This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
BRUSSELS: The European Commission unveiled on Wednesday a plan to invest €300 billion ($340 billion) globally by 2027 in infrastructure, digital and climate projects as a better alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The scheme, called Global Gateway, is to strengthen Europe’s supply chains, boost EU trade and help fight climate change, focusing on digitalisation, health, climate and energy and transport sectors, as well as education and research. China launched its Belt and Road project in 2013 to boost trade links with the rest of the world and has been spending heavily on the development of infrastructure in dozens of countries around the world.
But EU officials say financing offered by Beijing is often unfavourable, not transparent, and makes some poorer countries, especially in Africa, dependent on China through debt. Unlike China, the EU would ensure local communities benefited from the infrastructure projects under Global Gateway and would also bring with it the private sector, for which EU involvement meant the investment was less risky, European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen said. “Indeed, countries... need better and different offers (to China’s initiative),” von der Leyen told a news conference, unveiling the EU scheme, which she called “a true alternative”.
EU money, in the form of grants, loans and guarantees, will come from the bloc’s institutions, governments, as well as EU financial institutions and national development banks. It would be offered “under fair and favourable terms” so as not to leave governments of third countries with a debt problem, the Commission said. EU International Partnerships Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen said the amount of money the EU was spending on development aid was similar to China’s.
Read More