Negative Side Effects of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Beyond Internet Scams and Chinese-Linked Criminal Networks

Internet scamming and Chinese-linked criminal operations—particularly scam centers operating across Southeast Asia—are among the most visible harms associated with China’s outward economic expansion under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, these criminal activities represent only one dimension of a much broader set of negative consequences tied to the initiative.

Launched in 2013, the BRI is a vast infrastructure and trade program spanning more than 150 countries. While often promoted as a development engine, it has drawn sustained criticism from institutions such as the World Bank, the Council on Foreign Relations, and numerous independent think tanks for its economic, environmental, social, and geopolitical risks.

1. Debt Sustainability and Economic Vulnerability

A central concern is debt distress. Many BRI recipient countries have taken on large, opaque loans for infrastructure projects that generate limited economic returns. In several cases, this has resulted in unsustainable debt burdens, sometimes described as “debt-trap diplomacy.”

Countries such as Sri Lanka, Laos, and Pakistan have struggled to service BRI-related debt. Sri Lanka’s 99-year lease of Hambantota Port to China after failing to meet repayments has become emblematic of this risk. Poor risk assessment, non-transparent lending practices, and weak local oversight have led to stalled projects, financial losses, and long-term economic instability in host nations.

2. Environmental and Climate Damage

BRI projects have also been linked to serious environmental harm. Large-scale infrastructure development has contributed to deforestation, biodiversity loss, water degradation, and rising carbon emissions, often in ecologically fragile regions.

China’s overseas energy investments under the BRI have been heavily weighted toward fossil fuels—especially coal—locking many developing countries into high-emission development paths that contradict global climate commitments such as the Paris Agreement. The cumulative impact of these projects increases climate vulnerability, particularly in Asia, where environmental degradation disproportionately affects poor and rural communities.

Case studies from countries including Kenya, Indonesia, and Argentina illustrate how weak environmental safeguards and poor consultation processes have led to human rights violations and long-term ecological damage.

3. Social, Labor, and Governance Concerns

BRI projects are frequently criticized for reinforcing corruption, elite capture, and weak governance. Contracts often favor Chinese state-owned enterprises, imported labor, and Chinese supply chains, limiting local employment and skills transfer. This has fueled perceptions of economic colonialism rather than partnership.

In countries with fragile institutions, BRI investments have exacerbated inequality, displaced communities, and produced substandard or abandoned infrastructure. Indigenous groups and local populations have often been excluded from meaningful consultation, leading to social tension and long-term grievances.

4. Geopolitical and Strategic Risks

Geopolitically, the BRI has raised concerns about China’s expanding influence and strategic leverage. Control over ports, logistics hubs, and critical infrastructure has prompted fears of dual-use (civilian and military) capabilities. In Europe, particularly the Balkans, Chinese investments have complicated EU cohesion and governance standards.

More broadly, the initiative has intensified strategic competition with the United States and its allies, contributing to geopolitical fragmentation and increased dependency for smaller states.

A Mixed Record, but Growing Backlash

It is important to acknowledge that BRI outcomes are not uniformly negative. Some projects have improved connectivity, boosted trade, and supported short-term growth. However, the scale and consistency of the problems have led several countries—including Malaysia and Kenya—to renegotiate, delay, or cancel projects.

Public backlash, financial implosions, and incomplete infrastructure have become recurring patterns, suggesting systemic flaws rather than isolated failures.

---

Is China’s Expansion Worth Supporting at the Expense of Global Victims?

Whether the BRI is “worth it” depends largely on perspective. Proponents argue that it helps close global infrastructure gaps, reduces trade costs, and promotes regional integration. China has also announced reforms, including environmental guidelines and the cancellation of some overseas coal projects.

Yet, for many affected communities, the costs—financial, environmental, and human—have outweighed the benefits. Victims include indebted governments, displaced populations, exploited workers, and future generations facing heightened climate risks. The emphasis on project quantity over quality has left behind what some analysts describe as a “trail of trouble.”

From a geopolitical standpoint, the initiative risks increasing dependency on China and weakening multilateral norms, leading critics to characterize it as a form of modern neo-colonialism.

A balanced, non-partisan assessment suggests that without stronger safeguards, transparency, and genuine multilateral oversight, the BRI’s harms will continue to outweigh its promises for many vulnerable nations.

---

Scam Centers in Southeast Asia: Genuine Crackdown or Strategic Relocation?

Scam centers operating across Southeast Asia—many run by Chinese criminal syndicates—emerged in part from the collapse of regional gambling industries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Casinos were repurposed into large-scale fraud hubs involving human trafficking and forced labor.

These centers, concentrated in areas such as Myanmar’s border zones, Cambodia’s Sihanoukville, and Laos’s Golden Triangle, generate tens of billions of dollars annually through online fraud schemes targeting victims worldwide. Many of these networks trace their origins to earlier Taiwanese and Chinese fraud syndicates displaced by domestic crackdowns.

China’s response has been selective and primarily driven by self-interest. Beijing has focused on operations that target Chinese citizens or facilitate capital flight, cooperating with regional governments to repatriate tens of thousands of suspects since 2023.

While these actions have reduced scams affecting Chinese victims, evidence suggests that criminal networks have largely adapted rather than been dismantled. Crackdowns in Myanmar pushed operations into Cambodia, Thailand, and other regions, where syndicates shifted focus toward non-Chinese victims, particularly in Western countries.

Moreover, China has used anti-scam cooperation to expand its overseas law-enforcement footprint, sometimes without transparent coordination with host governments. Allegations of ties between criminal figures, political elites, and BRI-linked business interests raise concerns that enforcement efforts prioritize control and influence over genuine eradication.

Recent sanctions by the U.S. and U.K. against entities linked to scam operations highlight the need for broader international cooperation. The continued presence of trafficked workers from South Asia and elsewhere underscores that the problem has not been solved—only displaced.

---

Conclusion

The Belt and Road Initiative is not merely an infrastructure program; it is a geopolitical project with far-reaching consequences. While it offers benefits to China and select partners, it has also produced significant economic, environmental, social, and human costs. Addressing these harms requires transparency, accountability, and genuine multilateral engagement—without which the cycle of exploitation, displacement, and instability will continue.