Check against delivery! 

Good evening.

We started our Foreign Affairs Council with the Ukranians Foreign Minister, Andrii Sybiha, who debriefed us on the situation in the battlefield. The Minister commented some elements of the Victory Plan that President Zelensky will present to the next European Council. We discussed and commented on how to advance the Peace Formula.  

There is a strategic logic in strengthening Ukraine, politically and militarily, to force Putin to go to negotiations, although I have to confess it looks like a very distant prospect. 

We talked about the Peace Formula; we talked about military support – because we consider that peace cannot be confused with capitulation.  

During this year, we have seen a sharp increase of Ukrainian civilian casualties, as well as Russian attacks against energy and ports infrastructure and grain exports [vessels]. Just today, several foreign civilian ships were hit by ballistic missiles launched by Russia. So, the problem of exports of grain is coming back. 

Russia is attacking the ships that are [have been], until now, navigating freely through the corridors that were established from Odesa towards the end of the Black Sea. 

Unhappily, it seems that, once again, the export of grains is under [danger from] the military threat of Russia.  

We cannot allow Putin to endanger global food security or succeed in his effort to weaponise winter. I said it several times, he plans to put Ukraine into the dark and the cold and for that, he is attacking specifically the energy infrastructure. He failed last year on this purpose. He must fail again. 

We also heard [from] the [EU] Sanctions Envoy David O’Sullivan on the latest efforts against sanctions circumvention. Sanctions evasion keeps Russia’s war machine working. 

We see progress in tackling this circumvention of sanctions, but certainly much more is needed. We see too often Western-branded electronic elements continuing [to be used] in Russia’s weapons machinery. When you do the autopsy of the Russian weapons, you find Western-branded electronic components.  

We have to continue fighting against sanctions circumvention – and this starts at home. It is not only the countries where the circumvention takes place by re-exporting, it starts at home. We have to increase due diligence by companies exporting critical components to third countries. 

We need more sanctions against the Russian shadow fleet. The Russian capacity to export hydrocarbons also prolongs the war and the number of ships on this shadow fleet that allows Russia to continue exporting oil without being under the limits. The price gap is increasing. So, we ask for proposals in order to increase the sanctions against these ships. 

By the way, [recently] we adopted a new sanctions regime targeting Russian hybrid activities against the European Union. Today, the Council has adopted sanctions for deliveries of Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia. I think it is seven persons and seven entities. This are the first sanctions [adopted] against Iran for providing ballistic missiles. 

Ensuring the best possible capacities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is essential. Ukrainian armed forces are under big pressure along the frontline – a frontline which is longer than before the summer. We have to continue providing Ukrainian Armed Forces with more capacity, and increase our training mission [EUMAM]. We will extend the mandate of the EU Military Assistance Mission [to Ukraine] for the next two years. I hope we will find consensus to increase its mandate. 

We also need to finally find consensus on my proposals to unblock the European Peace Facility (EPF)/Ukraine Assistance Fund. We are almost there. I promised you that we will look and find a way – I cannot say that there is 100% [done] but almost. I am sure that we will reach a full agreement – all Member States – on my last proposal.  

I also committed to Minister Sybiha that I will travel to Ukraine before the end of my mandate, but I do not want to do it before having an agreement to deblock the EPF money for Ukraine. Well, in fact, it is no longer for Ukraine; it is for the Member States who have already provided military support to Ukraine, and they are waiting to be reimbursed.  

Then, we went on [to discuss] the situation in the Middle East. 

The Middle East is on the brink of an all-out war, [with] further tensions, killings, destruction and military confrontations. You know that, and we have been – since the beginning – condemning Hamas, we have been condemning Hezbollah, we have been condemning Iran’s attacks – and rightly so. But we should also be clear-eyed about what the Israeli leadership has been doing and what looks like full determination to pursue its military objectives, at a high cost. 

We need sustainable ceasefires, immediately, in Gaza and in Lebanon. This morning, while we were discussing in the Council, another small town in South Lebanon has been hit; about 20 people were killed. Hezbollah must stop firing rockets on Israel, which are also causing deaths and injuries among Israeli civilians. 

But in Lebanon, another red line has been dangerously crossed by the Israeli army. The shelling by the Israeli Defence Forces of United Nations peacekeepers was condemned by the European Union unanimously and, today, Ministers reiterated their full support to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Nobody is asking UNIFIL to withdraw. And, by the way, everybody has to know [that] it is not the Secretary General of the United Nations [António Guterres] who has to decide if UNIFIL stays or leave. This decision belongs to the United Nations Security Council.

So, when some Israeli officials blame the Secretary General [António] Guterres for not withdrawing UNIFIL, they do not know, apparently, that this decision cannot be taken by the Secretary General; it has to be decided by the Security Council. And, here, today, no Member State was in favour of withdrawing UNIFIL. So, if they do not have to withdraw, they have to stay, and, if they have to stay, they have to stay in safety. In the last days, four soldiers of UNIFIL have been wounded. Has it been deliberately done? Well, Israeli forces say it was an accident, but, in any case, this is fully unacceptable. 

Ministers reiterated today their full support to UNIFIL and the full support also to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) – which is facing a potential, lethal threat from the Israeli draft legislation.  

We have been asking the [European] Commission to make the next tranche of European Union support to UNRWA available immediately in the coming days. So, full support to UNIFIL and full support to UNRWA, and a complete support also to the work they are doing and the funding they need. All Ministers asked the Commission to accelerate the last payment to UNRWA. 

We cannot abandon Lebanon. We cannot abandon a country that is in the edge of a precipice. Lebanon and its people are paying a heavy price for the Israeli military operations. The numbers speak for themselves: 1.2 million people – 20% of the Lebanese population, 20% of the entire population of the Lebanon – has have been forcefully displaced. You can imagine in which conditions. 400.000 have crossed the border going back to Syria – not on a voluntary basis, certainly not. And almost 2,500 have been killed. 

Lebanon is being bombed. Beirut is being bombed – and this threatens to convert Lebanon into a second Gaza. Certainly, the Lebanese are not guilty, because [it was] Hezbollah who started bombing the north of Israel immediately after the war in Gaza started.  

Certainly, these 70.000 people, Israeli people that had to leave their houses, have to come back to their houses. But this 1.2 million Lebanese people have the same right. The problem is that when they want [to do it], if someday they could come back, there will be nowhere to go, because everything will have been destroyed in the South of Lebanon. All the images – satellite images and videos – shows a complete destruction of the cities and civilian infrastructure. 

I insist on this idea: we cannot abandon Lebanon. The Lebanese people, the Lebanese political leadership have to do their part of the work, but they need a lot of support – economic, political, humanitarian and also military. Because at the end of the day, when the ceasefire comes, the Lebanese army has to have control of the border, and has to be deployed in the south of the country. The conference in Paris next week will be an important opportunity to rally the international community in this support of Lebanon. 

Now, everybody is looking at Lebanon and waiting for the Israeli answer against Iran, but we should not forget the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The humanitarian aid entering the Strip is at the lowest level since the start of the war. Kamala Harris, the United States candidate for the Presidency, has said today that no food has entered into Gaza in the last two weeks. The needs are exploding, and 400.000 [people] are being ordered [again] to evacuate the North, but there is nowhere to go, and they are being trapped in the middle of the fight. They have been ordered to leave, otherwise they risk being bombed, like it happened in the hospitals and schools in the Jabalia refugee camp. Hospitals and schools, and shelters and civilians have again been bombed yesterday in Northern Gaza. Civilians trapped there, in the cross-fire between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), have been obliged to leave – but there is no safe place to go.  

So we reiterate our call for the ceasefire and the unconditional release of the hostages and full compliance with humanitarian law, but I am afraid that the humanitarian law is below the rubbles of Gaza. 40.000 people have been killed in Gaza and I am afraid that humanitarian law is also a victim in this war. 

Ministers agreed on the urgency to advance our support to the Palestinian Authority - the Commission confirmed that work is ongoing to ensure the swift disbursement of the third tranche of their emergency package. I already talked about UNRWA.  

Ministers also discussed sanctions on violent extremist settlers in the West Bank and those who enable their illegal activities which undermine the Two-State Solution. You know I have been making some proposals. I urged member States to reach an agreement soon, because the discussion continues at the Working Groups. 

The [Foreign Affairs] Council, all Ministers underlined the strong support to the United Nations Secretary General [António Guterres] and the work of the United Nations. It is important to stress that the attacks against the Secretary General have been rebuked, refused, rejected, by the Council.  

Unhappily, we see a global erosion of International Humanitarian Law. This has to be prevented. The Member States, who before the summer asked for a discussion about the compliance by Israel of the international humanitarian law in accordance with the Association Council, insisted in this request. So, I suggested that at the next Foreign Affairs Council we have a full discussion about this issue – because I am afraid the Association Council will not take place before the next Foreign Affairs Council. The situation is certainly very much worrisome.  

We had an excellent discussion with [the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary] David Lammy - only 100 days after the formation of the new United Kingdom government. It symbolises our new partnership with the United Kingdom and our wish to work more in close cooperation, especially in the field of security and defence. 

We are united in our calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. To reverse the serious escalation in the Middle East, we agree, the United Kingdom and the European Union, on the two-state solution: it is the only prospect for peace.  

To take our strategic cooperation forward, I agreed this morning with [United Kingdom Foreign] Secretary [David] Lammy to establish a six-monthly Foreign Policy Dialogue between ourselves. We will also have regular consultations on files like Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific or the Western Balkans.  

As the [United Kingdom] Foreign Secretary [David Lammy] said: “we cannot change the past. We cannot reverse the decision that has been taken, but I believe that today we started a new approach towards a future.” A shared future of cooperation, in particular in security and defence. 

We, as the Council, also remarked and reiterated the high value that the European Union attaches to our Strategic Partnership with Morocco. It is longstanding, wide-ranging, and deep. We have established a profound friendship and a solid and multi-faceted cooperation, which we intend to continue and to increase in the next months. We took note of the [European] Court of Justice’s [decision] of the labelling of food and vegetables from the territory of the Western Sahara. We issued a Statement about that, with the Commission and myself, as High Representative. I want to reiterate the content of this Joint Statement: “In close cooperation with Morocco, the European Union firmly intends to continue strengthening our close relations and our partnership in all areas.” 

Finally, we discussed the situation in Moldova and the situation in Georgia. Both countries have a crucial vote [ahead] in the next [few] weeks.  

Moldova is making significant progress on the European Union path despite increasing Russian intimidation. We see Russia is sparing no efforts to subvert the electoral process through hybrid attacks and widespread illegal vote buying. We commend the resilience of the Moldovan government in face of these unprecedented challenges, and we will continue to offer our support. 

Georgia is a bleaker picture. The ruling party’s recent actions, statements and electoral promises take the country away from the European path and signal a shift towards authoritarianism. That is why the European Union accession process is de facto halted. 

You know the decision taken by the [European] Commission from the point of view of access to European funding. Let’s wait for the upcoming Parliamentarian elections, which will be a crucial test for democracy in Georgia and its European Union path.

We discussed other issues, which are, unhappily, not very high on the agenda of the European politics, like the situation in Sudan, and in the Horn of Africa. We commented also the situation in Venezuela. 

This is – I think – a good summary of what we have been discussing today.  

Q&A 

Q. Two questions, please. The first one on Iran; certainly, the sanctions decision today will make business very difficult for Iran. But the original intention – four weeks ago – by Germany, France and the United Kingdom, as they announced it, was to cancel their bilateral flight agreements with Iran. So, the decision about this was to take place in the EU context, but no decision on this has been taken today. Why? Why is it so difficult? The sanctions today do not refer to the EU, they do not cancel the flight agreement. 

It was not in the agenda at all. Today we approved what was in the agenda; it was the sanctions for providing missiles to Russia. And there is in the pipeline – being discussed at the technical groups – the listing of the Revolutionary Guard. Nothing else. 

Q. The second question, on the EPF, on your proposal to declare contributions voluntary. How big is the risk that, with the lack of a duty to pay, of a fix key, more Member States than just one will drop out, or will not get the support from their national Parliaments for further payments – or for to actually make the payments that have promised in the past? 

Certainly, I do not see this risk. I do not see the risk of people that people say: “okay, since now it is voluntary, we are not going to do [it].” It is a matter of re-labelling the whole process in order to ‘play’ without having to have the agreement of Hungary – [that] certainly will not have to do their own contribution with lethal arms – which is already the case.  Not everybody agrees on this proposal. I cannot ensure that [at] the next Foreign Affairs Council we will have it. But the next Foreign Affairs Council will be my last Foreign Affairs Council, and I am sure that my colleagues will not want to spoil [it for] me.  

Q. Today, Prime Minister [of Spain, Pedro] Sánchez asked once again for the European Commission to take into account for possible suspension of the European Union-Israel Association Agreement. I would like to understand if this was discussed during the meeting, if you feel that, perhaps, there is more consensus regarding this issue right now. Regarding also this request from [Prime] Minister Sánchez to the European Commission to take a position; what can we expect here? 

Prime minister, the President of the Spanish government, and also – I think, in the previous days – also the Prime Minister of Ireland insisted on having an answer to their request. As I explained, I think, on several occasions, the fulfilment by Israel of the political side of the Association Agreement, the assessment about the fulfilment of this part of the Association Agreement is something that belongs to the Council. According to our legal advice, if it was a matter of trade, it would be [for] the [European [Commission]. It being something related to the fulfilment of the obligation from the point of view of human rights and other parts of the political part of the Association Agreement, this belongs to the Council. It is the Council who has to assess if the situation requires to take actions or not. When I presented – before the summer –this issue to the Council, the Council said: “okay, we will do it, but first, let’s talk with our Israeli friends. Let’s talk with Israel. We have an Association Council, we call for the Association Council, we listen to them, and then we assess the situation.” Well, I do not see the Association Council coming because, in order to hold an Association Council we have to agree both parts on the content of the meeting – the agenda of the meeting – and if we have to wait [for] the Association Council to take place, I am afraid it will not be an answer to the requests by Spain, Ireland and others. So, I proposed to the colleagues today that, at the next Foreign Affairs Council, the Council takes the responsibility and tries to give an answer to this request; to assess the situation and to discuss, and to decide what to do. We do not need to wait for the decision of the Commission because it is not an economic matter, it is a political issue. And this is the realm of the Council. 

Q. So, if you are going to take this issue to the next Foreign Affairs Council, do you think that there is some room for consensus? This is my question.  

Well, first, maybe, next month, we could have the Association Council meeting. I will continue trying to do it. If this is not the case, then yes, the Foreign Affairs Council will have to discuss about it – because some Member States requested to do [it]. [Whether] there is consensus or not, I cannot foresee. It will depend on the assessment of the situation. Who knows where we will be in one month from now. But we have enough evidence that the full respect of humanitarian law – as I said before – is something that has to be discussed. It is not only “to ask for” but “to assess if”. Not only to say: “Humanitarian law has to be respected”. Okay, it has to be respected, but does it happen? This is the question that Spain, Ireland and others have been asking the Council to answer. So, let’s see.  

Q. High Representative, I have a couple of questions. My first question is about the Member States’ reaction regarding the opinion and the decision made, months before, by the International Court of Justice. What was the reaction and, so, the implications of these opinions on your foreign affairs policy? And my second question is more diplomatic. Tomorrow we will meet the Gulf ministers and then the Heads of State in the first summit between the two communities. I would like to ask you which role do you see for the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council to work together to promote the initiative that you launched together in New York, which is the international coalition to implement the Two-State Solution? 

For the first question: it goes together with the previous question. The International Court of Justice’s ruling, the request from some Member States, what can be done, what has to be done, which is the assessment of the situation. This will be in a single package.  

About the [European Union-] Gulf Cooperation Summit (EU-GCC) summit: This is a very important Summit. It would always be an important Summit, but in the present circumstances it is especially important. [It is] the fact that all Gulf countries will be represented at the highest political level here in Brussels – [with] the meeting of heads of state and government, Gulf countries, European Union countries – in  a moment where the drums of war are sounding, in a very critical moment, in which the European Union is waiting for an Israeli answer to the Iranian rocket launching or missile launching. Maybe this [answer] will happen in the next days, maybe not, but the situation is very tense. There is a big question mark – [on] the ceasefire in Lebanon [as well]. This is the moment to have a meeting in order to converge the points of view of the Arab world and the European Union members. I want to use this opportunity to say that the Global Alliance for the [implementation of the] the Two-State Solution, is not about recognition. Some Members say we are confusing this global alliance that was launched during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) week in New York. It is not for everybody to recognise [Palestine], but for everybody who wants to support the idea of building a Two-State Solution – which means building the Palestinian state – because the other state already exists. This is the framework, not for recognition now, but to work for the implementation of this solution. 

Q. Was it considered the possibilities that in other countries, in other circumstances, it is true that the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations respond militarily to attacks?  

This mission is a peacekeeping mission. It looks a little bit ironic to talk about keeping peace when there is no peace, but it is not an executive mission. ‘Non-executive mission’ and ‘military’ wording means not a fighting mission. So, they are not there to enter into fights with anyone. 

Q. But this has happened in the past in other countries.  

This mission has a mission – and this mission is not there to fight. It is there to control the implementation of United Nations resolutions. It is not there to fight with anyone. Some Members States consider that this has to be reviewed, and the mission has to be enlarged. This could be my personal opinion, but in order to enlarge the mission – the mandate of the mission – it requires a [UN] Security Council resolution, which is going to be quite difficult to obtain. 

Q. High Representative, I have two questions. One of them is regarding the situation in Middle East. Do you see that the conflict, the current situation, could be more dangerous for the other countries in the region, like Iraq – because in Iraq there are some armed groups attacking Israel? And the other question, the second question, do you see the increase of the ISIS activities in Syria and Iraq right now? Were both topics addressed in your meeting today or not?

We have been condemning the attacks by Hamas, by Hezbollah, and by anyone against Israel – by Iran also. It is clear that there is a certain of, let's say, proxies, like the Houthis in Yemen, who are attacking Israel. We condemn all activities by the Iranian proxies, but we want to prevent a full war between Iran and Israel that could have dramatic circumstances for the whole region. Our most important work is to try to avoid the spillover of the war that started with the terrorist attack of Hamas, continued with the war in Gaza, and now is threatening Lebanon, is threatening the Red Sea, and who knows tomorrow. Yes, there are bombings in Syria, and there is a high risk of spillover affecting maybe Iraq – but do not call for the bad weather. We have enough with what we have. So, let's hope that the war will not spill over to other countries, to anyone more. [With regard to the second question], yes, it was discussed, certainly it was discussed, but I cannot go into much detail, because there is nothing concrete to tell. 

Q. In the statement you agreed yesterday evening, you asked for urgent explanations from Israel. Have you received any explanations? Are you satisfied with them? If you have not received them, are you satisfied with what they have said publicly?  

We know the Israeli army says that the attacks on the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) were accidental and not intended, but, at the same time, they consider that the best way of avoiding this kind of incident is UNIFIL withdrawing. Well, UNIFIL will not withdraw. UNIFIL is where it has to be. Well, at least until the United Nations Security Council takes another decision. The attacks against United Nations forces have to be absolutely avoided. They cannot be justified by any kind of incident or accident. 

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-261883