An aerial drone photo shows visitors enjoying the cityscape at The Stage, a new observation deck atop White Magnolia Plaza in Shanghai, East China, April 14, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

Global Times-Since the launch of the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Western media and think tanks have constantly hyped the so-called "debt trap diplomacy," portraying China as a "predatory lender." This narrative model has become the standard routine for Western public opinion to attack China's development assistance. The purpose is to depict China as a threat to global development for geopolitical considerations.

Currently, a new wave of "China threat" rhetoric is upon us. Look at these headlines: "China is now the biggest debt collector in the developing world" from NPR; and "Pacific nations 'grappling with a tidal wave of debt repayments' to China" from ABC News. This latest wave originated from a recent report released by the Lowy Institute in Australia. The report claims that in 2025, debt repayments owed to China by developing countries will amount to $35 billion. Of that, $22 billion is set to be paid by 75 of the world's poorest countries, putting health and education spending at risk. 

In fact, the Lowy Institute's report suffers from obvious selective presentation. The report focuses only on the loans, and deliberately avoid the fact that BRI gives a development boost to countries along the route. As Kevin Gallagher, director of Boston University's Global Development Policy Center, noted: "A crucial aspect about Chinese lending is that it tends to be long-term and growth enhancing. That's precisely why a lot of it is focused on infrastructure investment."

The "debt trap diplomacy" narrative deliberately ignores several key facts. First, African governments owe private financial groups three times more debt than they owe to China while paying twice the interest rates. Western private creditors, not China, are the primary source of developing countries' debt burden.

Second, developing countries' borrowing costs are, on average, two to four times higher than those in the US and six to twelve times higher than those in Germany. This enormous interest rate differential reflects fundamental inequalities in the global financial system, while China provides relatively favorable financing options for developing countries.

Third, China has demonstrated considerable flexibility in debt restructuring. According to data from Johns Hopkins University's China-Africa Research Initiative, between 2000 and 2019, China canceled $3.4 billion in African debt and refinanced another $15 billion, without seizing any assets.

However, what is most perplexing is why Western think tanks never study the developmental benefits of Chinese lending to borrowing countries. This should be the core question of any serious research. The BRI focuses on infrastructure projects such as power plants, roads, and ports, which often struggle to obtain funding from Western financial institutions. These investments are the foundation for driving long-term economic growth. However, Western think tanks like the Lowy Institute turn a blind eye to developmental effects because of their inherent positions and conflicts of interest. 

Acknowledging the success of China's development model would amount to questioning the effectiveness of the Western financial system. This is what Western research institutions are unwilling to recognize: The Western-led financial system can no longer meet the needs of an increasing number of developing countries.

Quantifying the contribution of infrastructure investment to long-term economic growth requires complex financial modeling, long-term data tracking, and multi-dimensional analysis. The real solution is not to reduce investment in development but to ensure that such investment can translate into growth momentum.

The hype surrounding China's "debt trap diplomacy" reflects the anxiety and bias of Western think tanks when confronted with China's rise and South-South cooperation. They would rather sensationalize "debt crises" than acknowledge the positive contributions of Chinese investment to the modernization processes of developing countries. 

This selective blindness not only undermines the objectivity of academic research but may also mislead policymaking, ultimately harming the long-term interests of developing countries.

Any report that deliberately fabricates a "China threat" narrative for geopolitical or ideological reasons will ultimately prove to be worthless.