Getting China Onboard a Global Debt Governance System
China has become the number one provider of development finance in the world. Because of its significant share in Low and Middle Income Countries’ (LMICs) external debt, China should take up responsibilities and cooperate with traditional development finance providers, but its particular lending style and distinct approach to debt management pose many challenges and do not make international cooperation straightforward.
Although some progress could be observed over the past couple of years under various initiatives such as the Debt Service Suspension Initiative, the Common Framework and the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable, more remains to be done. But as China is increasingly faced with the same difficulties as other lenders, and in particular with rising risks of default, one may be reasonably confident that China will behave increasingly like other lenders.
In concrete terms, the EU should push the topic of debt management on the G20 agenda so as to encourage a constructive discussion with China. It is also important to avoid ill-founded criticisms that are simply counterproductive. The EU should call for more transparency and encourage the streamlining of lending practices and approaches to debt restructuring. It is in all countries’ interest to design an effective multilateralized debt management mechanism.
ReConnect China is a research project dedicated to strengthening independent knowledge on China in Europe. Funded as part of the European Commission’s Horizon Europe program, the four-year project brings together 15 institutions and 66 researchers across 12 European countries. Ifri will contribute policy briefs such as this one throughout the lifespan of the project, ranging from science and technology to China’s economy to foreign policy and China’s place in international affairs.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Getting China Onboard a Global Debt Governance System
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Pakistan and the Israel-Palestine Conflict: Transformation in Pakistan’s Approach After the War in Gaza
Pakistan has long combined vocal support for the Palestinian cause with covert engagement with Israel. Since the war in Gaza, this balance has become untenable: public opinion is united against Israel, joining Trump’s Board of Peace has drawn rare cross-party criticism, and new regional alignments put normalization out of reach.
The Oceania Factor in France’s Evolving Indo-Pacific Strategy
This paper examines the two-way relationship between France’s Indo-Pacific strategy and developments in Oceania. Oceania was not a priority in the initial years of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy, as the region was largely treated as secondary to major strategic hotspots and key partnerships, while overseas territories were primarily handled as domestic issues and recipients of a top-down strategy.
France’s View: From Diplomacy to Public-Private Action
France has emerged as the EU’s IMEC forerunner, combining port infrastructure, diplomatic alliances and public-private cooperation. With Marseille Fos at its core, the country brings a strategic hub for logistics, energy and digital connectivity to the corridor.
Trump II, the Crisis of the Rules-Based Order and Europe’s Indo-Pacific Strategy
This article examines the implications of Trump II for Europe’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. The piece contends that Trump II is accelerating the erosion of the rules-based order and undermining the relevance of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept, while forcing Europe to refocus on its own continental security amid US retrenchment. Paradoxically, these very constraints create conditions for a more autonomous, pragmatic, and explicitly interest-driven European engagement in the Indo-Pacific, rather than outright withdrawal.