Euroviews. The EU's Global Gateway strategy's alleged weaknesses are actually its strengths

Scepticism of the European Union’s ability to execute big ideas is almost a cliché in foreign policy circles. 

Perhaps this is why media and talking heads have mostly dismissed or ignored Global Gateway, the EU’s ambitious €300 billion development financing strategy, or “connectivity” in Brussels parlance. 

The criticisms are familiar: Global Gateway is too small to be effective. It is burdened by bureaucracy and social and environmental standards.

Yet despite its slow start, sceptics would be unwise to write it off too soon. Just last December, the EU signed a landmark Economic Partnership Agreement with Kenya — the first with an African state since 2016 — aiming at closer cooperation in trade, investment and sustainable development. 

Today, Global Gateway is uniquely set up to succeed where other similar development financing initiatives have disappointed.

The geopolitical context of development finance has shifted substantially over the past decade. Once the undisputed leader in development financing, China quietly dialled back new Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments over the past four years. 

Meanwhile, demand for new infrastructure spending in developing economies remains at an all-time high. The global infrastructure financing gap over the next 15 years is estimated at $15 trillion (€13.7tn). 

With Global Gateway finally taking off, the EU is well-positioned to step in where China is stepping back—all while learning from China’s mistakes.

Before the BRI’s launch in 2013, only 5% of China’s overseas lending portfolio was allocated to countries in financial distress. 

By 2022, it had ballooned to 60%. Indeed, the list of countries trapped in bad BRI loans keeps getting longer. 

When China does agree to delay interest