On the record

“Global Gateway does not bring new financial means — there is no additional money when it comes to the EU level.”

“There's no new money in the Global Gateway. And I've always held the view that if there's no new money, there's no new policy. This is a communications exercise — 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.”

“The European Union has become untethered from its treaty origins. The treaties require the primary aim of development policy should be poverty eradication, but we are applying a lot of our focus, our time, our energy, on investment in infrastructure, on leveraging private sector investment, into middle-income countries.”

“The European Parliament deplores the lack of clarity and transparency regarding the funding track record and how the figure of EUR 306 billion was reached; project selection has followed an overly centralised top-down approach without sufficient involvement of stakeholders… the concept and criteria for Global Gateway projects have remained unclear for both Member States and partner countries. Members of Parliament regret that the preference laid down in Article 12(2) of the NDICI-Global Europe Regulation for joint programming and implementation between the Commission and the Member States has not been successfully applied, and has been replaced by looser Team Europe cooperation… Global Gateway is an overly Commission-driven, centralised, top-down structure limiting responsiveness to partner countries and private sector needs and weak ownership by local actors. The selection of flagship projects does not yet follow transparent criteria.”

“Parliament is concerned by reports that a number of Global Gateway projects are being implemented by Chinese companies in direct violation of the initiative's objective of presenting an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative and creating genuine national value in partner countries; calls, therefore, for an immediate investigation into the involvement of all Chinese companies in the Global Gateway. There are risks of exacerbating inequality and conflict, including in fragile contexts — in particular large infrastructure projects such as hybrid power plants, hydrogen projects, lithium mining, data centres, port expansions, airports and transport corridors.”

“There is no clarity as to the extent to which the Global Gateway continues to be fully part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, a shared G7 commitment to support public and private investments in sustainable, inclusive, resilient and high-quality infrastructure. Global Gateway projects should avoid worsening debt or creating new 'debt-traps'. Parliament regrets that the Global Gateway Board, despite plans for annual meetings, has only met twice so far, in December 2022 and October 2025, and with limited scope for in-depth analysis and discussion or steering of future actions and projects. The Global Gateway should be changed from a top-down to a demand-driven approach… studies and investigations into external investments have sometimes found limited evidence of local benefits, including for SMEs and communities in partner countries.”

“The Global Gateway current set-up has not been conducive to Parliament exercising its scrutiny duties or contributing to parliamentary diplomacy.”

“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. It was sold as a viable alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — an alternative driven by values, like transparency and sustainability. It has not gone beyond just words.”

“The European Union is good at financing roads, but it does not make sense for Europe to build a perfect road between a Chinese-owned copper mine and a Chinese-owned harbour.”

“Europe's dealing with Africa is characterised by a continuous trend of instrumentalising EU development aid for the purposes of pursuing European economic and security interests, and "protection" against real or perceived threats emerging from neighbouring countries.”

“Look closely and you will see a close link between the Lobito Corridor and Europe's mapping of critical raw materials. Its key interest is to use it to transport minerals and materials from Angola, the DRC and Zambia all the way over to the EU and the US.”

“The GG investments are Europe's bid to win over the African nations by building transport corridors which encompass airports, railways, roads and ports — critical infrastructure for bolstering national economic progress… eight of the above-mentioned 18 countries have huge troves of critical mineral reserves, the most in any African region.”

“The EU hopes that like the Lobito Corridor's MoUs, African stakeholders involved in these projects will agree to export critical minerals or the processed products thereof, to the coasts of Europe and its allies. This will bolster the EU's energy security agenda and reinforce its geo-economics position vis-à-vis the showdown with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.”

“Over the years, the EU has instrumentalised its international development policies to suit a combination of foreign policy and commercial interests. The geopolitics of the Global Gateway relies on the promise of financing an initiative that is qualitatively superior to the Chinese-led BRI. The Gateway's added value is said to rest on democratic values, high standards, good governance and transparency. However, our research has thrown into question many of these bold claims and instead raises many questions about the real story behind the rhetoric.”

“The redirection of development funds to achieve commercial competitiveness and geopolitical objectives goes against the principle of international development as a publicly-funded good for poverty alleviation. It is not clear how the Global Gateway's ambitious proposal for global connectivity demonstrates development.”

“An alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Gateway was to be a 'template for how Europe can build more resilient connections with the world'. The Global Gateway has been criticised for many reasons, including that rather than raising a lot of new cash for international partnerships, it repackaged many funding streams that already existed in the EU budget.”

“The Global Gateway is a chimera. What is being hailed as a new flagship strategy and paradigm shift for the EU is essentially a continuation of approaches and projects from recent years. The Global Gateway initiative is known for its lack of both transparency as well as targets and metrics.”

“With this strategy, the EU is pursuing a geopolitical, geoeconomic, and geostrategic approach clear on advancing European interests. The frequent claims announcing a shift away from a "donor-driven approach" to a "partnership-based relationship" are hardly realized. In essence, the Global Gateway is continuing down a well-trodden path: the financialization of developmental policy.”

“In the late 1990s, Western academia and policymakers had deemed Africa the 'Lost Continent.' Today, as the world runs out of essential natural resources, the West has no option but to enhance economic ties with African countries and turn the 'Lost Continent' into the 'Land of Opportunity.'”

“Both the Global Gateway and the China Belt and Road Initiative (partly) aim for de-risking, and both practice mercantilism to secure critical raw materials and energy. The difference is that Brussels admits to de-risking while Beijing does not. De-risking speaks more to the EU's own interests than to those of the partner countries.”

“Currently, Brussels is building the Trans-African Corridor connecting southern Democratic Republic of Congo and northern Zambia with a port in Angola. This project is only enriching the European and not benefitting the local society.”

“The Global Gateway promotes the EU's commercial and geopolitical interests, encourages the privatisation of infrastructure and public services in the energy sector in the Global South, and risks increasing the debt burden of partner countries. A question arises as to whether the priority of the Global Gateway is to enable EU investments globally or to fight poverty and inequality worldwide.”

“The Global Gateway was unilaterally introduced by the European Commission and the High Representative, excluding Global South countries from its design, governance, and priority-setting process from the start. Elected bodies, civil society, and independent experts in recipient countries have no meaningful role in decision-making or accountability.”

“Business trips, missions, and activities focused on supporting EU corporate interests related to Global Gateway projects should not be financed by the EU development budget.”

“The Global Gateway doesn't provide mechanisms for meaningful engagement with developing countries despite 'partnership' claims, while the rules are primarily dictated by the EC and EU Member States who hold decision-making power and control over how resources are allocated.”

“The emphasis on green hydrogen projects, influenced by the EU Global Gateway, raises fears of exploitation and the creation of sacrifice zones. There is apprehension that our renewable energy resources might be used for the benefit of the Global North, echoing historical patterns of resource extraction and colonisation that prioritise profit over our citizens' needs.”

“To date, the CSO/LA Platform's mandate on paper is not effectively translated into action and the body is not adequately embedded in the governance and oversight of the Global Gateway. A coordination mechanism between the Global Gateway's various governance bodies is yet to be put in place despite repeated requests from the Platform's Steering Group to meet with other governance bodies such as the Global Gateway Business Advisory Group (BAG). Beyond coordination issues, stakeholders cannot expect follow-up actions or responses from those responsible to points raised regarding the Global Gateway strategy and its implementation, as no mechanism for accountability exists. The Platform is not involved in the orientation of the strategy, selection of projects, nor in their design, implementation, or monitoring.”

“Yes, Europe is a garden. We have built a garden. Everything works! … That the rest of the world… the rest of the world is a jungle. And the jungle could invade the garden and the gardeners should take care of it… You know that to protect the garden, the gardeners have to go to the jungle.”

“When the highest diplomat of the European Union compares Europe to a garden, but especially the rest of the world to a jungle, the message these people hear is that Europe is still driven by colonialism. We cannot let that pass.”

“While EU leaders keep talking about a "partnership of equals," their stated intention of including local partners in projects is inherently patronizing. Africans have grown increasingly resentful of the paternalism of aid and institutional design produced by so-called experts in Washington or Brussels. Both issues concern the age-old knowledge problem (not to mention skewed incentives) of outsiders when they bypass local stakeholders.”

“…the Global Gateway initiative appears to continue the trend of using EU development aid as a tool to advance European economic and security objectives, focusing on "protection" from real or perceived "threats" originating from neighbouring countries. (Furness and Keijzer 2022, 3) This raises the question of to what extent Global Gateway differs from traditional European development aid, and what implications this has for the African recipient countries…it is a reframing and consolidation of European development finance—not a separate pot of additional aid.”

“Despite paying lip service to local added value, these new European investment projects are not designed to support local productive capacity, include African companies, transfer technology and know-how, or create quality jobs. For instance, international and Kenyan trade unions estimated that a Global Gateway-branded project planning a roll-out of the electrified bus rapid transport system in Nairobi risks affecting half of the around 70,000 people working in the current local transport system. At the same time, the project will likely ensure buyers for European-made electric buses financed by European “development” loans.”

“To put it bluntly, Global Gateway is about persuading countries in the Global South to take up loans for projects that they do not need, for supposed benefits that they will not have. All of this conveniently allows the European countries to perpetuate centuries-old strategies rooted in exploitation, as well as to avoid reforms around debt to trade justice that would genuinely free up resources for the Global South countries.”

“The Council's claim that the Global Gateway is a "positive and comprehensive offer" is a dangerous contradiction. By attempting to merge partner-country priorities with the EU's geostrategic interests — like securing raw materials and competitiveness for European industry — is simply rebranding EU corporate self-interest as development cooperation.”

“Civil society organisations remain concerned about the lack of development additionality and due diligence in the use of guarantees and blending under the Commission's approach. The heavy reliance on private-sector mobilisation has led to the neglect of essential sectors that are central to sustainable and inclusive development, such as universal public services, care systems, and social infrastructure. Without strong additionality requirements, there is a serious risk that EU support will fail to mobilise the needed investments and subsidise the private sector with little or no contribution to partner countries' sustainable development priorities.”

“There are deep concerns over the growing dissonance between the European Union's stated commitment to a human rights-based approach (HRBA) in external action and the practical implementation of the Global Gateway strategy. The Global Gateway's emphasis on large-scale infrastructure and investment must not come at the cost of human rights, social equity, or democratic accountability. The Critical Raw Materials (CRM) partnership in Rwanda is linked to well-established violations of human rights and conflict. Civil society groups in North African countries — Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco — also sound the alarm on green hydrogen projects under the Global Gateway that are export-oriented and driven by EU interests, threatening human rights, sovereignty, local communities and environmental justice.”

“The persistent lack of attention to technology transfer and capacity building undermines opportunities for local value creation. Without a genuine shift towards projects that respond to partner countries' development priorities and deliver tangible local benefits, supported by meaningful technology transfer and knowledge sharing, the Global Gateway risks entrenching existing asymmetries rather than fostering equitable and sustainable partnerships.”

“The Global Gateway risks reinforcing a neocolonial model of development, one that prioritises EU geopolitical and economic interests over human rights, democratic ownership, and the real needs of communities on the ground.”

“Since 2023, the Council of the EU has itself developed Global Gateway Project criteria with a clear geoeconomic imprint. The very first substantive criterion is that projects should be a 'response to the strategic interests of the EU, including the stakes of addressing disruptions in European supply chains.'”

“Most of the energy projects have an export-oriented focus, either involving trade in green hydrogen and derivatives (e.g. methanol or ammonia) or renewable electricity. A clear example is the 'Southern hydrogen corridor connecting North Africa', consisting of a 3,300 km hydrogen pipeline corridor linking Algeria and Tunisia with the EU via Italy, Austria and Germany. The project is implemented by four EU-based companies, including the Italian and Austrian Transmission System Operators, SNAM and TAG, and is recognized as a Project of Common European Interest (PCI). On the website of the consortium, the project is presented as serving the goal of improving the EU's 'security of supply' and deliver 'more than 40% of the REPowerEU import target (of hydrogen).'”

“The eligibility criteria for becoming one of the members of the Global Gateway Business Advisory Group (BAG) reflect EU geoeconomic considerations, as they explicitly exclude third-country companies. The BAG is restricted to companies 'headquartered in the EU and under the EU control with a specific contribution and adherence to the EU interest and values.'”

“The geopoliticization of infrastructural policy under the Global Gateway clashes with the principles of EU development policy and the norm of untied aid, whereby aid should first and foremost serve the goal of poverty eradication and sustainable development, rather than EU commercial or geopolitical interests per se.”

“The use of infrastructural investment to promote own technological leadership and autonomy stands also in tension with the EU's self-professed goal of fostering a fast and just global energy transition, which would require a focus on technology transfers and creating value in partner countries.”

“In an international context where major economies prioritize building their own resilience and tech leadership, clean-energy infrastructures may also become an instrument of green colonialism, or just another way in which developed countries exploit and perpetuate asymmetric power relations with developing ones.”

“The Global Gateway is a visible attempt by the European Commission (in coordination with the Member States) to develop bureaucratic capacity and institutionalization of relations with EU-based business actors to further EU geoeconomic objectives. Such an institutional set-up would reverse the logics of the EU's long-standing focus on implementing the principles of Policy Coherence for Development.”

“The Global Gateway promotes privatization and liberalization. In the energy sector, this means more opportunities for European enterprises to construct renewable energy projects,such as solar power plants, backed by European development funds to compete with much cheaper Chinese alternatives.Many renewable energy and hydrogen projects are designed to serve as energy imports for Europe, more than delivering affordable renewable energy for local communities. All the while, the African continent is facing an energy shortage, with 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone having no access to electricity. This includes the construction of SouthH2 Corridor, a 3,300km hydrogen pipeline from North Africa to Germany and Italy. Promoted during Europe’s energy crisis in 2022 under the guise of “energy security” and backed by its fossil fuel companies, the Global Gateway’s flagship project will exploit African land, water, and labor to feed Europe’s energy greed.”

“EU Values contradict with its actions With the memorandum of understanding signed between the European Union (EU) and Rwanda to promote the development of “sustainable” and “resilient” value chains for raw materials, also known as conflict or blood minerals, the European executive is not only reaching the height of cynicism in terms of geostrategy, but is once again illustrating a policy of double standards that undermines the credibility of international institutions. The conflict that has been going on in the east of the DRC for almost 30 years — the deadliest since the World War II —and the link between the exploitation and illegal trade in minerals is recognized as a root cause of violence and serious human rights violations. Rwanda’s involvement in the destabilization of the DRC, the plundering of its natural and mineral resources, and the commission of the most serious crimes, including the use of sexual violence as a method of warfare and as a strategy of terror, is widely documented, notably by the United Nations… the European Commission’s policy and the strengthening of this strategic partnership with the dictatorial regime in Kigali appear to be in total contradiction with the principle of coherence and the fundamental values of the EU Otherwise, the so-called green and clean energy transition will remain red with the blood of Congolese women and children, and tainted by the criminal activities of armed groups. We hope that Europe’s peace-loving and socially-just citizens will heed this call and change course at the next elections in June 2024. – Dr. Denis Mukwege, Nobel Peace Prize Laurette and Founder Panzi Foundation ”

“matters related to decision-making should be addressed and streamlined. The process whereby flagship initiatives are determined by the Commission/European External Action Service (EEAS) and its member states remains opaque, with the public finding out about decisions made by means of long lists of project titles”

“An initiative that contributes to the development of emerging market and developing countries.”