The EU’s art of keeping people on the move as far away from Europe as possible while keeping legal responsibility at arm’s length. Officially described as partnerships with third countries to manage migration; unofficially, paying others to do Europe’s border control. 

Features include: 

• Borders relocated far beyond EU territory  
• Development aid replaced by migration enforcement funding  
• Legal accountability outsourced, democratic oversight lost   
• Human rights concerns acknowledged… then delegated 

Example: 

“The EU insisted it wasn’t closing its doors—it was simply building the capacity of neighbouring countries to improve migration management.” 

Translation: 

“The EU signed a new migration agreement, while reports of arbitrary detention and human rights abuses in the partner country piled up.”

When development cooperation is transformed from a tool for poverty reduction into a reward – or punishment – programme for migration control. Officially, aid and partnerships should support shared objectives. Unofficially, cooperation is increasingly measured by how quickly a government agrees to take back deported nationals and militarise its borders.  

Features include: 

• Threats of cutting aid rebranded as “policy incentives”  
• Aid budgets repurposed persuasion tools to promote migration control  
• Partner countries free to choose their own policies, provided they choose the ones Europe wants 
• High risk of deportations and human rights violations  

Example: 

“The country was encouraged to strengthen cooperation on returns in order to deepen its partnership with the EU.” 

Translation: 

“Nice development programme you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it… but surely nothing will, so long as you reduce migration to the EU”

Materials that suddenly become “critical” when Europe discovers it needs them for its green and digital transitions. Officially, they are essential inputs for strategic industries and clean technologies. Unofficially, they are the reason development cooperation has taken a sudden and passionate interest in the mining sectors of partner countries.  

Features include: 

• Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earths upgraded from commodities to geopolitical priorities 
• Resource extraction disguised as a development partnership 
• Local value addition discussed enthusiastically, usually after the extraction contracts 
• Strategic autonomy for Europe, development opportunities for everyone else. 

Example: 

“The EU’s new partnership aims to support sustainable development while ensuring secure access to critical raw materials.” 

Translation: 

“We need your minerals, but this time we’ll call it a win-win”

In theory, a replacement of old-fashioned donor-recipient dynamics with an equal partnership where both the EU and partner countries pursue shared interests. In practice, it means a partnership carefully designed in Brussels where everyone wins, but some win more than others. For example, poverty reduction is important but securing lithium for Europe’s green transition and externalising migration controls are much more important. 

Features include: 

• Development projects not funded unless they generate strategic returns for Europe 
• Critical raw materials, green transition supply chains, and geopolitical influence conveniently redefined as development outcomes 
• Partner country priorities fully respected, provided they align with EU priorities 
• Cooperation on migration management as a compulsory ‘shared’ priority 

Example: 

“The country requested support for rural development. The EU proposed a mutually beneficial partnership focused on critical minerals, renewable energy exports, and border management.” 

Translation: 

“Aid doesn’t serve the EU enough. Now development cooperation needs a business case”

After private-sector infrastructure projects are already built, the EU uses this “comprehensive framework” to justify them retroactively. Can often appear so holistic that nobody is sure where it starts, where it ends, or what it actually means in practice. Officially, it combines infrastructure investment with regulatory reforms, capacity-building, skills development, democratic values, gender equality, sustainability, transparency, and pretty much every other positive concept available in EU policy documents. 

Features include: 

• Infrastructure financing bundled with a complimentary package of policy advice  
• A convenient mechanism for attaching EU values to private-sector investment projects 
• Several mentions to “enabling environments”. You’d think it means democratic and civic space, but it refers to “soft” investments to attract the private sector. 

Example:
” First we build the railway, then design the framework to prove it was the right investment all along” 

Translation:
“This project made us money, so we pursued it. Now we need to come up with reasons why it was a good idea”  

When governments mix public money with private investment, but let private investors get most of the attention. Officially designed to attract additional funds into sustainable development projects; unofficially designed to make recipient countries pay for projects and take the blame for generating deb.  

Features include: 

• Grants replaced by financial engineering 
• Development assistance with terms and conditions longer than the project document  
• Public money absorbs the risk; private investors collect the profits 
• Civil society organisations, who once had a seat at the table, are invited to read the press release.  

Example:
“The community asked for a grant to improve local public services. The EU suggested blended finance and a discussion with international investors instead” 

Translation:
“You need money to build a bridge and connect local communities? Well, I can support

The EU’s flagship strategy for turning development cooperation into an investment portfolio. Officially described as a strategy to build “smart, clean and secure connections” around the world; unofficially, a €300 billion matchmaking service between European public money and private-sector profits. 

Features include: 

• Development priorities replaced by “bankable projects”  
• Civil society turned from an actor to a spectator  
• Official Development Assistance (ODA) rules treated as optional reading material 
• EU values secondary to whatever attracts investors 

Example:
“We were expecting support for local public health systems, but Global Gateway arrived with a risk-guarantee package for multinational infrastructure firms.” 

Translation:
“It’s not aid, it’s leverage. It’s not solidarity, it’s an asset class.”

The EU’s favourite budget buzzword for making long-term commitments, like gender justice and environmental protections, optional. Officially described as the ability to respond quickly to changing priorities; unofficially, a convenient way to redirect funding away from agreed objectives whenever the political winds shift. 

Features include: 

• Predictable funding redirected towards “emerging priorities” 
• Concrete spending targets replaced by vague mentions to “mainstreaming” 
• Democratic oversight delayed until after the decisions are made 
• Budget commitments treated as helpful suggestions rather than promises 

Example:
“Don’t worry, the budget still supports development priorities… it just has a bit more flexibility.” 

Translation:
“It’s not ring-fenced, there are no spending targets… we can redirect spending towards whatever’s politically convenient.”