In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping introduced his own project, the Belt and Road Initiative. In the context of this initiative, China has invested billions of dollars in infrastructure in various fields in many countries. In order to implement these projects, Beijing has also started to make agreements with countries and provide loans. The Belt and Road Project put forward by China aims to connect many regions from Asia to Europe and from the Americas to Africa. It has therefore been welcomed by the actors who stand to gain from it. While Beijing has lent and invested in many countries as part of the Belt and Road Project, these countries have provided and continue to provide many political and economic advantages. Moreover, according to official data released by China, Beijing’s investments in the 138 countries with which it has signed agreements between 2013 and 2020 are more than the 300 billion euros planned for the Global Gateway in seven years.[1] This figure is still insufficient both for the development of the project and for China. There are still many more investments to be made.
In such a period, the European Union (EU), although stating that it is not an alternative to the Belt and Road Project, has come up with a rival initiative when the amount of investments and loans to be made and its objectives are analyzed. Moreover, it can be said that the EU does not only want the project, which it calls the “Global Gateway”, to be an alternative to the Belt and Road Project, but also to be better than it.
The fact that the EU is addressing the Belt and Road Initiative by correcting its shortcomings is clear evidence of this. Rhetoric such as “good governance”, “transparency”, “alignment with democratic values”, “sustainable infrastructure” and “values-based approach” have been used by the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself to describe the system that the EU’s project aims at.[2]
This is considered to be a reference to the Belt and Road Initiative. This is because the Belt and Road Initiative does not meet the standards of environmental protection, transparency and good governance. Moreover, the problematic nature of the project is openly expressed by many countries that are in debt to China. The Global Gateway thus seeks to create an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative by revamping its poor standards. The document presented by the EU Commission on the project includes programs to combat climate change and promote digitalization, while also highlighting important principles such as equality and local communities benefiting from the projects.
As announced by the EU, the Global Gateway Project has an investment program worth €300 billion until 2027.[3] The project will be financed from EU programs, the European Investment Bank, the EU budget and funds transferred from member states. In the context of the project, many infrastructure investments are planned in Asia, Latin America and Africa.
The initiative aims to encourage investment in a quality infrastructure that connects goods, people and services around the world. Moreover, the Global Gateway seeks to connect institutions and investments, banks and businesses, and to set out a vision of positive cooperation in the 21st century. In this context, with the Global Gateway, the EU aims to integrate every region, including Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Arctic. This was first envisioned in the Belt and Road Initiative. However, the Global Gateway differs from the Belt and Road Initiative in one respect. This is to act in accordance with transparency, the rule of law, democracy and high labor standards, while protecting the environment, as mentioned above. For this reason, the Global Gateway, which is believed to be an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative, actually has some similar objectives to the Belt and Road Initiative.
Planned projects under the Global Gateway include hydrogen production in Africa, the construction of a new bridge between Jordan and the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and high-speed internet connectivity by laying a fiber optic cable across the Black Sea.[4] These projects are planned to be carried out by European companies and European support is planned to be provided to these companies against their competitors in the regions.
It is necessary to address whether the Global Gateway project can provide an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. First of all, the Global Gateway aims to develop a sustainable and environmentally sound type of infrastructure with high quality standards, but this will be an expensive undertaking. This is because infrastructure in developing countries and regions is very scarce. Therefore, the Global Gateway will need to allocate more budget to infrastructure projects. The Belt and Road Initiative, on the other hand, has succeeded in making important agreements in many countries, including Africa, because it focuses only on raw infrastructure without any other considerations. Many of the projects that China is implementing or signing agreements to implement are actually opening the door for countries in the region to do what they cannot afford to do on their own.
Like the Global Gateway Project announced by the EU, the so-called Build Back Better World (B3W) project put forward by the G7 countries, particularly the United States, has been considered as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road. However, the answer to the question of how both the Global Gateway and B3W projects will build high quality infrastructure at low prices and to exacting standards will determine whether they can be an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. As part of the Belt and Road Initiative, billions of dollars worth of infrastructure works have already begun in many countries, especially in Asia and Africa. Will it be possible to do so at low prices in line with the EU’s high requirements and standards set out in the Global Gateway? Moreover, the EU may not want to invest in developing economies on a non-profit basis. There will therefore be doubts about the future of the project. Already, one of the reasons why Western companies keep their investments in developing countries low is the lack of profit. Since the attitude towards profits will be reflected in strategies, it is very difficult for the Global Gateway to be an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative.
In addition, Chinese companies receive subsidies from Beijing for their work in the countries and regions through which the BRI passes, particularly in Africa and Asia, and do not focus on complying with the standards set by the EU. Therefore, they build infrastructure at more affordable prices. Therefore, it is not easy for projects like the Global Gateway to be an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative.
[1] Christoph Nedopil, “China’s Investments in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2020”, Green BRI Center, International Institute of Green Finance, Beijing 2021.
[2] Sébastian SEIBT, “With Its ‘Global Gateway’, EU Tries to Compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative”, France 24, https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20211203-with-its-global-gateway-eu-tries-to-compete-with-the-china-s-belt-and-road, (Date of Accession: 07.12.2021)
[3] “Global Gateway: up to €300 Billion for the European Union’s Strategy to Boost Sustainable Links around the World”, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6433, (Date of Accession: 07.12.2021)
[4] Ibid.
