1. Rooted in personalism
Christian Democratic support for DC is rooted in the concept of personalism and Christian social ethics of responsibility. These concepts include an empathetic attitude, respect for the dignity of every human being and a commitment to global responsibility in the fight against extreme poverty and violence. The guiding principles and goals of the Agenda 2030 and the comprehensive concept of sustainability it advocates, which seeks to reconcile economic, social and environmental sustainability, reflect this aspiration.
2. Alignment with self-interests and the principles of Social Market Economy
At the same time, Christian Democratic development policy also strives to strike a balance between global responsibility and pragmatic interest-based politics. It is committed to the principles of the social market economy, which include solidarity, but also freedom, personal responsibility and subsidiarity.
DC is therefore primarily about self-help – an approach that distinguishes the Christian Democratic approach towards DC from a social democratic or green approach. European DC should not (permanently) take on functions that should fundamentally be performed by the partner country itself. Direct budget support to third countries should therefore always be subject to particularly rigorous scrutiny.
The principle of subsidiarity also requires critical examination of who provides development aid and at what level of the partner country – not every problem needs to be solved at the multilateral or European level. At the same time, global public goods cannot be provided by national development support alone, but should be addressed at the European or global level (e.g. in the area of pandemic preparedness, many measures against climate change). Finally, greater attention must be paid to choosing the appropriate means: for many developing and emerging countries, traditional grants are now significantly less attractive than free trade agreements or loans.
3. European DC as part of a comprehensive approach in security policy
Development policy is also security policy. In line with the Christian Democratic comprehensive approach, an assertive EU foreign policy requires not only military strength but also a strategic development policy. A withdrawal of the EU from DC or a reduction in humanitarian aid would damage its reputation among international partners, especially as the EU is not yet in a position to replace any withdrawal with in-depth security partnerships. On the other hand, such a withdrawal threatens to increase fragility in these countries, thereby increasing security risks and migration pressure on the EU. DC does not exist in a vacuum and must be closely integrated with the EU's security, foreign, trade, raw materials and environmental policies, as well as its humanitarian aid. European DC can and should be part of the toolbox that contributes to stabilising fragile states, especially in the European neighbourhood. Close coordination is important, but so is a clear distinction between development projects and humanitarian aid.
4. Promoting democracy as a fundamental part of DC
Development aid should continue to promote the development of democracy and the rule of law in partner countries. On the one hand, this is to ensure that investments do not leak away due to corruption and poor governance. On the other hand, democratic countries are traditionally closer and more reliable partners of the EU on average. Authoritarianism is a major push factor for displacement and illegal migration. This does not mean that the EU should no longer cooperate with authoritarian countries, whether in DC or humanitarian aid. However, the EU should not support areas that directly or indirectly contribute to the perpetuation of authoritarian practices in partner countries – the added value and focus of cooperation should therefore be weighed up in each individual case. The EU's responsibility in promoting democracy internationally is all the more important given that the US, a strong partner in this area, is largely absent for the time being. A withdrawal by the EU from international democracy promotion would give authoritarian power centres such as Russia or China even more leeway in partner countries than they already have. Democracy promotion should focus primarily on core issues such as the separation of powers, the rule of law, the fight against corruption, the strengthening of representative political institutions and the implementation of commitments that the partner countries themselves have ratified. However, it can also play a role in combating more recent challenges, such as increasing disinformation.
5. An approach geared towards the needs of partners
The focus of DC and individual Global Gateway projects should be more closely aligned with the priorities of partners rather than with topics that are currently in vogue in European domestic discourse. This requires greater dialogue not only with partner governments, but above all with representatives from the business community in partner countries.
This also applies to the EU narrative: from a European perspective, Global Gateway is often seen as an alternative to China's BRI. At the same time, the EU should be wary of viewing its partnerships solely through the lens of EU-China relations. Instead, it is important to make it clear to partners that partnerships are sought for their own sake and not just as part of global de-risking strategies (i.e. international partners are not viewed solely through the prism of Russia or China).
6. A differentiated approach: EU DC is more than Global Gateway
European DC has a wide range of tasks (including providing global goods and strengthening resilience in fragile contexts in the immediate neighbourhood) that cannot all be addressed by a single instrument such as Global Gateway. Furthermore, Global Gateway is not equally interesting for all partner countries; some are more interested in capacity building or simply do not have the prerequisites necessary for many Global Gateway projects. Therefore, in addition to Global Gateway, there is still a need for “traditional” DC measures that require long-term commitment to bear fruit.
7. Strengthening private sector involvement
Strong involvement of the private sector from the EU and partner countries must also be a core element of Christian Democratic development cooperation at European level. The approach envisaged in Global Gateway, which places greater emphasis on private sector engagement and seeks to use DC to encourage European companies to become involved in partner countries, is therefore to be welcomed. However, this requires more regular dialogue with European companies, particularly when selecting and prioritising Global Gateway projects. Greater involvement of the private sector increases the likelihood that projects will be selected that are sustainable not only from a political and ecological perspective, but also from an economic perspective – while at the same time serving the economic interests of the EU. Greater involvement of the European economy will also strengthen the acceptance of European development cooperation among the population of the Member States.
Access to Global Gateway projects should therefore be more transparent for European companies – the application process for Global Gateway projects must also be simplified for SMEs. Global Gateway projects should - within the priority areas identified by the partner country - take into account sectors in which European companies are particularly competitive internationally.
8. Intra-European coordination
In line with the principle of subsidiarity, European Christian Democrats should advocate for stronger intra-European programmatic coordination to avoid redundancies on the one hand and, on the other, to prevent partners worldwide from being overwhelmed by the multitude of donors and requirements. Accordingly, the Team Europe approach must be strengthened. Complete Europeanisation of DC is still premature; the European Commission would be overwhelmed by such a task. Instead, EU member state should make better is of the diversity and sectoral strengths of their development policies.
9. Closer coordination with external partners
Particularly in regions of the world where other like-minded countries are also active – such as Southeast Asia – closer cooperation and coordination with them is needed, as is already happening between the EU and Japan in Vietnam. Accordingly, the EU should intensify coordination with countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan and Korea, especially in relation to Global Gateway.
10. Realistic expectations of EU DC
The EU’s DC and partnership policy is undoubtedly an important instrument for shaping European foreign policy. Nevertheless, expectations should not be overloaded. It is illusory to expect that DC alone will lead to a more cooperative attitude on the part of partner countries. Ultimately, DC and partnership policies can only bear fruit and strengthen the EU's influence if its objectives are not undermined by protectionist or rigid attitudes in other policy areas (failure to conclude trade agreements, external environmental policy intentionally or unintentionally overburdening third countries). Accordingly, policy coherence at EU level is also crucial for effective DC.
