Those countries which have been helped in the development of their infrastructures have known of their request for it with their loans
agreements for it. They cannot say that that they were cheated or forced
into it, simply because they changed their mind or their new regime have replaced the previous regime.

They also cannot say they prefer to sell away their infrastructures as there are loan agreement and property title to it. They cannot say they can sell
in return for cash which unfortunately based on their naivety is not
possible.

It is similar to a person borrowing property loan for the purchased of his commercial property. First he has to take a mean test of his eligibility. If eligible, he has to pay cash as down-payment as earnest money for his affordability to repay the loan.

The bank normally play safe to lend only up to 80% only. As his loan is 80%, his repayable monthly repayment will be repayable over a monthly periods of several years, until the loan repayment is completed.

Thereafter, he got lazy and decided not to use the property to run his
business anymore. He decided to sell it as he cannot repay the affordable monthly repayment to the bank. He prefers to laze around and spends the
money from the sale of the property for it.

However, he does not know that when he resell the property to an public, the value of the remaining loan will still have to be repaid with interests to
the bank. If he resell the property to another public buyer, he has to get
the bank approval for the default of loan and permission to put the
commercial property to the market.

He should know that the title to the property on the loan is held by the
bank. The value of the loan is an agreement held by the bank, too. As bank's function is not a property agent to sell property for him, he can find a property agent or broker to sell for him, instead.

He can also hand back the defaulted property to the bank and the bank will
find a property broker to sell the property as away for the man. After the sale, the money from the sale of property will be used to repay tto the bank loan.

The man is likely left with nothing. Therefore it is naive of countries with national debts from infrastructure loans decided to accuse China's AIIB
bank for their loans to them or had cheated them with debts.

Therefore, it is naive of the new regime leader in Zambia and Sri Lanka and
few other debt countries to talking nonsense, simply because they want to
have the revenue from state collected be paid to their pocket and not to he bank which loaned them the infrastructural money.





"borie" wrote in message news:r3k4b5$56a$[email protected]...

The AIIB bank set up by China with participating member countries have been very transparent with their loans to countries, when those applicant
countries engaged them for their infrastructure needs.

Since then, the AIIB has got a lot of projects get going on. Countries want
to seek help from them have to get an assessment of the project and design proposal done by the AIIB.

They will also assess the project cost, project returns, cost returns, and their financial abilities to repay, based on their economy, income, and revenue.

If their project cost is to high beyond their ability to repay loans and
debts, their project cost will be trimmed down and project will be modified
to reduce the scale of the size of it.
After the AIIB bank and its project teams of specialists had assessed and approved the final project cost, the bank would loan at maximum 80 percent
and the applicant's country would still have to pay the 20% project cost for their part of the earnest payment towards the project costs.

In cases of countries defaulting on their loans, they have to get an
assessment from the AIIB banl to see how their project be sold to AIIB bank
to takeover the project. Therefore, countries defaulting on their loans were mainly from those nations with lazy officials and leaders who wanted to
pocket some of their money , too






"ltlee1" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 6:01:40 PM UTC, rover wrote:

They are not interested in giving China more say. If they had done so,
they
would have done so already. They are sharing within themselves of what
they
know, but would not share them to China.hey are reluctant

To say the least, they are reluctant.
This is why China gets the AIIB going. China has more say in supporting projects so far spurned by the World Bank and the IMF.

"ltlee1" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:44:23 AM UTC, HH wrote:

Those lynchpin's world of institutions are the uni-drivers of keeping US
as
Uni-power. If there are dismantled, it will fragmented away and they not have influential and collaborative influential power ever again.

By original design. Yes.
But then China had joined the WTO and other orgainzations as a later
comer.
To enter the WTO, it went through 13 years of tough negotiation with every member of the WTO. Needless to say, each member looked to protect its
special interests before it gave China the "YES" vote.

China did get to join the WTO as a developing nation. Other than that,
China
faced the toughest competitions. On the other hand, China entered the
world
market without internal obstacle originated from entrenched producers.
These
interests are politically powerful but not be as competitive in the China energized global market. This, together with China's large pool of human capital and infrastructure built up have made China manufacturing very competitive world wide.

Right now, China sees many of these same institutions the foundation for multi-polarity. Of course, as many in the West had pointed out, the World Bank and the IMF and etc need to give China more say.

"ltlee1" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:

ltlee1, <news:[email protected]>

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 5:21:33 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 12:09:17 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:52:27 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:15:25 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:08:26 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:

"Resume: Only a strong and well-considered relationship between
Russia
and China can constitute a powerful enough global counterweight
to
the
unipolarity and the United States' strategic offensive posture,
and
also
act as a midwife in the birth of an undeniably multipolar world
order."

I would take it in a less narrow way. Russia and China may both be
seen 'prominent', in each kind, but there's a bunch of nations who
are not happy with the Atlanticist abuse of 'unipolarity', but who
also have issues among themselves as well as some 'concerns' with
regard to China or Russia, - and decrease of conflictogenic issues
among these nations would reduce the Atlanticist opportunities to excercise their power in favor of the Atlanticism. China and Russia
may both be interested to stimulate such harmonizing developments,
in an inclusive manner, including among their two selves as well.

Actually, there are at least 3 world order. A military world order with
the
US still the only Unipower. A global free trade world order maintained
by
WTO, World Bank, IMF, and associated institutions with US dollar serves
as
the linchpin international currency. And then there is the liberal democratic civilizational world order with US the leader.

With the rise of Asian countries, US is losing competitive edge fast.
Under
Trump, the US is overtly withdrawing from global free trade world order originally engineered by the US. The dollar, however, is still the
number
one reserve currency.

The liberal democratic civilizational world order is also crumbling.
Samuel
Huntington had convincing destroy the idea that modernization is Westernization, i.e. Western liberal democracy. China, India, as well as Russia are civilizational states which could not easily fit into the "Western civilization" pigeon hole. More important, various European countries, as well the US are also ditching the vision of a Liberal Democratic world order.

Right now the military world order is still in full force. That is,
U.S. leaders could still rely on its military dominance to maintain a
world
order favorable to the US. But over-reliance on the military also drives the
US into various violent conflicts. I think the article
"Counter-Containment
of Unipolarity" focused more on the military world order than other
aspects
of current international situation.

Atlanticist view:

"Unipolarity cannot last forever. Whether its demise is imminent or
decades
away is an open question, but even the most optimistic observers do
not
believe the international system has reached its final stage of
evolution.
At some point, ..., the United States will cease to dominate the
world
in
quite the same way it currently does.

What will the effects of this decline be? ...widespread consensus
exists:
The postunipolar world will be worse, much worse in some ways, than
the
current order. The only disagreement is over the extent of the
calamity.

Well, that's a standard reasoning, while in practice it happens like
let us create ISIS and then heroically defeat it in order to prove
that the Middle East can not be stable without American supervision.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)