Construction of the port commenced in January 2008. In 2016, it reported an operating profit of $1.81 million but was considered economically unviable. As debt repayment got difficult, the newly-elected government decided to privatise an 80% stake of the port to raise foreign exchange in order to repay maturing sovereign bonds unrelated to the port. Of the two bidding companies, China Merchants Port was chosen, which was to pay $1.12 billion to Sri Lanka and spend additional amounts to develop the port into full operation.

[–] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's a strange event. So the government privatised the port (which we all know goes swimmingly, just look at post-Soviet Russia), China swoops in with investments (which is normal), but then gets a century long lease. Why? What for? Do they get exclusive rights for using the port?

Just strange stuff all around

[–] SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Privatization" but the owning company is another country's state corporation - come to think of it, that also happened to British Rail, with big parts of the line being bought up by other European countries' state train companies.

This all happened pre-COVID too - most of the articles about the Belt and Road failing are about debts going bad directly as a result of COVID's trade slowdown, so whatever the heck is going on it appears to be to be a one off at the very least.

[–] Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I never said BaR is failing. I am merely trying to parse the logic of action. And so far I am unable to

[–] SSJ2Marx@hexbear.net 6 points 7 months ago

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were, it's just that almost every article I fouund talking about this was covering it from the angle of "here's why the BAR initiative is collapsing (2023 edition)".