China’s BRI and the EU’s Global Gateway in Southeast Asia

Conditional Engagement Versus Non-interference

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9646992
AutoresBrice Tseen Fu Lee (0000-0001-9763-0700, Fudan University, autor de correspondencia), Ignacio Vicuña Betancourt (Universidad del Desarrollo, autor de correspondencia), Juan Pablo Sims (0000-0002-9772-5563, Universidad del Desarrollo, autor de correspondencia), Linh Dieu Dinh (London School of Economics and Political Science), Linh Dinh (0000-0002-0948-991X, London School of Economics and Political Science, autor de correspondencia), Yun‐tso Lee (0009-0000-8730-5357, Universidad del Desarrollo, autor de correspondencia), Yun-Tso Lee (Universidad del Desarrollo)
Año2026
Volumen62
Número1
Páginas33-52
Fecha de publicación2026-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaChina Report (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0009-4455 • E-ISSN: 0973-063X
EditorialSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/00094455251392166
OpenAlexW4416552691
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas50

This article explores the contrasting strategies of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the European Union’s (EU) Global Gateway in Southeast Asia, focusing on the principles of conditional engagement and non-interference. The BRI offers flexible financing with minimal political conditions, allowing recipient countries to maintain sovereignty over domestic affairs, but raising concerns over debt dependency and transparency. In contrast, the Global Gateway emphasises sustainable investments tied to governance reforms, human rights and environmental protections, which, while promoting long-term stability, can be perceived as interference by nations wary of external influence. Through a comparative analysis, this article examines the economic and political implications of both models, assessing their impact on infrastructure development, governance and sovereignty in Southeast Asia. By highlighting the advantages and drawbacks of each approach, the study addresses the broader question of how external powers can effectively engage in the region without undermining national autonomy. The findings suggest that while both initiatives offer significant benefits, their success depends on the specific needs and preferences of individual Southeast Asian nations

Corporate governance · Gateway (web page · Global governance · Human rights · Politics · Southeast asia · Sovereignty · Belt and Road Initiative · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Transboundary Water Resource Management