What's new

1 year on, EU alternative to China’s belt and road fails to deliver

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,195
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China

1 year on, EU alternative to China’s belt and road fails to deliver​

  • Global Gateway has delivered little in concrete projects, while confusion reigns in Brussels and beyond about the initiative
  • Up to US$318 billion was promised to build infrastructure in Africa and Asia but it is unclear how much has been disbursed


Finbarr Bermingham in Brusselsand Jevans Nyabiage in Nairobi
Published: 11:00pm, 31 Dec, 2022

In December 2021, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stood on a Brussels podium and confidently announced that the European Union’s new infrastructure drive would be a “true alternative” to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

“We are able to do that. Countries made their experience with the Chinese investments. They need better and different offers,” she said of Global Gateway, a spending drive that promised to mobilise up to €300 billion (US$318 billion) by 2027 for modern infrastructure projects outside the EU.

With some blowback forming towards China’s trillion-dollar plan to connect China with the rest of the world after high-profile allegations of “debt-trap diplomacy”, both Europe and the United States were positioning to offer a different model, grounded in democratic norms, transparency of funding, and with sustainable objectives.

But one year on, observers are growing increasingly sceptical about von der Leyen’s claims.

So far, Global Gateway has delivered plenty of hype, but little in terms of concrete projects, while confusion reigns in Brussels and beyond about what the initiative actually is.
At a hearing in the European Parliament last month, lawmakers pressed officials for details, only to learn that none of the €300 billion would be “new”.

“Global Gateway does not bring new financial means – there is no additional money when it comes to the EU level,” said Vincent Grimaud, an acting director in the commission’s department for international partnerships.

The statement sparked incredulity from members of the parliament.

“There’s no new money. And I’ve always held the view that if there’s no new money, there’s no new policy,” said Barry Andrews, an Irish lawmaker with the centrist Renew group.

“This is a communications exercise. It’s a strategy to put together what was already going to happen and present it as something new. And if our partners are tricked by this, then more fool them.”

Hildegard Bentele, a German member from the centre-right European People’s Party, said she had been trying to find German companies who are “part of this adventure”, but had failed to locate any.
“If I talk to journalists, journalists are asking me what are these Global Gateway projects? If I go on the website of the European Commission, I do not find it – this is really difficult,” she said.

The commission’s efforts to promote the initiative have added to the bemusement.

A recent gala event held in the metaverse to explain the Global Gateway concept to 18-35 year olds was lampooned online after just a handful of users logged on – despite the EU forking out €387,000 (US$410,000) to host it.

“There is a massive drought in East Africa, UNHCR doesn’t have enough funds for food for refugees in camps, etc etc and THIS is what you choose to spend money on?,” wrote one Twitter user under an EU post about the event.

Of the €300 billion promised, it is unclear how much has been disbursed. A spokesperson for the commission said there was no central list of projects available, nor could they put a figure on total spend to date.

“We do not have a list of predefined Global Gateway projects and investments worth €300 billion at this stage, we are taking forward projects and flagship programmes with our partner countries under Global Gateway agreed on a rolling basis,” said Ana Pisonera, an EU spokeswoman.

In an interview with Politico this week, senior EU officials promised that projects would come next year.

“Once we will have rolled out much more substantially the concept of Global Gateway,” it will prove to be an ‘attractive’ option, exactly as Belt and Road has been seen with all the negativity, if I may, with all the problems that it was creating,” Stefano Sannino, secretary general of the European External Action Service, told the publication.

But analysts remain wary of the comparisons.

“I think it was a mistake to begin with, trying to compete with Belt and Road, because BRI was launched under completely different circumstances, by a completely different country who, at the time, sort of filled a vacuum, proposed a new model, and had capital,” said Francesca Ghiretti, a Brussels-based analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies.

“Even China today wouldn’t be able to compete with Belt and Road, so I think it was very unwise to begin with.”

Emmanuel Matambo, research director at the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for Africa-China Studies, said the EU had failed to “advertise as effectively” as Beijing.

“Europe is committed to its investment plans in Africa, but these are accompanied by clichéd attacks on China and other non-European players, thereby undermining the importance of European involvement and its intent in Africa,” he said.

At separate summits, Brussels has pledged €150 billion (US$159 billion) for investments in digital, green, and sustainable projects in Africa and €10 billion (US$10.6 billion) for Southeast Asia, but concrete details on the individual projects are difficult to find.

Rather than specific projects, the EU has published high-level summaries of the sorts of projects it would like to do.

Promotional materials for Global Gateway’s investments in Africa, for example, say the EU and member states will invest €1.6 billion (US$1.7 billion) in education and training “to meet emerging needs for Africa’s economic and social transformation”.

A further €970 million (US$1 billion) will go towards “youth mobility for Africa”, fostering intercontinental exchanges and “helping to strengthen Africa’s higher education space”.

Pisonera pointed to a recently completed modernisation of a stretch of highway in Kenya, which was built with €30 million (US$31 million) in EU grants, as an example of Global Gateway in action. A further €275 million (US$291 million) will come from the EU and development banks, including the European Investment Bank and KfW Development Bank, a German lender.

But the project predates Global Gateway, with officials confirming that rather than focusing on originating new projects, it would also bring existing ones – including those developed by EU member states – under one banner.

“I’m looking at this presentation today and it is a rebadging [exercise] and you know, from a geopolitical point of view, that’s fine. But don’t tell us this is something that it’s not,” said Andrews, the Irish MEP.
In Southeast Asia, the EU again cites “examples of investments” rather than specific projects. These include grid modernisation in Cambodia, sustainable irrigation in Laos, and a hydropower plant in the Philippines.

Asean leaders last week expressed ambivalence towards the projects, saying they preferred trade deals to handouts.

“Asean is not always waiting for help from the EU, but [we] need to see the complementarity of the economies of the two regions,” said Hun Sen, the Cambodian prime minister and chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, after a summit with the EU in Brussels.

“If we want to build a better partnership, the partnership must be based on equality,” added Joko Widodo, Indonesia’s president. “There must not be one who dictates to the other, and says our standards are better than yours.”

In Africa, disappointment has already set in after the EU failed to deliver on promises made at February’s summit.

In September, only one European national leader showed up at the African Adaptation Summit in Rotterdam, designed to raise funds for Africa’s climate adaptation projects, and that was Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Dutch hosts.

“This leaves a bad taste in our mouths. I am a bit disappointed, to be honest,” said Macky Sall, the African Union president, who was one of six African heads of state present.

W. Gyude Moore, a senior policy fellow at the Centre for Global Development, said that “it was never clear what was additional about Global Gateway”.

“It draws heavily on existing programmes and initiatives that would have moved forward even if Global Gateway did not exist,” said Moore, a former public works minister in Liberia.
“It was sold as a viable alternative to China’s BRI – an alternative that was driven by values like transparency and sustainability. It has not gone beyond just words.”

 
.
These European and American initiatives are containment measures, not intended to actually advance trade between nations. They might as well name it Global Cockblock.

It's funny how white men only cares about third world countries when China starts to show up.
 
.
China wants third world countries to develop to mid tier level economy and buy their made in China products or supply more material to China factories. Its a win win situation. While west wants third world to remain poor to starve out competitor and continue to exploit them.
 
.
China started BRI through the economic and development perspective, the west does it through the political perspective to contain China, their "alternative" was doomed to fail from day one.
 
Last edited:
.
These European and American initiatives are containment measures, not intended to actually advance trade between nations. They might as well name it Global Cockblock.

It's funny how white men only cares about third world countries when China starts to show up.
Hey, China is far ahead in securing presious resources. It is all a race to secure resources . No one is here for humanity.
 
.
Hey, China is far ahead in securing presious resources. It is all a race to secure resources . No one is here for humanity.
China go for win win situation. No Chinese will think we go there for charity but western power only think of they win and you are dead mentality. That is the different between China and western power.
 
.
China go for win win situation. No Chinese will think we go there for charity but western power only think of they win and you are dead mentality. That is the different between China and western power.
I am for win win proposals. All the best for Chinese soft power.
 
.
They can only deliver if they employ Chinese sub-contractors. Otherwise, a bridge which costs 1 billions to build if funded and constructed by China may cost 3 billions if funded and carried out by Western contractors. This is only about common infrastructures, not higher-tech areas like power plants (especially coal power plants). Not to mention project delay partly thank to work practice (8AM to 5 PM) of Western staff, and quality issues, partly thank to poorer supply chain compared to China. China suppliers virtually can supply all materials and equipment, while no single Western country can (the only exception is perhaps Japan).

If the staff just wait till 5 PM to turn off their computers and leave, one can be pretty sure that from 3:30 to 5:00 PM, they will do about nothing.
 
.
LOL I remember with how much funfare the Europeans and Americans were promoting their silk route to mostly developing countries. I guess it was just a silly attempt to distract the developing nations.

Of course the EU and US combined cannot rival Chinese OBOR undertaking. The EU and US have no interest in building infrastructure in developing nations.
 
Last edited:
.
Hey, China is far ahead in securing presious resources. It is all a race to secure resources . No one is here for humanity.
Of course, China is there to talk trade and business. Americans and Europeans go to third world countries to talk China. Not many in the West pay attention to these poverty stricken nations until China starts signing deals.
 
.
The EU and US have no interest in building infrastructure in developing nations.
This is the key point.

Remember US and its allies spent over $1trillion on the useless Afghan war, which did a full circle and put the Taleban back in power. Alqueda may not be there or is it? who knows. Imagine that kind of money being pumped on big infrastructure projects across these developing nations. It could have been american/european companies doing the building work with some local support so the spend wouldnt have completely left their sphere of control.
 
.
I think your posts highlight the reality of US / EU and India (their favorite today) as the perpetrator of 'narrative fake news' aka pretend news aka propagana news ..

US or EU have no capability , politically or economically or industrially to repair their own decaying infrastructure and they most certainly have no capability to do this world wide.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom