Remember, the train route winds through Laotian territory. Its government pays for the work, owns the system, and is naturally entitled to the revenues it will generate. I don't see how China can run its trains on Laotian tracks and shamelessly pay nothing.
The writers avoid the discussion of Laos' right to charge for use. Instead, they compare projected cost with Laos' GDP in an attempt to convince readers that the country is mortgaging its future and will be submerged in debt. This argument cannot withstand close scrutiny either.
To look at the issue from another perspective, Laos had an estimated GDP of $17.4 billion in 2011 at purchasing power parity (PPP), as opposed to the artificially depressed $8.2 billion quoted by the New York Times article, at the official exchange rate.
The Laotian government takes in about 20 percent of GDP, or $3.48 billion at PPP, as tax. It makes perfect sense for a landlocked country to make a strategically important and productive railway investment that secures access to trading partners and lubricates the movement of essential productive factors.
In fact, most economists would predict that the commissioning of the railway will enable the export of perishable agriculture products, reduce transportation costs, help local farmers and merchants fetch better prices through international trade, facilitate domestic migration of labor, boost processing trade, and so on.
I was amazed to come across this unfit-to-print story on the homepage of the New York Times. Apparently, the principles of balance and fairness claimed by the New York Times don't apply to reporting on China's foreign presence and its rising influence on the global stage, especially when the US government eyes a bigger role through pivoting to Asia.
Students take exams without invigilator in Hangzhou
Feedback
RSS
