..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
The Hill
by Andrew Hale, Opinion Contributor – 07/04/23 7:00 AM ET
Every country should pay its sovereign debt. Default, we are told, is not an option.
But has anyone told China?
The United States pays interest on approximately $850 billion in debt held by the People’s Republic of China. China, however, is currently in default on its sovereign debt held by American bondholders.
Successive U.S. administrations have chosen to sidestep this fact, allowing business and trade with China to proceed as normal. Now that the relationship with China has soured and the People’s Republic of China has become the greatest adversarial threat to the U.S. and Western security, policymakers should revisit this appalling failure of justice.
Some history is in order. Before 1949, the government of the Republic of China (ROC) issued a large volume of long-term sovereign gold-denominated bonds, secured by Chinese tax revenues, to private investors and governments for the construction of infrastructure and financing of governmental activities. Put simply, the China we know today would not have been possible absent these bond offerings.
In 1938, during its conflict with Japan, the ROC defaulted on its sovereign debt. After the military victory of the communists, the ROC government fled to Taiwan. The People’s Republic of China was eventually recognized internationally as the successor government of China. Under well-established international law, the “successor government” doctrine holds that the current government of China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, is responsible for repayment of the defaulted bonds.
A private group of American citizens holds a large quantity of these gold-denominated bonds. This citizen-led group, the American Bondholders Foundation (ABF), serves as trustee with power of attorney for some 20,000 bondholders, whose bonds are valued at well more than $1 trillion.
Then-U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s tough negotiation stance on the return of Hong Kong to China led to a British settlement agreement on these same Chinese bonds in 1987. Thatcher said that for China to have access to U.K. capital markets, it had to honor the defaulted Chinese sovereign debt held by British subjects. Faced with that stark choice, China agreed.
Unfortunately, the U.S. failed to take such a common-sense stance. To this day, China has had access to U.S. capital markets while openly rejecting its sovereign debt obligations to American bondholders.
Lest anyone wonder about the age of these bonds, it is irrelevant. What matters is that this is a sovereign obligation. As recently as 2010 the German government made its last payment for reparations from World War I. In 2015 Great Britain made payments on bonds issuances that dated from the 18th century.
.
Given that relations with China have deteriorated and there is bipartisan agreement on the threat from China, this matter can finally be acted upon by both Congress and the Biden administration. Getting settlement on this defaulted debt is not only right and just for the bondholders but, if done correctly, could also be a huge win for the U.S. taxpayer.
Andrew Hale is the Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
China is in default on a trillion dollars in debt to US bondholders. Will the US force repayment?
..

The American Bondholders Foundation is a citizen-led organization that was founded in 2001 to advocate for the resolution and repayment of defaulted sovereign debt of the Peoples’s Republic of China that is held by 20,000 families in the United States.
The PRC has refused to pay the American holders of these bonds, despite settling with Great Britain in 1987.
Before 1949, the Republic of China issued a large volume of long-term sovereign bonds for the construction of infrastructure. In 1938, China defaulted on the bonds during the conflict with Japan. Under well-established international law, the “successor government” doctrine holds that the current government of China, the People’s Republic of China, is responsible for the repayment of the bonds.
In 1987, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher forced payment from the PRC on behalf of British holders of these same bonds as a condition of allowing China access to U.K. capital markets.
https://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com/
..
..
..
王毅依然保持着惯有的战狼风格,说岀来的话根本不像一个外交官,而像旧时代澡堂里粗痞的搓脚大叔。在会见中日韩合作国际论坛的主要嘉宾时,竟然说:“我们到美国去,美国都认为这是亚裔人,他们分不清中日韩,到欧洲去也是一样。不管你把头发染得再黄、鼻子修得再尖,你也变不了欧美人,变不成西方人,要知道自己的根在什么地方。”这种典型的种族歧视言论出自一个最高外交官之口,中国媒体对这种带有恐吓和羞辱的言论一片叫好,足以说明中国的战狼外交越走越远,现在什么年代,还在国际场合拿人种特征来说事,逼迫邻国站队,不知道日韩外长如何理解王毅这番台词,这种言论不仅得不到共情共鸣,只能进一步强化丑陋的战狼形象。
按照王毅的说法,我们不妨问一下王毅,一群黄皮肤组成的政党,为什么要把一个大胡子白人视为祖宗,一直到现在还宣称是马克思主义政党,还打着马克思的旗号对黄皮肤进行强制性洗脑,究竟是谁在卖祖求荣?当然我们也很清楚,这个高喊马克思主义的政党只是打着马克思旗号,实行秦始皇的统治方式和愚民手段,釆取瞒和骗加上暴力恐吓来延续政权周期聚敛社会财富。
Wang Yi still maintains his usual wolf-war style, and what he says doesn’t look like a diplomat at all, but like a rough uncle rubbing his feet in a bathhouse in the old days. When meeting with the main guests of the China-Japan-Korea Cooperation International Forum, he even said: “When we go to the United States, the United States thinks that they are Asians. They can’t tell the difference between China, Japan and South Korea. It is the same when you go to Europe. No matter if you dye your hair No matter how yellow you are and how sharp your nose is, you can’t become a European or a Westerner, you have to know where your roots are.” This typical racist remark was made by a top diplomat, and the Chinese media responded to this This kind of intimidating and humiliating speech is applauded, which is enough to show that China’s wolf warrior diplomacy is going further and further. In what age, it is still using racial characteristics as an issue in international occasions to force neighboring countries to stand in line. I don’t know how the foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea Understanding Wang Yi’s lines, this kind of remarks not only cannot get sympathy, but can only further strengthen the ugly image of wolf warriors.
According to Wang Yi, we might as well ask Wang Yi, why does a group of yellow-skinned political parties regard a bearded white man as their ancestor, and still claim to be a Marxist party until now, and still use the banner of Marx to attack yellow-skinned people? Forcibly brainwashing, who is selling their ancestors for glory? Of course, we are also very clear that this party that shouts Marxism is only under the banner of Marx, implementing Qin Shihuang’s ruling style and fooling the people, and resorting to concealment, deception, and violent intimidation to continue the regime cycle and amass social wealth.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..