A group of civil society organizations has criticized the European Union’s ‘Global Gateway’ initiative, designed to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), as ‘neo-colonialist’ and ‘too pro-business.’
Launched by the European Commission in 2021, the Global Gateway aims to offer countries in the ‘Global South’ a ‘sustainable and transparent investment alternative’ to China’s BRI. By 2027, the EU plans to mobilize €300 billion for investment in infrastructure such as submarine cables, transport networks, and renewable energy, while also promoting reforms that facilitate market access for European companies.
Officially, the Global Gateway is presented as a ‘win-win partnership’ between countries in the ‘Global South’ and European companies. However, a report published last week (8 October) by NGOs, including Counter Balance, Eurodad, and Oxfam, titled Who Profits from the Global Gateway? raises concerns.
European monopolies dominate Global Gateway fund management
“When we think about the Global Gateway, it almost looks like a black box with too much branding,” said Farwa Sial at the launch of the report.
The NGOs particularly criticize the influence of large European companies in fund management and the lack of transparency in decision-making and judicial arbitration, with the Global Gateway Business Advisory Group playing a central role. This group primarily consists of economic actors from Western European countries like Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and Spain, including companies such as Total Energies and Bayer. Many of these companies also have historical ties to ‘partner countries’ in the Global South, dating back to colonial times.
A new version of the Berlin Conference on the division of Africa
“If you really want to know which companies are active where, just look at who the colonial powers are,” said Paul Okumu, head of the African Platform secretariat, at the same conference. “Germany still wants to do projects in its former colonies. In my country [Kenya], the British are still in control.”
For Okumu, the link between the projects selected by the Global Gateway and the companies’ countries of origin is reminiscent of the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), when European powers carved up Africa. “Basically, what we are doing is Berlin 2.0: dividing the continent into different countries and allocating projects to them,” he argued, suggesting that European countries are repeating the colonial process under the guise of the Global Gateway.
The issue of Africa’s division among imperialist countries in the 19th century, often referred to as the ‘Scramble for Africa,’ seemed to have been resolved with the Berlin Conference. Yet, the decisions made there did not prevent the colonial powers from clashing over their territorial ambitions.
Concerns about deepening debt and inequality
NGOs are concerned that the Global Gateway initiative could exacerbate the debt crisis in some countries.
“We analyzed [this fund’s partner countries] and found that 29 out of 37 are highly indebted poor countries,” said Alexandra Gerasimcikova, co-author of the report and head of policy and advocacy at Counter Balance. “Such projects are really risky,” she added, warning that they could further increase the debt burden on countries already facing serious financial challenges.
Commission representative: Grants alone cannot eradicate poverty
The question of whether loans or grants are the better form of financing sparked a debate between the European Commission representative and the civil society organizations at the report’s presentation.
According to Marlene Holzner, head of unit in the Commission’s Directorate-General for International Partnerships, the Global Gateway seeks new approaches, such as involving the private sector and banks in supporting the development of countries in the ‘Global South.’
“For the last 50 years or more, we have not been able to reduce poverty with the traditional approach of ‘I give you a grant, you get a gift, you don’t have to pay it back.’ […] We need to change our perspective. The Global Gateway is designed to be a paradigm shift, and we are acting based on what we have learned.”
Proposal for a new ‘Marshall Plan’
Criticizing the lack of political will to address global poverty, Sial proposed a new reconstruction plan modeled on the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe after World War II.
“In my view, the Marshall Plan was based on grants and soft loans, and that is what got Europe back on its feet,” Sial said. “If we really want to make such an offer to the world, I believe it is possible. The money is there, and we can do it.”
Global Gateway criticized for ‘protecting Europe’s strategic interests’
However, the idea of Marshall Plan-style funding did not garner unanimous support from all NGO representatives.
“In this room, we glorify grants. But there is nothing more absurd than giving me $70 billion and taking $480 billion from my continent,” said Okumu.
He argued that the problem lies in the fact that the ‘development fund’ primarily serves to protect Europe’s strategic interests and maintain the competitiveness of its companies. “When you look at policies like the Critical Commodities Act and the Green Deal, they fit perfectly into the Global Gateway,” Okumu noted.
