Paper short abstract:

This paper assesses the ‘China factor’ in the emergence of the EU's Global Gateway, documents EU-internal controversies around its strategic orientation and, focusing on its financial architecture, problematises neo-colonial continuities owing to the initiative’s capital circuits and spatial logics.

Paper long abstract:

Under the umbrella of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has consolidated its dominant position in various African markets, while having simultaneously enlarged its geo-political footprint on the African continent. The ‘West’ has since reacted with their own connectivity initiatives that have been framed as sustainable, more transparent, as well as high-quality and value-driven, alternatives to China’s BRI. This paper assesses the ‘China factor’ in the emergence of the Global Gateway, documents EU-internal controversies around its strategic orentations and, focusing on its financial architecture, problematises neo-colonial continuities owing to the initiative’s capital circuits and spatial logics.

Based on semi-structured interviews with Members of the European Parliament and staffers from various EU institutions, the paper first traces the origins of the Global Gateway initiative and reveals inter- and intra-institutional controversies that have characterised the EU-internal drafting process. The paper documents how decision-makers and technocrats have (re)interpreted the necessity of a global infrastructure initiative in the light of growing Chinese influence across the Global South. Pledged to receive half of total Global Gateway investments, Africa is at the heart of the EU’s emergent infrastructural interregionalism which aims at (re)integrating Africa into Europe-centric networks of trade, finance, production, consumption and technology. Focusing on the Global Gateway’s proposed financial architecture, specifically the usage of blended finance to reach enormous investment pledges intended to rival Chinese finance, the paper argues that the initiative risks to reinforce dependent patterns of capital accumulation (out of Africa) that stand in stark contradiction to Brussels' progressive partnership rhetoric.