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.

The leaders of two of Germany’s rising political parties, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), faced each other live for the first time.

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel and BSW leader Sahra Wagenknecht appeared on the WELT program “Duel” for a 65-minute debate. They discussed various topics, from the war in Ukraine to attitudes toward Israel, the migration crisis, and relations with neo-Nazis.

Wagenknecht reacted sharply to Weidel’s characterization of the BSW as “useful idiots of the old parties” and “shovel holders” for the establishment. “I find that despicable and offensive,” she replied.

Weidel’s ‘establishment’ attack on Wagenknecht

“You, as people will soon realize, won’t bring real change,” Weidel countered, referring to ongoing coalition talks in the eastern states.

While the AfD leader acknowledged Wagenknecht’s years of political experience and the possibility of dialogue “across party lines,” she added that Wagenknecht was a “dove of the old parties” and would not form a coalition with the AfD but rather with other parties.

Wagenknecht also drew a clear distinction between herself and the AfD’s leader in Thuringia, Björn Höcke, who is known for leading the ethno-nationalist (völkisch) faction of the AfD, which includes neo-Nazi elements.

BSW leader criticizes Björn Höcke and neo-Nazism

“I find it very frightening,” Wagenknecht said, quoting from Höcke’s books, The Politics of Benign Cruelty, The Politics of Large-Scale Repatriation, and Progressive Africanisation. She emphasized that while controlling “uncontrolled immigration” is also a BSW policy, the idea of deporting immigrants who have lived in Germany for decades and integrated into society is “horrible.”

When asked to rate Weidel’s political stance “on a scale of one to ten,” Wagenknecht replied “maybe a six.” She noted that Weidel represented “conservative positions” with a “strong market orientation,” calling her the “attractive face” of a party largely dominated by the “Höcke wing.”

Summing up her view of Weidel, Wagenknecht said, “You can’t form a coalition with people who are mired in neo-Nazi swamps.”

Wagenknecht: ‘I am not a communist’

In response, Weidel accused Wagenknecht of once being a member of the “communist platform glorifying Stalinism” within her former party, Die Linke. Weidel added that this platform supports the economic models of Cuba and Venezuela.

While Wagenknecht advocated for providing loans for infrastructure investment, Weidel argued for enforcing Germany’s constitutional “debt brake,” calling instead for austerity measures in social spending and insisting that benefits should no longer be paid to foreigners.

The moderator attributed these differences to their “different socializations,” pointing out that Wagenknecht grew up in East Germany and Weidel in East Westphalia. Wagenknecht firmly responded, “Don’t call me that. I’m not a communist.”

Similarities and differences on migration

On the topic of “reverse migration,” Weidel clarified that it referred to “enforcing the laws of the country,” and distanced herself from AfD leaders advocating the deportation of “millions.” She spoke instead about increasing the pressure for assimilation and emphasized that asylum is a “temporary stay,” not a pathway to permanent immigration.

Weidel argued that those who obtained German citizenship “fraudulently” should lose it, and she called for “qualified immigration according to strict criteria,” similar to the Canadian system. However, some AfD leaders have proposed that even those with German passports could be forced to leave if deemed insufficiently integrated.

Weidel also defended Höcke, mentioning that he had previously debated the CDU’s Thuringia candidate, Mario Voigt, and argued that “reverse migration” could also mean encouraging Germans abroad to return home.

Consensus on Russian energy

On the Ukraine-Russia war, Wagenknecht defended Germany’s use of Russian gas, calling the sanctions against Russia an “own goal” and advocating for a “negotiated peace.” Weidel agreed, noting that these had been long-standing AfD positions.

Wagenknecht targets AfD’s stance on Israel

On foreign policy, however, the two leaders diverged over Israel. Wagenknecht criticized the AfD for unilaterally siding with the Israeli government in the Middle East conflict, describing Gaza as an “open-air prison” and accusing the Israeli army of war crimes. “You cannot fight terror with terror,” she said, and argued that a “just peace” must involve a two-state solution.

Weidel, on the other hand, defended Israel’s “right to self-defense” and highlighted “Muslim anti-Semitism,” insisting that the AfD would not tolerate “Krawallbrüder” (hooligans) in Germany. She also argued against arms sales to Israel, warning that such sales would deplete Germany’s own military reserves.

Wagenknecht pointed out that the BSW had previously tabled a motion to stop arms sales to Israel, which the AfD did not support.

Trump: Weidel’s US presidential candidate

During the debate, the two politicians were also asked about the upcoming US elections. Weidel expressed her clear preference for Donald Trump, saying, “Sometimes he can be very sharp in his statements, but he has made good policies.” She praised Trump’s economic approach in particular.

Wagenknecht, however, said she was relieved not to be voting in the US election. “Trump is crazy, and Harris will continue her war policies,” she said, expressing dissatisfaction with both candidates.

Germany is facing a two-year recession for the first time since the early 2000s, prompting the government to slash its 2024 growth forecast for the Eurozone’s largest economy.

If Economy Minister Robert Habeck’s forecast for this year is correct, Germany will experience a two-year recession for the first time in more than 20 years, after output shrank by 0.3 percent in 2023. In 2002, the economy contracted by 0.2 percent, followed by a 0.5 percent decline in 2003.

“The economic conditions are currently unsatisfactory,” Habeck said on Wednesday. “But we are in the process of finding a way out of this situation,” he added.

The minister argued that Germany has made “real progress” in recent years in addressing the “short-term” factors—rising inflation, high interest rates, and surging energy costs due to the war in Ukraine and subsequent anti-Russian sanctions—that have depressed output.

However, Habeck pointed out that longer-term structural issues, such as “Germany’s serious skills shortage,” years of underinvestment in infrastructure, and excessive bureaucracy, continue to hold back growth.

Habeck, who also serves as vice-chancellor, predicted that GDP would shrink by 0.2 percent this year, a sharp downgrade from an earlier forecast of 0.3 percent growth.

With energy prices falling, ministers and economists had initially hoped the economy would see a temporary recovery this year. But a steady stream of pessimistic data in recent months has clouded the outlook. “The recovery has been postponed once again,” Habeck said.

Citing high labor and energy costs, a heavy tax burden, and political uncertainty, some companies are considering moving production to cheaper countries, raising fears of deindustrialization in Europe’s largest economy.

Despite these concerns, Habeck expressed cautious optimism that the economy would begin to recover next year, as lower inflation and easing interest rates, combined with rising real wages, are expected to boost consumer spending.

The minister suggested that “in the last three to four quarters, people have started to feel wealthier again.”

Habeck’s ministry expects the economy to grow by 1.1 percent in 2024 and 1.6 percent in 2026, driven by stronger private consumption, increased investment, and rising international demand for industrial goods.

However, Habeck emphasized that Germany’s economic challenges run much deeper, noting that the two pillars of the country’s success—cheap Russian gas and well-functioning global markets, both critical for a leading exporter like Germany—no longer exist.

According to Habeck, the first pillar has been undermined by the war in Ukraine, while the second has been destabilized by China’s “aggressive export strategy” and rising U.S. protectionism.

“Half of Germany’s growth has always come from exports, and this pillar is now under threat. We have essentially not grown at all since 2018,” Habeck said.

Despite his cautious optimism about short-term improvements, the Green minister suggested that Germany’s long-term growth potential remains low.

“Even if we did everything right—reduced bureaucracy, had the necessary skilled workers, and secured the needed capital—we would only be looking at a growth potential of about 0.6 percent,” Habeck said.

He attributed this to “the failures of past decades, not just the past few years,” pointing out that successive governments had not invested enough in infrastructure, digitalization, and the mobilization of skilled labor.