Moonki here is the article from Economist
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/06/29/china-is-thinking-twice-about-lending-to-africa
I see. The article does say that they "
even" asked him if he intended to run again. What I don't see is anything that would lead you the conclusion that that was the main reason for Kenya's failure to get a loan .... where you write that
- Chinese asked if he intended to run again - and because he was non-committal - Chinese also backed off.
Instead, had you read the entire Economist article and not just that one line, you would have found a more plausible reason:
(If you really know about Chinese finding of African etc. projects, then I'm sure you must have been aware of all the news---in China and outside China---of Sinosure and Exim's concerns about dodgy loans.)
By the way, given how much that one "even" line the Economist excited you, and your apparent faith in the "credible news", did you see the other lines in the same article? The ones that come before the throw-away "even" one ...
Corruption made it a ludicrously expensive venture, costing twice the international average per kilometre of track. It was meant to be cheaper to ship goods up the line than send them by road.China seems to have belatedly realised that throwing good money after bad would be an error. So it is embracing caution instead.
"Stuff of legends"? Kenyan legends, perhaps. But
Chinese workers putting up structures quickly---relative to what Kenyans would have done, if they knew how to do the job, which they still don't---is not uncommon, and I can't imagine why Chinese abilities should excite you so much. I would rather you told me about Kenyan legends (other than "eating", of course).
And you also seem to have confused yourself in writing that
Chinese don't care about commercial viability. Uhuru can get the money if he wants today - he just need to give some collateral.
They don't care about commercial viability, but they want collateral? Very strange people.