'Dangerous' moment for aid policy as EU braces for far-right surge

It is a crunch point that threatens to take European Union development policy in a “very dangerous” direction, according to one senior Brussels politician — a “moment of risk” in the words of an expert aid NGO observer. Both are talking about the looming elections to the European Parliament, to influence the world’s third-biggest international aid budget at a time when anti-aid and anti-migrant far-right parties are on the rise across the continent. Over four days in early June, around 400 million people are eligible to vote to fill 720 seats in the Brussels-based legislature — triggering months of frenzied jostling to decide who will grab the EU’s top jobs and over the policy shake-ups that will follow. How will the paths pursued by the portfolios for development and for crisis response within the EU executive, the European Commission, be affected by a wind of political change in the parliament in a few weeks’ time? Will there be fresh attempts to tie aid more tightly to the growing determination to cut migration into Europe, or move it away from the task of reducing poverty across the world and toward investments in the goods the continent thirsts for — and is battling with China to secure? And what about the European Green Deal, the flagship promise to make the EU a global leader in combating the climate crisis through climate neutrality by 2050, already weakened by a conservative backlash? Same as it ever was First, the issue almost everyone agrees on: Come June, the largest grouping within the parliament will still be the center-right European People's Party, or EPP, which currently holds 177 seats and is projected to lose only three of those. The Socialists and Democrats group will almost certainly remain in second place — perhaps even adding a few to its tally of 140 seats — which means the so-called cordon sanitaire agreement to shut out far-right parties with the help of the liberal Renew Europe grouping — projected to win 81 seats — and the Greens — projected to win 43 seats — could survive. So what will change then? Not much in the view of Tomas Tobé, a Swede and member of EPP who chairs the parliament's development committee. He told Devex the bedrock of EU aid policy is firmly embedded after big shifts over the last decade. This has seen the “donor-recipient mentality” left behind, Tobé argued, and transformed into “a partnership with developing countries.” That’s been done via the Global Gateway, the investment strategy — criticized for sidelining poverty eradication — meant to counter China’s Belt and Road project. “The Global Gateway initiative is only at the beginning. I might be wrong, but I think the big change has already happened,” he said, adding that EU policy is already — controversially for many — no longer “all about eradicating poverty” as it was “10 years ago.” “Other political issues have found their way into development — climate change, migration, the geopolitical interest — and of course some development actors worry. But I would say they need to adapt to a new situation,” Tobé said. But this comfortable notion of a smooth-running strategy immune to far-right attack is not shared by Charles Goerens, the Renew Europe coordinator on the development committee, who suggested key agreed aspects of development policy are in jeopardy. NDICI-tion of interest The five-year cycle coming to a close saw the EU launch a single long-term budget, the confusingly titled “Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) - Global Europe,” laying down that 93% of funding must be eligible to be counted as official development assistance and that only 10% of aid can be tied to curbing migration. This has already been undermined by the controversial swiping of €2 billion ($2.16 billion) from the development pot for 2025 to fund a crackdown on illegal migration, a move that could just be the start according to Goerens. The 10% limit will be an obvious target, he suggested, explaining: “If there are reinforcements from far-right parties, that could have a real impact on the make-up of the European Parliament and the outcome could be a more radical position.” “That would be very dangerous for development policy in the future, because it is intended to find solutions to problems in developing countries and not to solve problems in rich countries,” he added. Asked if both the 93% ODA requirement and the EU’s — never achieved — pledge to meet the United Nations target to spend 0.7% of income on aid could also be up for grabs, Goerens replied: “That could be the case, I can’t exclude it. We have to face this challenge.” He added: “There could be a shift to spending more aid on economic investments, away from a minimum allocation eligible as ODA because it is combating poverty and for basic social needs.” Right foot forward This threat is posed by what is tipped to be the third-largest grouping in the parliament after the elections: the far-right Identity and Democracy, or ID, group, which includes Germany’s Alternative for Germany, or AfD, party; the National Rally from France; and Lega from Italy. It currently holds 58 seats — but could emerge with around 85. A second right-wing grouping, the European Conservatives and Reformists, or ECR, which includes Poland’s Law and Justice, Brothers of Italy, and Spain’s Vox, is expected to enjoy a bump-up from 68 to around 74 seats. In his office in the Brussels parliament, Bernhard Zimniok, a former German Army colonel and an AfD member who is ID’s coordinator on the development committee, showed me an online map of the parts of Germany where more than 50% of under-16s are expected to be the children of immigrants in the years to come — pointing out those areas will expand rapidly. Zimniok railed at how many members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, “are more concerned for the rest of the world than for the European citizen;” at aid wasted because of endemic corruption; and at the failure to impose a “Fortress Europe” to shut out all unauthorized immigrants. Looking ahead to the June poll, he predicted, “We will go in the Right direction. The Left will lose and the Right will gain and this will change the politics — they will have to make compromises.” The rest of Europe is, he believes, following Germany, where parties in the European People’s Party have adopted far-right stances — “sometimes even tougher” — because of a growing “panic” over losing voters. “These parties must change their policies to survive,” Zimniok explained. This is the crux of what could follow: Not that right-wing parties will win the election, but that they do not have to — because their tail is wagging the EU dog, by bending the mainstream parties to their agenda. Consider the green deal, already watered down amid fierce protests by farmers who have clogged Europe’s streets, after EPP MEPs joined forces with the far-right in a likely signpost to the post-election future. A second trend is a belief that aid-receiving countries should be free to decide their own stances on sexual and reproductive health, gender equality, and gay rights, rather than seeking to tie allocations to what the EU sees as “progress.” Beata Kempa, of the nationalist United Poland party, is the development committee coordinator for the ECR group. She told me she is a “great believer in humanitarian aid,” but opened up a related front by arguing for aid to be linked to protection of Christians. “What impressed me a lot when [former U.S. President Donald] Trump ruled was that he put a great emphasis on aid that was directed to minorities, especially Christians in the Far East. I would like these kinds of projects carried out by Europe as well,” she said. A source working in development in the parliament, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of these approaches to aid: “That is a minority view at the moment, but that minority is growing.” The source added that the post-election scramble for the top jobs will be the crucial moment, when “what the winning candidates have to promise” to secure those positions is revealed. “That is the parliament’s moment of maximum leverage — and that will be influenced by the numbers in the parliament,” the source explained. Consider how the commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, scraped through when the parliament elected her in 2019 — when she needed the support of right-wing parties in Poland and Italy to secure the top job she is seeking again. Future-proofing The International Rescue Committee is among concerned NGOs encouraging the EU to think now about securing its development aims, and — instead of “turning inward” — to display “leadership in a world of escalating crises.” Its proposals include ensuring fragile and conflict-affected states receive half of bilateral ODA — up from about 25% — and for Brussels to establish a “Resilience Fund” through which local NGOs can achieve “greater reach, scale and impact.” “This is a moment of risk, the risk of Europe turning inward,” said Imogen Sudbery, IRC’s advocacy director for Europe. “There is the risk of a rise of the far right in the European elections, and of even the mainstream parties turning their backs on external aid and on the countries that are falling further behind. That would stir up trouble for the future,” she added. Again, the suspicion is that fringe ideas are moving center stage, in Zimniok’s view, because the big parties must satisfy hungry voters with a changing appetite. “They know that if they do not feed the tiger,” he said, “they will be eaten by the tiger.”