10 things we learned when MEPs grilled the EU's new aid chiefs

Former Czech investment banker Jozef Síkela is set to become the European Union’s next development commissioner, despite some difficult moments under the spotlight in Brussels this week. Hadja Lahbib, an ex-journalist who became Belgium’s foreign minister in 2022, is poised to take on the humanitarian aid brief, after sailing through her hearing. The official announcement of all the commissioner confirmations is expected on Nov. 21. Here are 10 insights from the key issues and controversies raised during six hours of questioning by members of the European Parliament on Wednesday, setting the scene for their five years in post. Síkela remembers to mention poverty and the SDGs: Ahead of the grilling, the Czech nominee was sharply criticized for describing his international partnerships (i.e. development) portfolio as a means to “strengthen” the EU and grab “raw materials and key technologies.” It was clear Síkela had been coached to stress that what he really meant to say is that he is determined to “fully contribute to Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.” … but once a banker, always a banker: Despite those idealistic words, there was no hiding the contrast between Síkela’s comfort in explaining how his banking background makes him the ideal candidate and his unease when the talk turned to detailed development policy. He came to life discussing financial instruments — “I think this is my area” — and vowed to ramp up the Global Gateway project “from startup to scale up.” Opening up markets for EU firms and tackling poverty go hand in hand, apparently: Síkela brushed off criticism that the investment-focused Global Gateway program is using the aid budget to enrich homegrown companies by insisting what’s good for big business is good for the world’s poor. “I do not see a contradiction,” he argued, reaching for a metaphor where emerging economies can be fired up with a little lubrication. “Development aid should be used as an oil,” he explained. Successful international development is like ‘project management’: “You have to bring your product and your service to the next level,” Síkela told MEPs when asked how the EU can win the investment race, promising “an umbrella approach” to bundle up various “offers” into single irresistible “packaging” to compete with “cheaper” China. This must include “marketing and communication,” he argued, adding: “We have to better communicate why our offer is better.” Gender rights may have to be compromised if partner countries resist: This was the only moment when Síkela was confronted with angry shouts from the hall, when he deflected a call to ensure the EU is “walking step-by-step” with women whose reproductive rights, for example, are under threat. “We will face religious obstacles,” he warned, the reality that “countries can go for an alternative offer,” and will need to settle for “a not perfect tomorrow.” The chair had to intervene to quell the dissent. It's ok as long as the EU is nicer than China: Síkela referred repeatedly, without prompting, to Beijing’s devious and underhand practices in the global investment battle — appearing to argue the EU deserves praise because it would never sink that low. “Our rivals” are using unrepayable loans as “a weapon,” in order to then demand debtor countries “do what I want” in a restructuring where the alternatives are fresh “conditions” or insolvency. “This is something we have to avoid,” he told MEPs. Aid should not be tied to taking back migrants from the EU — but ‘extras’ can be offered: This is seen by many as the next front in the EU’s increasingly harsh stance towards migrants crossing from Africa: that development aid should be conditional on the ability to send them back. Síkela swerved the question twice, before eventually arguing such a policy would backfire because “our rivals” would step in. “Conditionality might turn against us,” he warned, before adding the EU could “add some extras” where countries “are willing to assist us.” The EU is definitely not fuelling war and human rights abuses through its minerals deal with Rwanda — unless it is: In a second stumble, Síkela came under pressure over a controversial Global Gateway deal with Rwanda to secure critical minerals allegedly smuggled from the Democratic Republic of Congo. “We are financing a criminal organization,” one MEP protested. The nominee first defended “one of the good cooperations we have in Africa,” before admitting he badly needed to “become familiar with the issue” and promising to do his homework. Síkela would love to give MEPs all the Global Gateway info, but, tragically, his hands are tied: MEPs protested that the commission refuses to release crucial details of the individual Gateway projects when they “can easily be shared” with the Parliament. Síkela promised transparency but, in a very careful answer, replied: “I do not have a problem with the scrutiny and with reporting all the things I can report without violating the EU interest.” Meanwhile, the humanitarian aid portfolio has been downgraded dramatically: The Lahbib hearing was dominated by issues ranging across her vast brief — which now includes equality issues within the EU and responsibility for internal natural disasters — with questions over EU abortion rights, its gender pay gap, its definition of rape, conversion therapy, the terrible Spanish floods, the COVID-19 pandemic, and antimicrobial resistance. Lahbib described herself as a “fervent advocate of funding for humanitarian aid,” vowing to push for member states to allocate the target of 0.07% of national income to humanitarian assistance. But she also dodged what is shaping up as a key question: How the EU will support fragile countries unlikely to receive investments from the private sector-led Global Gateway? Update, Nov. 11, 2024: This article has been updated to clarify that the 0.07% GNI target applies to humanitarian assistance.