Pundit: Czechia aimed higher, but International Partnerships portfolio has great potential
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday unveiled her team of commissioner candidates and their portfolios for the 2024-2029 cycle. The Czech nominee, Industry Minister Jozef Síkela, has been selected Commissioner-designate for International Partnerships.
The International Partnerships portfolio involves overseeing EU international cooperation, development policy, and the Global Gateway initiative, which aims to invest up to €300 billion in infrastructure in developing regions like Africa and India. It also includes responsibility for fostering democratic values, the rule of law, and human rights.
I discussed the portfolio with Viktor Danek, deputy director of the Europeum Institute for European Policy, and began by asking whether, given the Czech government’s aspirations to a strong economic portfolio, the outcome was a big disappointment.
“Well, the government faces heavy criticism and rightly so, I think, because it created the notion that Czechia can get a much more ambitious portfolio. The goal or the ambitions were much higher and I can imagine that there might be some disappointment, because this is definitely not a top portfolio. The government argued that, after 20 years of membership, it finally wanted a strong economic portfolio. This is an economic portfolio, but not a strong one. So, I partly understand the disappointment.
“On the other hand, though, I think the international partnerships agenda has a lot of potential. And if Mr. Sikela decides to be an active commissioner and an ambitious one, if he manages to create or have a lot of, let's say unofficial authority and respect in Brussels, he can actually gain a lot. The portfolio is quite interesting, I would say. And I think the government can actually tick a lot of boxes, because the portfolio contains the possibility to influence strategic agendas, such as Chinese influence in Africa, in South America, in the Indo-Pacific. It has a big budget, 300 billion euros. That’s a huge budget. It has the biggest directorate. So, I think there is a lot of potential that Mr. Sikela can use.”
But as you said, the Czech government was aiming higher, was aspiring for more. And, for instance, the trade portfolio, which would also have been considered a big success, went to Slovakia. Energy went to Denmark. What do you think was decisive in the selection process here? Was it Mr. Sikela's abilities, experience, or was it the party wheeling-and-dealing that goes on behind the scenes?
“I think that the government learned the hard way that nothing is decided until the very last minute. And it turned out to be precisely the case. I think it might have been very likely that, at some point, Mr. Sikela might have received the energy portfolio, or later even the trade portfolio. But a lot of things are at stake here. And I think that in this specific case, it was not the fault of the government or Mr. Sikela. I think he is actually an ideal candidate, because he has gained a lot of respect in Brussels already as a minister during the energy spike crisis. Because he was the person who negotiated all the emergency packages. He is a political heavyweight in Czechia. He knows very well the international environment. So I think that professionally, he is very well prepared for the job and the government also did everything right. It has a very good relationship with Brussels. It is a pro-European government that still –to some extent- draws on the positive sentiment that was left behind the Czech presidency, a very successful presidency.
“So I think everything was done right, but politics play a huge role. And this is, I think, the reason why it was not successful in the end. Because if we look at the portfolios, we can see that the Socialists gained a lot of interesting agendas, including the trade portfolio. And I think that in this case, Czechia became, let's say, a victim of European politics, because the main Czech ruling party, the Civic Democratic Party, is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in European Parliament. And Ursula von der Leyen does not need them, necessarily. Who she does need are the Socialists. She desperately needs votes of the S&D Group. So I think in the end, she was forced to back down because of pressure from this group. That's my interpretation, but I think this is partly the reason why the trade portfolio went to Slovakia, where there is Social Democratic government, and not to Czechia.”
What is the lesson to be learned from this for future governments? What could have been done better?
“The lesson is that politics – Brussels politics matter and it is important to be a member of an influential group. The ECR is not now among the influential groups in the European Parliament – even though it could have been. But it's not, in the end. And the main opposition party ANO, has now become a member of a group that is completely out of the political mainstream. It has connected with a lot with far-right forces and nationalist forces. So this means that, if ANO should be in government after the 2025 Czech general elections, that would basically lower the chances for Czechia to gain an important and interesting portfolio. So I think this is the main rule, play with the Brussels politics.”
Looking at this case, was the negotiating adequate? Because at one point we heard that the European Affairs Minister Martin Dvorak didn't even know at what stage the negotiations were, that it was all done on a one-to-one basis between the Czech prime minister and von der Leyen. Was there a mistake made there?
“I think it was not very wise to disclose publicly that the trade portfolio was on the table. At that point, I apologize to Mr. Dvorak, but I don't think it was wise, precisely for the reason that things can change very easily in the last minute, and they did. That created unrealistic expectations that we would get the trade portfolio, which would have been a huge success for Czechia if it was the case, but it was not. Now it puts Mr. Sikela in a worse position, because now everybody is a bit disappointed.
“However, I still think it's not a bad portfolio. He can gain a lot of out of it. It offers the possibility to be vocal on other agendas that are quite important for Czechia, such as climate policy, migrant and asylum policy. And also strategic thinking about the EU’s relationship with countries that turned out to be very important, for example, in connection with the war in Ukraine – since we are now desperately looking for friends and allies in, let's say, the developing world. So I think there is a lot of potential, and the disappointment we now feel is not, I think, very much based in reality. “
Related
-
Czechs in the EU
This year's European Parliament elections coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Czechia’s accession to the European Union. How active have Czechs been in the EU?
