West. They are enamoured by all things Western and some even educated to believe they are not Chinese. Missionary schools throughout the colonies played an important role in this “mind capture” with religion sadly used as an instrument of subjugation.

Instead, imperialism, colonialism, and racism are painted as things of the past, as if ended by the decolonisation and civil rights movements of the twentieth century. This selective teaching promotes the myth of the “benevolent West”: that the West has acted as a benign force towards other cultures and that it continues to have a positive influence on the world through its economic models, governance systems, cultures, and more.

Essentially, it is very effective propaganda.

And this propaganda does not just obscure the dark parts of Western history; it also ascribes global progress and modern civilisation to the West, which leads non-Western populations to believe that Western civilisation is the greatest. Westerners attribute the origin of many scientific concepts and theories to the Ancient Greeks or Renaissance thinkers: Plato, Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and others.

In fact, the Renaissance is described in history books as the apex of human achievement in art and science, almost as if the rest of the world lived in darkness and ignorance before it. Yet this is patently not true: the Indian mathematician Baudhayana wrote a theorem on right-angled triangles one hundred years before Pythagoras; the Bengali Jagadish Bose was the first to discover ways to receive and emit radio waves, before Marconi; the Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi introduced the concept of zero to the West; the Arab writer Al-Jahiz proposed the concept of natural selection far before Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin did.

By excluding the innovations of non-Western thinkers from school syllabuses around the world, Western countries enable their societies to be held in the highest regard, as the founders of the modern world. By contrast, non-Western peoples are more likely to be unaware of their historical lineage, which has been eroded by the combined forces of colonialism and globalisation. Most Asian millennials have very little appreciation of the harm inflicted by the French and Americans in Vietnam through wars that killed millions.

This subservience explains why many of the elite in former colonies – such as Hong Kong, Singapore, India, and Malaysia – are more interested in emulating British and Western culture than their own or that of any others. The movie Crazy Rich Asians is a great example of this fetish.

So, when will the West come clean on this? The world is increasingly “woke” to the selective nature of global history, especially as more tragedies like these unmarked graves are revealed. But will the United States fund studies to determine how many million Native Indians were actually killed by the settlers? Will Australia come clean on the same subject so that there is a proper account in history?

White privilege: to dismantle it, we must first learn to ID it

It is unlikely, and we cannot wait for the West to repent or admit its crimes. It is incumbent on others to fund the research and writing of their story before it is too late. I would encourage everyone, especially Millennials – Westerners and non-Westerners – to pick up an alternative history book and get the facts. Then think about history as it is being written now – what is being doctored as you read this? What is your understanding of China? Do you understand the historical context of what is going on in Myanmar now? Do you understand how democracy was thwarted in Iran by the West and what led to the current state of affairs? Do you even know what happened in Iraq less than twenty years ago? And as the poor people of Afghanistan yet again endure another unravelling of their country, do you know how the country has been a pawn in wider geopolitical struggles going back decades and involving Western powers?

It is time for the West to stop using historical legitimacy to claim ownership of leading the world into the future by its own reckoning. And it is also time for Westerners and non-Westerners alike to produce alternative and more honest narratives, to unmask this privilege and help create a fairer world.

Chandran Nair is Founder and CEO of the Global Institute for Tomorrow. His next book, Dismantling Global White Privilege: Equity for a Post Western World, is due in December

Debt-trap diplomacy a myth: no evidence China pushes poor nations to seize their assets, says academic

The ‘waiver of sovereign immunity’ clause causing fear and uproar in African nations is not well understood, says US professor

Analysts say there remain other concerning issues around China’s loans in Africa

There is no evidence China aims to deliberately push poor countries into debt as a way of seizing their assets or gaining a greater say in their internal affairs, researchers and analysts said – countering Washington’s narrative that China was engaging in “debt-trap diplomacy”.

Deborah Brautigam, a professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins University and founding director of the China Africa Research Initiative (Cari), considers the “debt-trap” narrative a myth.

Cari has scrutinised thousands of Chinese loan documents, mostly for projects in Africa, and reports that it has not found any evidence that China seizes the assets of other countries if they fail to pay loans.

The revelation comes at a time when dozens of African countries are either in or at a high risk of debt distress. Most of the countries – including Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya and Zambia, which are among the top borrowers from China – have sought debt relief. Beijing has since provided some debt relief to more than 20 countries and, for some countries, has cancelled interest-free loans that were maturing in 2020, according to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce.

But the debt-trap narrative became more pronounced in 2017 when reports circulated that China had seized the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota when the South Asian country fell behind in servicing its debts. However, Cari researchers say that instead of the port being seized by China, Sri Lanka privatised 70 per cent of the Chinese-financed port to a Chinese firm.

Colombo had secured two loans from China – US$307 million for the first phase of the port project and a further US$757 million – both from China Exim Bank – to build the Hambantota port. When it faced a cash crunch, Sri Lanka decided to lease the underperforming Hambantota Port to more experienced operators – and chose China Merchants for the job. This made the Chinese company the majority shareholder in a 99-year lease that helped Colombo raise US$1.2 billion.

But throughout US president Donald Trump’s administration, the Sri Lankan port became the most cited case of a Chinese “debt trap” and used as an example that Beijing had seized the strategic seaport as collateral.

Besides Sri Lanka, fears of asset seizure also spread to Africa two years ago with rumours that China would take over Zambia’s power producer and Kenya’s main port if the countries failed to repay loans they took from China to construct major projects.

In a 2018 speech, former US national security adviser John Bolton warned that China “is now poised to take over Zambia’s national power and utility company to collect on Zambia’s financial obligations”.

Trump’s officials argued that China was luring poor nations into taking unsustainable debts to build massive projects so that when they failed to repay the loans, Beijing could seize their assets, thereby extending Beijing’s strategic or military reach.

Brautigam said the narrative that China was deliberately setting debt traps created a lot of concern among civil societies in a number of countries, including in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Kenya, Zambia, Tanzania and Nigeria.

“This was reflected in opposition party politics in these countries,” she said.

In Zambia anti-Chinese sentiment became a linchpin of opposition politics. During the 2006 presidential campaigns Michael Sata warned opponents against giving away Zambia’s sovereignty. But when he was elected president five years later, he changed his tune and allowed Beijing to continue to fund key infrastructure projects in the country. Sata died in office in 2014.

“Waving the China card proved potent campaign fodder,” Brautigam told the South China Morning Post.

However, she said officials in government in most of these countries had continued to negotiate new loans from Chinese financiers. She said the Cari database listed 20 confirmed new loans in Kenya, Zambia, and Nigeria signed in 2018 and 2019.

Tanzania was an outlier, Brautigam said. “They haven’t borrowed from China since [President John] Magufuli was elected on an austerity platform in 2015.” It was under Magufuli that Tanzania put on hold the US$10 billion Chinese-financed Bagamoyo port project because of concerns about the terms and ability to repay the loan.

Further, there has been an uproar in Kenya and Nigeria since it emerged that loan contracts contained a “waiver of sovereign immunity” clause.

In a recent study on asset seizures, Brautigam, Meg Rithmire, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, and Won Kidane, an associate professor of law at the Seattle University of Law, said the waiver of sovereign immunity allowed a sovereign state to be sued in a foreign court or submit to international arbitration.

The three reviewed several Chinese loan contracts and found that most included language on the waiver of sovereign immunity concerning arbitration and enforcement. The researchers found no Chinese “asset seizures” for sovereign lending in Africa or globally.

Brautigam said that in Nigeria especially, local experts and technocrats in government provided very clear explanations of the waiver of sovereign immunity clause and why it was a standard clause in international loan contracts. It was mainly politicians outside the executive branch who chose not to look at these facts and used these charges to score political points, Brautigam said.

“But it is true that these concepts central to international project finance and commercial law are quite technical and often not well understood,” she said.

David Shinn, a professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, said the US narrative on debt-trap diplomacy was flawed because of its lack of nuance.

“The real issue is China’s holding of 20 per cent of Africa’s debt, not debt-trap diplomacy,” Shinn said.

He said there were eight to 10 countries in Africa now in debt distress where China held more than 20 per cent of their debts.

“This is a cause for concern. China is also talking about possible debt-for-equity swaps,” he said.

W. Gyude Moore, a senior policy fellow at the Centre for Global Development and a former Liberian minister of public works, echoed the sentiment, saying it was important to understand why some countries borrowed from China.

“In many instances, these are projects that have struggled to attract financing from commercial, bilateral and multilateral lenders. For example, on Hambantota the initial firm was Canadian,” Moore said.

He said he had seen the waiver of sovereign immunity clause in a loan document for a water filtration plant in the Philippines.

“I think Chinese policy banks – sometimes with the assistance of Western consultants – began reflecting the commercial nature of these loans and it shows here with the immunity question. One can interpret it as a hedge against the risk of non-payment,” Moore said.

China has repeatedly denied it has plans to use loans as a way to seize strategic assets.

“There is nothing like that [China taking over the property]. The inclusion of the sovereignty clause is a common practice in many international commercial agreements,” said Sun Saixiong, the press officer at the Chinese embassy in Nigeria, last year. “We see the issue as more of Nigeria’s internal affairs.”

However, Moore said he was not aware of a systematic effort from Beijing to counter the narrative. “Various Chinese diplomats have, on occasion, responded to the accusations in their speeches. Not certain there’s been a systematic effort to refute the claims. But I could be wrong,” he said.

Analysts expressed hope for a less confrontational response to China under US President Joe Biden.

Shinn said the “tone on this issue [debt-trap diplomacy] in the Biden administration will be different and criticism will be based on facts, not misinformation”. Hence, it would be less confrontational, Shinn said.