The study finds that African countries owe three times more debt to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to Chinese lenders and government agencies, and are charged roughly double the interest.

Only 12 per cent of Africa’s external debt is owed to Chinese lenders compared to 35 per cent owed to Western private lenders, according to World Bank data.

Private lenders charged an average of 5 per cent in 2021, compared to 2.7 per cent by Chinese lenders and 1.3 per cent by multilateral institutions. Among those are some of the best-known banks and finance groups on Wall Street.

Twelve of the 22 African countries with the highest debt – Cabo Verde, Chad, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal, South Sudan, Tunisia and Zambia – have been paying Western private lenders more than 30 per cent of their total external debt payments.

However, only six of those 22 countries are paying over 30 per cent to Chinese lenders, namely, Angola, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Zambia.

China took part in the Group of 20’s debt suspension programme during the pandemic, but you wouldn’t know about it from mainstream Western media, which following their governments, have pushed the narrative that China deliberately laid debt traps for developing countries.

In fact, private lenders refused to join any debt relief programme, one reason China has been reluctant to participate in more such schedules.

In any case, in Africa, but probably elsewhere as well, private lenders play an outsized role, which is often neglected in reports by Western media and governments.

In fact, Western governments, especially Washington and the World Bank, which is a de facto US government agency, have promoted private lending and rarely put pressure on private lenders.

It can almost be said that this is by design, or intentional. Why? The World Bank has a powerful entity called the International Finance Corporation, which was set up explicitly to promote private lending to developing economies.

“The bank does not consider that profit-seeking private investments expecting attractive returns may not serve the public interest and priorities. Nor do they necessarily support desirable transformations.”

In reality, their economic, social and environmental consequences have turned out to be much worse.

“The privatisation of previously public social services and infrastructure has worsened development and distribution. Unequal access to public services – increasingly linked to affordability and ability to pay – threatens hundreds of millions,” Jomo warned.

“Such blended finance arrangements have also contributed to the debt explosion in the Global South – exacerbating, rather than alleviating developmental, environmental and humanitarian crises.”

The debt service picture is bleak, not only for Africa but also indebted countries in general, as payments absorb 38 per cent of budget revenue and 30 per cent of spending on average by developing-country governments around the world.

It’s the poorest who have been penalised the most, as social services, subsidies and benefits are cut drastically, if not eliminated.

“The [Bretton Woods institutions, i.e., the World Bank and International Monetary Fund] BWIs’ joint debt sustainability framework insists debt-distressed economies must have lower debt-to-GDP ratios than other countries, limiting this [low-income countries’] LICs’ external ratio to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. This BWI policy effectively penalises the poorer and more vulnerable nations.

“In 38 countries with over a billion people, loan conditionalities during 2020-22 resulted in regressive tax reforms and public spending cuts. Less expenditure has hit fuel or electricity subsidies and public wage bills, deepening economic stagnation.”

Western-sponsored debt relief has done little to nothing, not because China refused to take part, but because Western private lenders were under no pressure to join.

Jomo continues: “Despite severe debt distress in many developing countries, no meaningful debt relief has been available for most. The most recent debt restructuring deals have left debt service levels averaging at least 48 per cent of revenue over the next three to five years …

“The IMF currently imposes additional charges on countries that do not quickly clear their debts to the fund. Besides the usual fees and interest, borrowing countries paid over US$4 billion in such surcharges in 2020-22, during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Surcharges will cost debt-distressed countries about US$7.9 billion over six years. The G24 has emphasised that surcharges are pro-cyclical and regressive, especially with monetary tightening.”

Given how heavily implicated Wall Street and Washington are in the debt crisis and debt trap business across the Global South, why is the Western media constantly drumming on about nefarious China?

That seems obvious. One is, of course, to distract public attention and avoid responsibility for Western institutions; another is, par for the course, to demonise China and exaggerate its misdeeds without providing any proper context.

As Tim Jones, head of policy at Debt Justice, said at the time of the report’s release in 2022: “Western leaders blame China for debt crises in Africa, but this is a distraction. The truth is their own banks, asset managers and oil traders are far more responsible but the G7 are letting them off the hook.

“China took part in the G20’s debt suspension scheme during the pandemic, private lenders did not. There can be no effective debt solution without the involvement of private lenders. The UK and US should introduce legislation to compel private lenders to take part in debt relief.”