Then why did China ask for the Hambantota port[1]. It is a clear strategic and economic policy. Not to deny other countries haven't done that in the past; but it is a clear way of gaining control - especially the taking control over infrastructure part.
Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2]
The Hambantota case is described in detail in The Atlantic's articl, which explains why it's not a debt trap. For one, the feasibility study for Hambantota was first made by Canada — the Chinese only came in later, competing with western countries for its construction. Second, see this excerpt:
> Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.
Even if we assume that Hambantota is a problem, total Sri Lanka debt owned by China is still at 10%, much less than non-Chinese debt. China is not the biggest problem, if it is one at all.
Whether projects benefit citizen really is up to African governments. Chinese companies build whatever African governments ask them to; Chinese don't force their projects on Africa. When I buy a house and the house doesn't end up benefiting me, that's my problem for having chosen that house, not the mortgage's fault for "debt trapping" me.
But it's not at all set in stone that none of the projects, or even the majority of the projects, are useless. In a recent study, "China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-sur...
I'm not sure why you're carrying so much water for China, a huge nation that can fend for itself.
China absolutely throws its weight around - just like all the other big nations.
It also blindly pursues its own self-interest again like all the other big nations.
China also isn't a monolith, with companies and individuals making deals or going after projects abroad. Sometimes on win-win terms, sometimes trying to screw a target out of money. Again - just like other nations.
China uses money in diplomacy. That's just a fact. They do so not out of altruism but out of self-interest.
I can also turn this around: I'm not sure why you have so much problem with me pointing out that accusations are not based on facts. It sounds as if you want those accusations to be true despite facts.
What is wrong with doing things not based on altruism? There is nothing wrong with business. Nobody builds bridges and hospital for free.
Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2]
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSD8XV3qzE