What to watch out for in Jozef Síkela’s approach to international partnerships

#
Jozef Síkela – Pool PEUE/Miguel Toña via EU2023ES, Flickr – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Authors

Jozef Síkela, commissioner-designate for international partnerships, will be heard by the European Parliament on Wednesday 6 November. Ultimately, the European Parliament hearings serve as a job interview in which candidates try to present the most balanced and favourable image of themselves. What should Síkela’s hearing clarify, and in which areas should members of the European Parliament hold him accountable if he secures the position?

% Complete

    We have carefully reviewed his written answers to the European Parliament’s questions ahead of his hearing. Overall, we found them more balanced and nuanced than recent communications from the European Commission, which is encouraging.

    But given Síkela’s background as a former Czech minister of industry and trade and an investment banker, civil society expressed concerns that DG INTPA’s focus on development cooperation might be compromised. Indeed, he will need to find a balance between modernising the EU’s international partnerships approach and maintaining the EU’s added value as a development cooperation partner.

    Síkela mentions that his “agenda would of course go beyond Global Gateway, which does not capture the full breadth of the EU’s international partnerships”. This is perhaps the most important line in his responses.

    In his written answers, Síkela mentions that his “agenda would of course go beyond Global Gateway, which does not capture the full breadth of the EU’s international partnerships”. This is perhaps the most important line in his responses. It recognises that the strategy is not applicable in all contexts and emphasises the need to focus on the most pressing needs in least developed countries, conflict areas or countries facing instability – in line with the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

    This has been a key concern regarding the ongoing implementation of the Global Gateway strategy in recent months. Policy analysts and practitioners, but also EU officials, pointed out that its strong focus on investments is challenging in fragile contexts with environments less conducive to the private sector. Indeed, as colleagues have argued, a more effective EU approach when it comes to fragile and conflict-affected states is long overdue. Furthermore, reducing the EU’s international partnerships and development cooperation to solely implementing the Global Gateway strategy could diminish the EU’s relevance and flexibility, while reinforcing the perception that it is entirely a self-interested actor.

    In his written answers, Síkela also recognises that “investing in human development across the life cycle should remain an essential and distinctive element of our offer”, which is in line with recommendations emerging from our research in 2023. DG INTPA will need to invest more in strategic thinking and communication regarding the ‘Global Gateway 360-degree approach’, which combines investments in infrastructure with those aimed at creating an enabling environment. According to Síkela, this comprehensive approach is what “sets Global Gateway apart”.

    As Síkela rightly acknowledges, “education and health are not just thematic priorities in their own rights – they are prerequisites for attaining the other Global Gateway goals and are embedded in them”. Education and health have not been a strong focus of the Global Gateway flagship projects so far. In 2023 and 2024, the sectors that received the greatest attention were climate and energy (49%), followed by transport (22%) and digital (13%), while education and health received the least focus, at 7% and 9% respectively.

    Members of the European Parliament should inquire how Síkela plans to strengthen the focus on human development within the Global Gateway. They should also ask what kind of changes are necessary to the EU’s external financial instruments to ensure they are fit for purpose in a new era while maintaining their objectives. With Jutta Urpilainen, human development had a strong advocate within the Commission and DG INTPA. To keep it prominent and prevent it from being overshadowed, the new commissioner will also have to prioritise, protect and support it. 

    While Síkela clearly acknowledges the changing geopolitical context, his answers in the hearing will be closely observed to see to what extent he will prioritise sustainable development, poverty eradication and the 2030 Agenda if he is confirmed as commissioner.

    While Síkela clearly acknowledges the changing geopolitical context, his answers in the hearing will be closely observed to see to what extent he will prioritise sustainable development, poverty eradication and the 2030 Agenda if he is confirmed as commissioner. The hearing should encourage him to elaborate further on the balance between EU interests and the needs and ownership of partner countries, as well as their most vulnerable populations. While there is a lot of talk about ‘win-wins’, it remains to be seen how those will be effectively realised.

    Relatedly, his statement that “the EU has to factor in the external impact of our internal policies, through proactive engagement with partners” will be a clear consideration moving forward. This approach will be crucial as internal and external policies become increasingly intertwined and the incoming Commission emphasises EU competitiveness and security. This has been a particular weak point in the EU’s policies related to the green transition in recent years.

    What is needed is a clearer definition of how different commissioners and directorates-general are expected to work together to ensure internal and external policies in different areas have a greater combined effect. The new Commission must go beyond merely acknowledging this issue and propose concrete steps and mechanisms to address the links between internal and external EU policies. Members of the European Parliament should also inquire what Síkela means by “mainstream[ing] geopolitical and geoeconomic considerations in the College’s policymaking”.

    Regarding Africa specifically, Síkela mentions “a well-functioning, mutually beneficial partnership of equals between Africa and the EU” as a priority for his mandate. This is a positive step forward, and particularly significant in a context where the EU-Africa partnership has suffered from a lack of trust and concrete progress in recent years. While a genuine ‘whole-of-EU’ commitment to the partnership with Africa is essential, Síkela will play a key role in this area, which will have to be managed with care. His recognition of the need for a differentiated approach and for an EU engagement tailored to regional, national and local contexts is particularly welcome. Members of the European Parliament should seek to understand what “delivering and scaling up 360-degree Global Gateway packages around transformative and jointly agreed objectives and concrete investment opportunities” means in the context of this partnership.

    The hearing should give us more clues about how DG INTPA plans to establish mutually beneficial and long-term partnerships that enhance the EU’s competitiveness while supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

    Finally, “enhanc[ing] awareness of Global Gateway as a trusted and reliable brand” will require more than communication, campaigning and promoting the offer as “superior to those of our competitors”, as shown in our research. As Síkela rightly recognises, “ultimately, the Global Gateway brand’s impact will be driven by the successful roll-out of concrete projects on the ground”. However, establishing mutually beneficial and long-term partnerships that enhance the EU’s competitiveness while supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is easier said than done. This week’s hearing should really give us more clues about how, under the commissioner’s leadership, DG INTPA plans to pursue that goal over the next five years.

    As we noted in our input to the major evaluation of the EU’s external financial instruments, the EU has to manage the trilemma of partner interests, EU interests and stated EU values better. This is not merely a theoretical point; it will be part of the commissioner’s daily work in practice. The stakes are high for the EU and for the most vulnerable populations in partner countries. After all, most (if not all) European Commission portfolios – ranging from ‘clean, just and competitive transition’ to ‘tech sovereignty, security and democracy’ and ‘internal affairs and migration’ – will depend on strong international partnerships. A successful commissioner will have to rely on advice and support from both within and outside the EU institutions to advance this agenda.

    The views are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ECDPM.

    Explore our series 'To the new leaders of Europe'

    Loading Conversation