INTRODUCTION
The 2010s and 2020s have been marked by intense geopolitical competition, not only in traditional military and economic terms but also in the realm of global development initiatives. Major global actors, such as China, the US, and Japan, have each presented and pursued infrastructure and economic investments aiming at expanding their economic and other interests.
The most prominent of all the global development initiatives is undoubtedly China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Launched in 2013, it almost immediately started channeling massive investments into roads, ports, railways, other physical infrastructure, and digital connectivity projects all across the globe. Three years later, the government of Japan responded to the BRI by partnering with the World Bank and establishing the Quality Infrastructure Investment (QII) Partnership aimed at providing grant support for infrastructure projects in developing countries, especially across Asia. The US did not remain idle either and, along with Japan and Australia, launched the Blue Dot Network aimed at providing “an internationally recognized certification for quality infrastructure projects” as well as the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative along other G7 countries, whose goal was to bolster global economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic era.
In view of these developments, the EU wished not to be left behind others, and on December 1, 2021, introduced its own development initiative, the Global Gateway. Although at first glance, it could seem like Africa, one of the EU’s traditional partner in the post-colonial era, is the primary focus of the initiative, the Global Gateway certainly does not forget about the strategic importance and increased geopolitical role of Asia.
UNDERSTANDING THE GLOBAL GATEWAY
From day one, the Global Gateway has been presented as the EU’s flagship initiative for global infrastructure investments, international cooperation, and economic connectivity. The first promises made by the EU within the framework of this initiative were quite optimistic. It promised to mobilize up to €300 billion in investments between 2021 and 2027. Further, unlike other programmes and initiatives that faced criticism for their lack of transparency or debt-creation (e.g., China’s BRI), the Global Gateway promised to differentiate itself by promoting sustainability, transparency, and mutually beneficial partnerships.
The Global Gateway is based on six principles: democratic values and high standards, good governance and transparency, equal partnerships, need for green and clean investments, focus on security, and catalyzing the private sector. Further, it aims at supporting the EU’s partners and closing the global investment gap in the areas of digital security, climate and energy, transport, health, and education and research. The examples of projects under the Global Gateway set for 2025, in the case of Asia, include investments in renewable energy infrastructure, digital transformation, and connectivity in Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines as well as programmes and commitments such as the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor in Central Asia.
All of the above principles and aims are to be pursued under the Team Europe approach, which means “joining forces so that the EU’s joint external actions becomes more than the sum of its parts.” However, this approach as well as the EU’s complex structures and its rigid code of conduct regarding the financing of the Global Gateway create obstacles for this initiative. Probably the biggest wave of criticism regarding this EU project has been related to the Gateway being “merely recycled old money already committed elsewhere by the EU and its member states,” which was said to further emphasize the EU’s “lack of fresh funds.”
This sheer perception has the capability of rendering the EU’s flagship initiative irrelevant in the eyes of its partners as there exists a presumption that the money spent in particular areas of development within the Global Gateway, would be spent in the exact same domains anyway, even if this initiative was not in place. The natural question following this presumption seems to be: is the Global Gateway needed at all?
It goes without saying that the EU has been trying its utmost to convince its partners that the answer to this question is affirmative. However, taking this into account, if we were now to compare the Gateway to the Chinese BRI, which has been presented and believed to be an entirely novel (yet tradition-preserving) concept, providing fresh and unconditional money to China’s partners, we can notice how competitive of an environment the EU has entered and currently operates in.
ASIA: A STRATEGIC BATTLEGROUND
Numerous experts are in agreement that in the 19th century, the world was Europeanized, in the 20th, it was Americanized, and the 21st century is going to be the Asian Century. This claim finds vast evidence in reality. For the last decades, this continent has been the home of the fastest-growing economies and both current (China) and potentially incoming (India) manufacturing powerhouses, the so-called World’s Factories. Recently, apart from being a global economic superstar, Asia and especially the Indo-Pacific have become a stage for a major geopolitical rivalry, this time between China and the United States.
Nonetheless, this region’s immense potential to further develop remains hindered by its poor infrastructure. In fact, the most recent data from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) show that “developing Asia will need to invest $13.8 trillion, or $1.7 trillion annually, in infrastructure from 2023 to 2030 to sustain economic growth, reduce poverty, and respond to climate change.”
Of course, it is predominantly initiatives such as Japan’s Quality Infrastructure Investment (QII) Partnership, China’s BRI, or ASEAN Infrastructure Fund that aim at providing the much-needed funding for Asia’s infrastructure. However, the EU, seeing the potential of the region and witnessing its growing importance, has also been whetting its appetite for a slice of the Asian cake.
THE GLOBAL GATEWAY IN ASIA
Unfortunately, the analysis of practical actions taken under the Global Gateway in Asia shows that the EU’s appetite for that region is much larger than its capabilities and determination to actually satisfy it.
The official factsheet on the Global Gateway investments in Asia and Indo-Pacific presents the reader with forty-two cases of EU projects and activities undertaken in these regions. At first glance, this number seems rather high. However, this perception slowly fades after delving deeper into the document. It is because many of the listed projects are not referring to any precise activity or project that the EU would be involved in. Thus, we are reading about the unspecified “support of the development, production and use of sustainable aviation fuels” or “boosting digital connectivity in the Pacific” and finally the “implementation of Team Europe Initiative on Green recovery in Nepal.”
Among the projects proposing concrete steps and measures, the absolute majority is devoted to the areas of climate and energy, transport, and digital development. Only two projects address the issues of health and four touch upon the domain of education and research, which creates a general perception of imparity of the focus devoted by the EU to these particular areas of the Gateway in Asia. It also creates an impression that the EU is mostly focused on investments that would provide it with concrete benefits and not on the ones that would enhance the areas of health or education and research of the local communities.
Lastly, instead of focusing on concrete ideas and measures to create a positive image of a pro-active entity in the eyes of its partners, the EU seems to prefer boasting about the numbers and figures allocated to its investments in Asia. However, as discussed above, not much comes out of these numbers or perhaps should I say, not much coming out of them is made visible to a broader public. Therein lies one of the main issues with the Global Gateway: its communication.
THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION
Before delving into the problem of communication surrounding the Global Gateway, a few acknowledgements are due.
First and foremost, it goes without a doubt that the EU is an immensely complex machine comprising 27 member states with separate capabilities and interests. Therefore, as stated before, the issues such as financing of the Global Gateway or shifting its priorities take place rather slowly and constitute arduous negotiation and institutional processes. However, even more importantly, since the introduction of this initiative in 2021, the world has changed. Most significantly for the EU, Russia’s full-scale aggression on Ukraine brought back the notion of territorial war to Europe and irrevocably changed the post-WWII geopolitical landscape of this region.
Russia is now perceived as a threat to the physical security of the EU, which is something that virtually all member states (with the exceptions of Hungary and Slovakia) recognize and are actively trying to address. In other words, the priorities shifted. The EU and its members are now focused not on spreading their influence in Asia by means of infrastructure investments but rather on increasing their military and defense spending. Not to mention the, perhaps less visible, but ongoing and costly efforts of decarbonization, which also remains one of the EU’s top priorities.
Whereas these factors could explain the EU’s current lack of strong initiatives under the Global Gateway in Asia, they certainly could not explain the EU’s negligent approach to the narratives and communication surrounding its flagship initiative. The narrative premises of the Global Gateway, which should help the EU “sell” it, hide its flaws, and promote it as truly groundbreaking, are simply too generic and shallow.
For example, the EU’s constant use of clichéd phrases such as “smart investments, quality infrastructure, highest social and environmental standards” as well as focusing mainly on the figures that are to be spent and invested under the Global Gateway instead of talking about the palpable projects that are to be carried out, connected with the lack of concrete actions, and even lack of concrete plans of actions, create an image of a “classic” European initiative: slow, immensely bureaucratic, overly regulated, and conditional. In two words, ineffective and unattractive.
What also stands out in the EU’s communication surrounding the Global Gateway is the fact that it does not seem to be trustworthy in terms of paying attention to its Asian partners’ perspectives, perceptions, and the actual needs of their local populations. The EU merely attempts at creating an illusion of doing so by stating that projects under the Global Gateway would be “based on the needs of our partners,” but such a statement is certainly too little to convince any of the Asian countries, still remembering the colonial era and the European rule and exploitation of their lands. It could seem then that the EU’s concern about its Asian partners’ needs could only be true if the details of those needs were to be determined by the EU itself, which would assume that it simply knows best what is good for its partners without necessarily consulting them.
To prove this, one could reach out all the way to Africa, where such perceptions of the EU also have a long-lasting and well-reasoned tradition. Therein, the EU could be seen as covertly forcing its interests under the guise of development, for example while pushing for regional integration in Africa. The EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements were considered unfavorable not just to job creation, but also to regional and continental integration. This perception has created negative reputational effects, particularly in Africa, which could extend further to areas where the EU would have the potential to be considered a beneficial actor, such as Asia.
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of its immense communication flaws, the Global Gateway in Asia is a bold and much-needed initiative that does have the potential to strengthen the EU’s influence on this continent, while promoting sustainable, transparent, and mutually beneficial infrastructure investments and networks.
So far, it represents the EU’s most significant attempt to offer an alternative to other initiatives, mostly China’s BRI, by promising to provide high-standard, climate-friendly, and economically viable projects. Unlike the BRI, which has been criticized for its lack of transparency, debt-creation, and preference for bilateral agreements, the Global Gateway prioritizes good governance, financial sustainability, and rules-based investments. In theory, this should have the potential to attract Asian countries looking for long-lasting international partnerships and long-term solutions of their infrastructure problems, rather than short-term politically driven actions. However, in this case, the sheer potential is not enough.
It is clear that vis-à-vis the Russo-Ukrainian war and climate change, the EU’s current priorities are security, defense, and decarbonization. It goes also without a doubt that due to its legal, political, and bureaucratic structures, the EU is not able to freely and flexibly introduce shifts into its initiatives taken under the Global Gateway, increase their budgets, or relocate their funding, which constitute means available to other state-actors, the likes of China. Nonetheless, what the EU does have full control over and is able to flexibly introduce changes to are the Global Gateway’s narratives and communication.
This initiative needs a strong narrative, one that could truly resonate with the EU’s Asian partners’ interests and perceptions. It must become a compelling and adaptable story that would move far beyond the typical EU’s rhetoric and better “sell” the initiative by emphasizing mutual benefits, local ownership, and economic opportunities. Instead of providing Asia with its rigid messaging, the EU should pursue a dynamic and engaging approach making it a trustworthy and responsive partner in terms of development initiatives and global investments. Only then will the Global Gateway truly shine and become an attractive alternative for the EU’s Asian partners.

Konrad Szatters graduated in English and Chinese Philology and European Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Silesia and the College of Europe in Natolin. His research focuses on strategic narratives in Chinese foreign policy, EU-China relations, and development initiatives. Currently, he is an Associate Researcher within the Jean Monnet Network project on EU heritage diplomacy in Ukraine. Previously, he worked at the Polish Embassy in Beijing, China, and the College of Europe in Natolin as an Academic Assistant. His work has been published in Rzeczpospolita, Gazeta Wyborcza, New Eastern Europe, Europe-Asia Studies Journal, and Central European Institute of Asian Studies.
czytaj więcej
We would like to inform, that Observer Research Foundation has published article of Patrycja Pendrakowska - the Boym Institute Analyst and President of the Board.
Patrycja PendrakowskaNew Female Prime Minister Faces Thailand’s Political Turmoil
Thailand, known for military coups, political downfalls, and dashed democratic hopes, has a new Prime Minister. Paetongtarn Shinawatra is not only the youngest elected Prime Minister in the country's history and the second woman to hold this post, but she is also a member of the Shinawatra political dynasty.
Andżelika SerwatkaLiquidation of the Polish colony in Manchuria (north-eastern China)
Ms. Łucja Drabczak - A Polish woman born in Harbin, she spent her childhood in China. She returned to Poland at the age of 10. She is the author of the book 'China... Memories from my childhood'. She contacted us to convey special family memories related to leaving Manchuria in 1949.
The strategic imperatives driving ASEAN-EU free trade talks: colliding values as an obstacle
Recently revived talks aimed at the conclusion of an inter-regional free trade agreement between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) are driven by strategic imperatives of both regions.
Robin Ramcharan80th anniversary of Indonesian Proclamation of Independence and 70th anniversary of Poland-Indonesia diplomatic relations. April 23rd, at 10:00 am, aula im. prof. Waldemara Michowicza, ul. Lindleya 5A, Łódź.
From quantity to quality. Demographic transition in China – interview with Prof. Lauren Johnston
What we observe in China is a population reduction strategy paired with the socio-economic transition. In my view it’s not a crisis, but it is a very challenging transition.
Lauren JohnstonThe unification of the two Koreas: an ASEAN perspective
The aim of the paper is to discuss the role of the ASEAN as a critical component of the solution to the Korean unification. The Korean Unification refers to the potential reunification of both Koreas into a single sovereign Korean state led by the leadership of the two Koreas.
Nicolas LeviThe North Korean nuclear dismantlement and the management of its nuclear wastes
Evidence suggests that North Korea stores its high-level nuclear waste (HLW) in liquid form in tanks on the same site where it is made, and has not invested in infrastructure to reduce, dentrify, or vitrify this waste. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg, one of many aspects of the North Korean nuclear waste problem.
Nicolas LeviOnline Course: “Conflict Resolution and Democracy”
The course will be taught via interactive workshops, employing the Adam Institute’s signature “Betzavta – the Adam Institute’s Facilitation Method“, taught by its creator, Dr. Uki Maroshek-Klarman. The award-winning “Betzavta” method is rooted in an empirical approach to civic education, interpersonal communication and conflict resolution.
India, China and the Shades of Grey
"We are at an inflection point in this century. Many of our traditional arrangements are failing. To achieve stability in this century we need to discover new solutions" - Interview with Samir Saran - Senior Fellow and Vice President at the Observer Research Foundation
Krzysztof ZalewskiWomen’s liberation in China: interview with prof. Wu Lijuan
Interview of Ewelina Horoszkiewicz with prof. Wu Lijuan - Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology at Peking University. Her research concentrates on the gender issues and social changes brought about by globalization. She wrote a book “Job Placements and Job Shifts in China: The Effects of Education, Family Background and Gender”.
Ewelina HoroszkiewiczSearching for Japan’s Role in the World Amid the Russia-Ukraine War
The G7 Hiroshima Summit concluded on May 21 with a communiqué reiterating continued support for Ukraine in face of Russia’s illegal war of aggression. Although Japan was perceived at the onset of the war as reluctant to go beyond condemning Russia at the expense of its own interests, it has since become one of the leading countries taking action during the war.
Rintaro NishimuraWe would like to inform, that Observer Research Foundation has published article of Patrycja Pendrakowska - the Boym Institute Analyst and President of the Board.
Patrycja PendrakowskaBook review: “Korean Diaspora in Postwar Japan – Geopolitics, Identity and Nation-Building”
Book review of "Korean Diaspora in Postwar Japan - Geopolitics, Identity and Nation-Building", written by Kim Myung-ja and published by I.B Tauris in 2017.
Nicolas LeviPatrycja Pendrakowska made it to the Top 40 under 40 Europe-India leaders list
#EuropeIndia40, an initiative of EICBI, covers the stories of leaders below the age of 40 and their contributions to promoting EU India / UK India relations.
Saudi ‘Vision 2030’. How the Kingdom is using oil to end its economic overdependence on oil.
With the advent of clean energy technologies the Saudis realize they need to end their economic dependency on oil. ‘Vision 2030’ is a vast and complex plan that seeks to preserve Saudi Arabia’s regional power, economic prosperity, and - not the least - authoritarian rule in the post-oil future.
Jan KosińskiThe Adam Institute invites you to join us for a new engaging course, tailored to participants from Poland, taught on ZOOM.
Kyrgyzstan on the Path to Political Stabilisation
On 10 January, early presidential elections were held in Kyrgyzstan, following the resignation of the incumbent, President Zheenbekov. The atmosphere in which the vote was conducted remained tense. This had been the case since the results of the October elections were announced, in which the opposition grouping failed to win a single parliamentary seat.
Jerzy OlędzkiAfter the darkness of the Cultural Revolution, the times of the Chinese transformation had come. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping realised the need to educate a new generation of leaders: people proficient in science, management and politics. Generous programmes were created that aimed at attracting back to China fresh graduates of foreign universities, young experts, entrepreneurs and professionals.
Ewelina HoroszkiewiczChina – USA in the South China Sea
The trade war is just one of the problems of confrontation between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Many aspects of this competition coincide in the South China Sea.
Paweł BehrendtPolish-Asian Cooperation in the Field of New Technologies – Report
Polish and Polish-founded companies are already on the largest continent in sectors such as: IT, educational technology, finance, marketing, e-commerce and space. Despite this, the potential lying dormant in the domestic innovation sector seems to be underutilized.
Charitable activities of the Vietnamese in Poland: their scope and sources
The scale of assistance provided to medics by the Vietnamese community during the 2020 pandemic inspires admiration and gratitude. It stems from the sense of belonging to Poland and deeply rooted in the culture order to help those in need and repay the debt incurred at the time when they themselves needed such help.
Ewa GrabowskaRoman Catholic cemetery in Harbin (1903-1958)
First burials of Catholics, mostly Poles but also other Non-Orthodox believers took place in future Harbin in the so called small „old” or later Pokrovskoe Orthodox cemetery in the future European New Town quarter and small graveyards at the military and civilian hospitals of Chinese Eastern Railway at the turn of XIX and XX century.
Jerzy CzajewskiCoronavirus outbreak in Poland – General information and recommendations for entrepreneurs
Kochański & Partners and the Boym Institute engaged in delivering information about latest after-effects of COVID-19 pandemia, which has begun to spread in Poland during the past days.