Josep Borrell is the former high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and former vice-president of the European Commission. In too many corners of the world — including our own — democracy is losing oxygen. Disinformation is poisoning debate, authoritarian leaders are staging “elections” without real choice, and citizens are losing faith that their vote counts. Even as recently as the Jan. 3 U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, we have seen opposition leaders who are internationally recognized as having the democratic support of their people be sidelined. None of this is new. Having devoted much of his work to critiquing the absolute concentration of power in dictatorial figures, the long-exiled Paraguayan writer Augusto Roa Bastos found that when democracy loses ground, gradually and inexorably a singular and unquestionable end takes its place: power. And it shapes the leader as a supreme being, one who needs no higher democratic processes to curb their will. This is the true peril of the backsliding we’re witnessing in the world today. A few decades ago, the tide of democracy seemed unstoppable, bringing freedom and prosperity to an ever-greater number of countries. And as that democratic wave spread, so too did the practice of sending impartial international observers to elections as a way of supporting democratic development. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. However, as international development budgets shrink, some are questioning whether this practice still matters. I believe this is a grave mistake. Today, attacks on the integrity of electoral processes, the subtle — or brazen — manipulation of votes and narratives, and the absolute answers given to complex problems are allowing Roa Basto’s concept of power to infiltrate our democratic societies. And as the foundations of pluralism continue to erode, autocrats and autocratic practices are rising unchecked. By contrast, ensuring competitive, transparent and fair elections is the antidote to authoritarianism. To that end, the bloc has so far deployed missions to observe more than 200 elections in 75 countries. And determining EU cooperation and support for those countries based on the conclusions of these missions has, in turn, incentivized them to strengthen democratic practices. The impact is tangible. Our 2023 mission in Guatemala, for example, which was undertaken alongside the Organization of American States and other observer groups, supported the credibility of the country’s presidential election and helped scupper malicious attempts to undermine the result. And yet, many now argue that in a world of hybrid regimes, cyber threats and political polarization, international observers can do little to restore confidence in flawed processes — and that other areas, such as defense, should take priority. In both boosting voter confidence and assuring the international community of democratic progress, election observation has been one of the EU’s quiet success stories for decades. | Robert Ghement/EPA I don’t agree. Now, more than ever, is the time to stick up for democracy — the most fundamental of EU values. As many of the independent citizen observer groups we view as partners lose crucial funding, it is vital we continue to send missions. In fact, cutting back support would be a false economy, amounting to silence precisely when truth and transparency are being drowned out. I myself observed elections as chair of the European Parliament’s Development Committee. I saw firsthand how EU observation has developed well beyond spotting overt ballot stuffing to detecting the subtleties of unfair candidate exclusions, tampering with the tabulation of results behind closed doors and, more recently, the impact of online manipulation and disinformation. In my capacity as high representative I also decided to send observation missions to controversial countries, including Venezuela. Despite opposition from some, our presence there during the 2021 local elections was greatly appreciated by the opposition. Our findings sparked national and international discussions over electoral conditions, democratic standards and necessary changes. And when the time comes for new elections once more — as it surely must — the presence of impartial international observers will be critical to restoring the confidence of Venezuelans in the electoral process. At the same time, election observation is being actively threatened by powers like Russia, which promote narratives opposed to electoral observations carried out by the organizations that endorse the Declaration of Principles on International Election Observation (DoP) — a landmark document that set the global standard for impartial monitoring. A few years ago, for instance, a Russian parliamentary commission sharply criticized our observation efforts, pushing for the creation of alternative monitoring bodies that, quite evidently, fuel disinformation and legitimize authoritarian regimes — something that has also happened in Azerbaijan and Belarus. When a credible international observation mission publishes a measured and facts-based assessment, it becomes a reference point for citizens and institutions alike. It provides an anchor for dialogue, a benchmark against which all actors can measure their conduct. Above all, it signals to citizens that the international community is watching — not to interfere but to support their right to a meaningful choice. Of course, observation must evolve as well. We now monitor not only ballot boxes but also algorithms, online narratives and the influence of artificial intelligence. We are strengthening post-electoral follow-up and developing new tools to verify data and detect manipulation, exploring the ways in which AI can be a force for good. In line with this, last month I lent my support to the DoP’s endorsers — including the EU, the United Nations, the African Union, the Organization of American States and dozens of international organizations and NGOs — as they met at the U.N. in Geneva to mark the declaration’s 20th anniversary, and to reaffirm their commitment to strengthen election observation in the face of new threats and critical funding challenges. Just days later we learned of the detention of Dr. Sarah Bireete, a leading non-partisan citizen observer, ahead of the Jan. 15 elections in Uganda. These recent events are a wake-up call to renew this purpose. Election observation is only worthwhile if we’re willing to defend the principle of democracy itself. As someone born into a dictatorship, I know all too well that democratic freedoms cannot be taken for granted. In a world of contested truths and ever-greater power plays, democracy needs both witnesses and champions. The EU, I hope, will continue to be among them.

LONDON — The union representing British nurses is under fire from some of its own members over what they say is an opaque investment strategy linked to companies investing in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. A report sent to Royal College of Nursing (RCN) management by activist group Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch, and obtained by POLITICO, argues that the union’s choice of investment managers Legal & General and Sarasins is at odds with its own ethical investment policy. Members of the group say they don’t know exactly which shares the union holds in its portfolio, because the union’s management hasn’t informed them. The report points to a list of companies held by the RCN’s fund managers, including U.S. tech firm Palantir and Israeli arms-maker Elbit Systems, which activists say should be enough for the union to put its money elsewhere. A spokesperson for the RCN declined to say which companies were in its portfolio when contacted by POLITICO. The group said it was “committed to social responsibility” and stressed that it did not invest in weapons manufacturing or any “ethically unacceptable practices.” ‘TRUE ETHICAL INVESTMENT’ The Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch report draws on a United Nations investigation into what its human rights council calls Israel’s “Economy of Genocide” to identify companies that activists say link fund managers to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The International Court of Justice is currently considering allegations of genocide against Israel, while an independent U.N. inquiry found Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians. Israel has adamantly rejected those allegations and argued it upholds its obligations under international law. The companies named in the UN report include U.S. tech firms that provide Israel with cloud and artificial intelligence technology. These are among the most widely held shares in the world and are mainstays in the portfolios offered by popular fund managers, which often track the performance of the stock market. A Palantir spokesperson told POLITICO the company rejected its inclusion in the U.N. report and referred to previous statements clarifying its partnership with the Israeli military. The report — which follows two open letters whose signatories include 100 RCN members — does not present evidence that the union directly holds shares in companies more directly involved in the arms trade. But it argues that “true ethical investment” should look beyond investors’ own portfolios and at their fund managers’ “wider practices.” The RCN spokesperson said: “Despite the globalised nature of investments, our indirect exposure — to companies that we may not directly invest in — is a fraction of a single percentage.” According to its latest annual report, the RCN Group (including the union and its charitable foundation) had a combined investment portfolio worth £143.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. Sarasins said in a statement that it takes a “rigorous approach to identifying and assessing any potential exposure to human-rights risks across the many companies we invest in on behalf of our clients.”  “The situation in Gaza is evolving, and we are in the process of considering targeted engagement approaches and discussing these with expert contacts and stakeholders,” the firm said. A spokesperson for L&G said all of its investments were in line with international laws and regulations and that any holdings in the companies named in the report were part of “broad, global market indices.”

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump blew up global efforts to cut emissions from shipping, and now the EU is terrified the U.S. president will do the same to any plans to tax carbon emissions from long-haul flights. The European Commission is studying whether to expand its existing carbon pricing scheme that forces airlines to pay for emissions from short- and medium-haul flights within Europe into a more ambitious effort covering all flights departing the bloc. If that happens, all international airlines flying out of Europe — including U.S. ones — would face higher costs, something that’s likely to stick in the craw of the Trump administration. “God only knows what the Trump administration will do” if Brussels expands its own Emissions Trading System to include transatlantic flights, a senior EU official told POLITICO. A big issue is how to ensure that the new system doesn’t end up charging only European airlines, which often complain about the higher regulatory burden they face compared with their non-EU rivals. The EU official said Commission experts are now “scratching their heads how you can, on the one hand, talk about extending the ETS worldwide … [but] also make sure that you have a bit of a level playing field,” meaning a system that doesn’t only penalize European carriers. Any new costs will hit airlines by 2027, following a Commission assessment that will be completed by July 1. Brussels has reason to be worried.  “Trump has made it very clear that he does not want any policies that harm business … So he does not want any environmental regulation,” said Marina Efthymiou, aviation management professor at Dublin City University. “We do have an administration with a bullying behavior threatening countries and even entities like the European Commission.” The new U.S. National Security Strategy, released last week, closely hews to Trump’s thinking and is scathing on climate efforts. “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threaten the United States, and subsidize our adversaries,” it says. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax to encourage commercial fleets to go green. The no-holds-barred push was personally led by Trump and even threatened negotiators with personal consequences if they went along with the measure. In October, the U.S. led efforts to prevent the International Maritime Organization from setting up a global tax aimed at encouraging commercial fleets to go green. | Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images This “will be a parameter to consider seriously from the European Commission” when it thinks about aviation, Efthymiou said. The airline industry hopes the prospect of a furious Trump will scare off the Commission. “The EU is not going to extend ETS to transatlantic flights because that will lead to a war,” said Willie Walsh, director general of the International Air Transport Association, the global airline lobby, at a November conference in Brussels. “And that is not a war that the EU will win.” EUROPEAN ETS VS. GLOBAL CORSIA In 2012, the EU began taxing aviation emissions through its cap-and-trade ETS, which covers all outgoing flights from the European Economic Area — meaning EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland and the U.K. later introduced similar schemes. In parallel, the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization was working on its own carbon reduction plan, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. Given that fact, Brussels delayed imposing the ETS on flights to non-European destinations. The EU will now be examining the ICAO’s CORSIA to see if it meets the mark. “CORSIA lets airlines pay pennies for pollution — about €2.50 per passenger on a Paris-New York flight,” said Marte van der Graaf, aviation policy officer at green NGO Transport & Environment. Applying the ETS on the same route would cost “€92.40 per passenger based on 2024 traffic.” There are two reasons for such a big difference: the fourfold higher price for ETS credits compared with CORSIA credits, and the fact that “under CORSIA, airlines don’t pay for total emissions, but only for the increase above a fixed 2019 baseline,” Van der Graaf explained. “Thus, for a Paris-New York flight that emits an average of 131 tons of CO2, only 14 percent of emissions are offset under CORSIA. This means that, instead of covering the full 131 tons, the airline only has to purchase credits for approximately 18 tons.” Efthymiou, the professor, warned the price difference is projected to increase due to the progressive withdrawal of free ETS allowances granted to aviation. The U.N. scheme will become mandatory for all U.N. member countries in 2027 but will not cover domestic flights, including those in large countries such as the U.S., Russia and China. KEY DECISIONS By July 1, the Commission must release a report assessing the geographical coverage and environmental integrity of CORSIA. Based on this evaluation, the EU executive will propose either extending the ETS to all departing flights from the EU starting in 2027 or maintaining it for intra-EU flights only. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration. | Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images According to T&E, CORSIA doesn’t meet the EU’s climate goals. “Extending the scope of the EU ETS to all departing flights from 2027 could raise an extra €147 billion by 2040,” said Van der Graaf, noting that this money could support the production of greener aviation fuels to replace fossil kerosene. But according to Efthymiou, the Commission might decide to continue the current exemption “considering the very fragile political environment we currently have with a lunatic being in power,” she said, referring to Trump. “CORSIA has received a lot of criticism for sure … but the importance of CORSIA is that for the first time ever we have an agreement,” she added. “Even though that agreement might not be very ambitious, ICAO is the only entity with power to put an international regulation [into effect].” Regardless of what is decided in Brussels, Washington is prepared to fight. Opposition to the ETS in the U.S. dates back to the Barack Obama administration, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a letter to the Commission opposing its application to American airlines. During the same term, the U.S. passed the EU ETS Prohibition Act, which gives Washington the power to prohibit American carriers from paying for European carbon pricing. John Thune, the Republican politician who proposed the bill, is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

BRUSSELS — Last year’s gathering of Europe’s far right in Brussels took place behind metal shutters after protesters, police and city politicians tried to stop it from going ahead. This year, the doors are wide open — albeit flanked by security guards — and it’s the EU’s mainstream leadership that is under siege. Just a day after the EU was rocked by the arrest of two senior figures in a corruption probe, many at the Battle for the Soul of Europe conference — hosted by MCC Brussels, a think tank with close links to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and bringing together top officials from Budapest with right-wing politicians, activists and commentators from across the continent — said the time was right to channel public anger at the establishment. The latest corruption scandal is “another sign of double standards,” Balázs Orbán, political director to the Hungarian prime minister and the keynote speaker at the conference, said in an interview with POLITICO. “A corruption-based technocratic elite is mismanaging procedures. This element is very strong and it’s quite visible for the European voters but if you talk to Americans … this is what they see from Europe.” Prime Minister Orbán has repeatedly blasted the “EU elites” as out of touch and has sought to blame them for freezing funding for his own country over backsliding on democracy and the rule of law. There was a bullish mood at the event, held a stone’s throw from the EU Quarter of Brussels. Polish politician Ryszard Legutko, co-chairman of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, took aim at Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Polish politician Ryszard Legutko, co-chairman of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, took aim at Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself. “The fish stinks from its head,” he blasted. John O’Brien, one of the organizers of the two-day conference, which kicked off on Wednesday, said “a couple of years ago people were scared to say some of these things about immigration, to raise concerns about environmental extremism, to talk about the mismanagement of economies … now, people are really finding their voices.” “It’s been demonstrated the last few years, time and time again, that Europe is dirty and needs to be cleaned up,” said O’Brien, as waiters in bowties served coffee to attendees. The latest embarrassment for the EU — the detention on Tuesday of former Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini and ex-top diplomatic official Stefano Sannino as part of a fraud probe — has given the right plenty of ammunition. At a panel on Thursday, French National Rally MEP Thierry Mariani and British political commentator Matthew Goodwin are set to take aim at the “deep-state web of civil service, NGOs and captured institutions.” Alice Cordier, a French activist and president of the Nemesis Collective, a self-described feminist campaign group that has been branded a far-right Islamophobic outfit by critics, said “corruption is a big issue.” The scandals, she said, compound public anger that has so far been focused largely on the consequences of migration. Balasz Orbán, however, was skeptical that the scandal would be a game-changer for national elections, including his own boss’s tough re-election fight next year. “Honestly,” he said, the internal corruption allegation is “not a big surprise for me, so it doesn’t add too much.” But according to Daniel Freund, an MEP from the German Greens, the far right is not “in any position” to credibly champion the anti-corruption cause. “They are the problem, not the solution,” Freund said, adding that the far-right Patriots group [in the European Parliament, to which Orbán’s Fidesz party belongs] has voted against “almost every measure that would strengthen the fight against corruption.” For now, the EU’s political leadership has been muted on the fraud investigation and is firmly on the defensive, its hands tied by ongoing legal proceedings. That has some worried: “The credibility of our institutions is at stake,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the European Parliament. Others from von der Leyen’s own governing coalition want to see her take an unequivocally tough stance before her opponents capitalize on the idea that the Brussels bureaucracy is awash with the abuse of public money. “It needs to be dealt with at a European level,” said Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle, a Dutch MEP from the centrist Renew faction. “Whether it is … Qatargate, or these new fraud suspicions. Zero tolerance and more tools to tackle this.” Max Griera and Dionisios Sturis contributed reporting.

Eva Kaili, a former European Parliament vice president who was embroiled in the Qatargate corruption scandal, has weighed in on the fraud probe involving ex-EU top diplomat Federica Mogherini. Kaili said that Belgium is “not a safe place” for political figures, especially Italians. Speaking to La Stampa from Abu Dhabi, Kaili said she was “shocked” but hardly surprised at an investigation into whether a public tender awarded by the European External Action Service to a higher education institution to host the EU Diplomatic Academy was rigged in favor of the College of Europe. Mogherini, now rector of the college, and former foreign service chief Stefano Sannino were held for questioning as part of the probe and released from custody on Wednesday morning. Kaili, who is Greek, cast the probe as part of an “operation targeting Italy” that destroys political careers long before the facts are established, and puts the rule of law at risk. Kaili said she saw the fraud probe as a sequel to Qatargate. She drew explicit parallels between her experience and Mogherini’s brief detention, insisting Qatargate was misconstrued from the outset. What prosecutors portrayed as illicit foreign influence, Kaili maintained, was routine parliamentary diplomacy backed by private NGO funding. Nearly three years later, she noted, no formal charges have been filed against her and much of the evidence remains “largely circumstantial.” Kaili served as an MEP from 2014 and as Parliament vice president from January 2022 until December 2022, when she was arrested on preliminary charges of corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization as part of the Qatargate investigation into influence operations by foreign nations in Brussels.

Despite respect for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, pressure is building on the president over what his critics call democratic backsliding in Ukraine. Kyiv’s wartime international partners need to clearly call out creeping authoritarianism, according to Ukraine’s former leader and Zelenskyy archrival Petro Poroshenko, as the EU on Tuesday noted issues with the country’s commitment to rooting out corruption. “Our democracy has been a source of strength and resilience; undermining it would weaken Ukraine far more than any external criticism ever could,” Poroshenko, who led Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, told POLITICO in an interview. “As we fight Russian autocracy, we cannot afford to drift toward autocratic practices at home,” Poroshenko added, in a stark warning. “Ukraine does not have the luxury of losing its independence, but neither does it have the luxury of losing its democracy.” His appeal to international partners came just hours before the release of a report Tuesday by the European Commission that offered a fairly positive review of Ukraine’s readiness to advance EU accession talks — but also expressed some reservations about democratic backsliding. Poroshenko heads the largest opposition party in the Ukrainian parliament, and he and Zelenskyy share a deep animosity for each other. They clashed and traded barbs in heated debates during the 2019 election, which Zelenskyy won in a landslide. Aides of the two men concede in private that both harbor almost visceral dislike for each other. The former president was speaking just days after the arraignment of a respected former energy executive who’s been critical of Zelenskyy’s handling of Ukraine’s energy sector.  The indictment last week of Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, ex-chief of the main state-owned power company, has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Civil society leaders and opposition lawmakers argue his prosecution is an example of aggressive lawfare used by the leadership to try to intimidate Zelenskyy’s political opponents, independent journalists and anti-corruption campaigners. Zelenskyy’s office has declined repeated requests to comment from POLITICO on the case and rule-of-law issues. Kudrytskyi, who has labeled the charges against him “nonsense,” told POLITICO this week that he has no doubt he’s being targeted by the State Bureau of Investigation with Zelenskyy’s approval. ‘POWER-ENFORCEMENT’ Poroshenko himself is also ensnared in the courts. He’s blocked from accessing his bank accounts and prohibited from traveling abroad and attending parliamentary sessions because of sanctions the Zelenskyy administration imposed on him following an indictment on treason and corruption charges. The sanctions could potentially prevent him from running in an election. Poroshenko has vehemently denied the charges, saying they are trumped up. Despite respect for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, pressure is building on the president over democratic backsliding in Ukraine. | Tetiana Dzhafarova/Getty Images “Ukraine’s partners still can, without reducing their support for the country at war, send authorities a clear and compelling signal that increasing use of sanctions and targeted criminal prosecutions to suppress independent journalists, anti-corruption agencies and political opposition will not be tolerated,” he said.   Poroshenko said that “general lukewarm statements about the importance of fundamental values and the inviolability of human rights” from the EU and other allies will no longer suffice. That approach has been tried before but to no avail, he added. “They will just be met with the old claim that all cases of persecution are the actions of independent law enforcement agencies, beyond the president’s control and responsibility,” he said. “The increasing use of sanctions and targeted criminal prosecutions by President Zelenskyy’s administration requires a strong and visible response from our allies,” he added. But the former president said wartime aid for Ukraine shouldn’t be used as leverage because “any action that weakens our ability to resist Russian aggression will not improve the situation.” Poroshenko also accused Zelenskyy of weaponizing Ukraine’s law-enforcement bodies and transforming them into “power-enforcement” agencies instead. He cited, as an example, the State Bureau of Investigation which “functions as an instrument for carrying out political orders against opponents,” he said. TIME TO STEP UP Tuesday’s report, unveiled in Brussels by the Commission, is unlikely to satisfy either Poroshenko or Ukraine’s civil rights campaigners. They say Brussels has adopted too timid an approach when it comes to what they warn is democratic backsliding.  The report offered a generally positive overview of Ukraine’s readiness to advance in EU accession talks, and praised the country’s “remarkable commitment” to its membership bid. While the Commission highlighted some risks of Ukrainian democratic backsliding, it made no mention of the complaints in Ukraine about prosecutions of Zelenskyy’s political opponents. It also said the enforcement of fundamental rights has been satisfactory and “the government has maintained its overall respect for fundamental rights and shown its commitment to their protection.” The report did, however, call for an urgent reversal of negative trends in the fight against corruption and for an acceleration in rule-of-law reforms. “Recent negative trends, including a growing pressure on the specialized anti-corruption agencies and civil society, must be decisively reversed,” the Commission said, a reference to the attempt in July by the Ukrainian government to strip a pair of anti-corruption agencies of their independence. Petro Poroshenko said he feared democratic backsliding is providing ammunition for those in Europe and the U.S. who want to withdraw support from Ukraine as it resists Russian revanchism. | Danylo Antoniuk/Getty Images A civil society outcry and anti-government street protests, the first to be mounted since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, forced the government to back down and restore the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Zelenskyy’s political rivals argue that targeted prosecutions, and the hampering of the anti-corruption agencies from probing presidential insiders, have increased in tempo and intensity in recent months as talk mounts of a possible election next year.  Poroshenko said he feared democratic backsliding is providing ammunition for those in Europe and the U.S. who want to withdraw support from Ukraine as it resists Russian revanchism.   “When critics are targeted and anti-corruption activists are attacked, it gives arguments to those abroad, especially to Russian propaganda, to challenge support for Ukraine. It also demoralizes Ukrainians themselves,” Poroshenko warned. 

Oil giant TotalEnergies misled its customers and the general public when it claimed to be a leading actor in the transition to green energy, a French court ruled today. Following its rebranding from Total to TotalEnergies in 2021, the French oil producer launched an advertising campaign stating that the company had the “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.” It claimed “to be a major player in the energy transition” and to put “sustainable development at the heart of our strategy, our projects, and our operations to contribute to the well-being of populations, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals defined by the United Nations.” But the court found that TotalEnergies had engaged in “misleading commercial practices” by disseminating claims on its website which made the company’s operations appear greener than they were — a practice known as greenwashing. According to the court, these claims were “likely to mislead consumers about the scope of the Group’s environmental commitments.” The court ordered TotalEnergies to stop spreading the misleading claims “within one month” or face a €10,000 fine per day of delay. The case against the oil major was brought in 2022 by a group of green NGOs including Friends of the Earth France and Greenpeace France with the support of the legal charity ClientEarth. “We hope that the court’s decision will help shed light on the reality of Total’s activities, which continue to expand oil and gas operations,” Juliette Renaud, a member of Friends of the Earth France, said in a statement. “It is time to force Total and the other majors to comply with scientists’ recommendations to put an end to the development of new fossil fuel projects,” she added. TotalEnergies was contacted for comments but did not reply by the time of publication. The company can decide to appeal the decision.

BRUSSELS — The European Union will press U.S. President Donald Trump to ensure that his ceasefire agreement does not undermine the future of a Palestinian state, according to a draft plan. A four-page document developed by the bloc’s foreign service, seen by POLITICO in advance of meetings between foreign ministers and leaders next week, reveals officials are pushing to maximize the EU’s leverage in the implementation of the Washington-brokered agreement to ensure lasting peace. With a growing number of European governments recognizing Palestinian statehood, there is a need to “reinforce a positive narrative on the two-state solution, including by highlighting the role of the EU,” the document states. The diplomatic arm of the EU, the European External Action Service (EEAS), proposes to “further activate diplomatic channels towards the U.S.” to see it implemented in a way that does not “undermine the viability” of the Palestinian Authority. Trump announced a truce brokered between Hamas and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, paving the way for the release of all surviving Israeli hostages and a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The EEAS is now seeking support from capitals to advocate for economic and financial barriers facing Palestinian institutions to be dropped and to increase pressure on Israeli settlers illegally annexing territory in the West Bank. It also proposes engaging with the Israeli government, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey “to continue leveraging the pressure on Hamas for a full implementation of the plan.” By the end of the year, the document proposes ensuring the flow “of aid at scale into and throughout Gaza,” and redeploying its civilian Rafah border crossing assistance mission, EUBAM, as a third-party presence to safeguard the passage of people. If member countries give the green light, the EU will also seek to “explore the monitoring and advising on transfer of goods.” Brussels also hopes to convince Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian NGOs operating in the Palestinian territories. In the longer term, the EU wants to play a role in the removal of landmines, the reconstruction of war-torn Gaza, investment and the facilitation of trade. It intends to use Erasmus — the educational exchange scheme it had previously sought to bar Israel from — as a tool to build trust between communities. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced in September that she would bring forward sanctions on Israeli ministers and seek to scale back economic cooperation with the country in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. However, POLITICO reported earlier on Friday, the plans are expected to grind to a halt in the wake of the American deal, with capitals expressing skepticism about the need for the move as a result of geopolitical developments. A handful of countries that had pushed for a tougher stance expressed frustration over how long the EU had taken to put forward the plans.

AMSTERDAM — Everyone’s talking about migration. Apart from Europe’s center left. The Party of European Socialists (PES), Europe’s second-biggest political family, is holding a three-day get-together in Amsterdam starting Thursday to fire up the troops as they push back against a right-wing surge. But for all the fanfare, they won’t be spending much time talking about one of the hot-button issues fueling that populist rise. How to handle migrant flows into Europe has divided the center left, with some, such as the Nordics, opting to harden their stance and back tough deportation rules, while others, especially the Spanish, continue to defend taking a softer approach. As a result, the PES congress will tiptoe around the issue. “Migrants are increasingly criminalized and used as a scapegoat for social and economic hardships and to justify discriminatory policies,” reads the sole reference to the topic in the final declaration of the congress, obtained by POLITICO and set to be voted on Friday. A Social Policy program, to be approved the same day, mentions the need to ensure “the protection of migrants, asylum seekers and undocumented people.” Migration is not mentioned in a document setting out the party’s priorities and campaign talking points for the years to come, also obtained by POLITICO, and there are no scheduled debates on the topic. Even those relatively minor mentions of the protection of undocumented migrants raise questions about the unity of the party, as the Danish Socialists have prioritized establishing a tough deportation scheme during their EU Council presidency, which began in July and runs to the end of December. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen will not be at the PES jamboree. Instead of addressing migration, the Socialists are turning to their traditional core subjects — health care, job creation, affordable housing and renewable energy — as the core of their campaign program, according to their priorities for the years to come, to be voted on by party delegates on Friday. TAKING ON TRUMP During the past five years, the center left has seen its support slump across European countries and its number of EU lawmakers fall, with a right-wing bloc in command of the European Parliament and most members of the College of Commissioners hailing from the center right. The PES congress — which brings together left-wing political movements, NGOs, unions and activists — is meant to set the principles socialists across Europe will defend in taking on “Reactionary International.” (The term was popularized by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and other leaders to describe the transatlantic populist right-wing movement led by U.S. President Donald Trump.) “Only by standing united can we have the critical mass needed to reverse the dangerous course charted by Trump and his allies,” reads a congress declaration, yet to be adopted but pre-approved by PES leadership. “We call for the launch of a Global Progressive Mobilization.” Yet only one of the three socialist prime ministers in the EU — Sánchez — will be showing up. Apart from Denmark’s Frederiksen, Malta’s Robert Abela is also not on the list of attendees. Migrants from various detention centers across Italy are escorted by police as they disembark an Italian Navy Offshore Patrol Vessel. | Adnan Beci/AFP via Getty Images “All our leaders are invited and may join at the last moment,” PES spokesperson Catarina Faria told POLITICO. She added that Frederiksen is not attending “due to elections in Denmark” — even though the next scheduled elections in the country are local ballots on Nov. 18. Frederiksen and Abela’s offices did not reply to requests for comment. “I don’t think there is any reason for concern … It’s natural sometimes for leaders to have different kinds of agendas, but I think what is essential for us to achieve is this mobilization of our political family and that’s why we our leaders will be, of course, very much involved in the years to come,” said PES Vice President and Romanian MEP Victor Negrescu. Sánchez, who is facing mounting challenges to his leadership in Madrid, will headline the congress, joined by European Council President António Costa, German Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, Austria’s Vice-Chancellor Andreas Babler and national party leaders.  HOPING TO MAKE GAINS Negrescu said the center left is hoping to do well in upcoming elections. “The most important one is the one in the Netherlands,” he said of the vote scheduled for Oct. 24 in which the Labour Party is on course to enter government. Party leader Frans Timmermans (a former Commission Green Deal chief) could even end up as prime minister if his party finishes ahead of the Christian Democrats. Negrescu also noted that center-left parties in Sweden and Finland are leading in the polls (those countries elect new governments in 2026 and 2027, respectively). Despite a bruising past few years at the ballot box, the PES is sticking with the old guard as its leadership. PES President Stefan Löfven — a former Swedish prime minister who runs the party from Stockholm while also working for consultancy Rud Pedersen — is running to be re-elected unopposed. Secretary-General Giacomo Filibeck will also stay on, and Löfven has proposed keeping the center left’s top two members of the European Parliament — Iratxe García and Katarina Barley — in place as vice-presidents. Sarah Wheaton contributed reporting.