Check against delivery! 

Thank you to all of you for waiting. This has been a little bit longer [meeting]. 

In any case, [we had] a Council on important topics, with important guests and with important results – if I may say.  

At the start, we were joined by Secretary [Anthony] Blinken, the US Secretary of State. We discussed a number of topics with him via videoconference. 

I think that this exchange has demonstrated that both parts of the Atlantic – the EU and the US – we have a strong commitment to enhance this transatlantic coordination.   

We need urgent action in Ukraine, both here and in the US. We have been listening after to Dmytro Kuleba [Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine] [and] it is clear that action is urgent.  If we want to continue providing support to Ukraine, action is urgent and both parts have to accelerate decisions on that. 

On the Middle East, we can achieve more together - more specifically on the situation in Gaza and for a lasting peace based on the Two-States solution. We can achieve more together, working together, in order to look for solutions to Gaza and to push for the Two-States solution. 

For both things, Ukraine and the Middle East the transatlantic unity is essential – if we want to face these challenges.  

Then we were joined by another guest – which is a usual guest that comes to talk to us every Foreign [Affairs] Council: Dmytro Kuleba, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Ukraine. He updated us about the situation on the ground, in particular, on the military side, on Ukrainian current position and priorities.  

In this context, of the urgency to support Ukraine’s military, the Council - the Ministers - made two important decisions: 

First, we adopted the Ukrainian Assistance Fund within the European Peace Facility with €5 billion more. This will add predictability to our military support, which remains guided by the needs of Ukraine. 

This will allow us: to deliver from [existing] stocks, purchasing bilateral procurement, deliveries based on joint procurement, and training under our military mission [EUMAM Ukraine], which has been one of the most successful training missions of the European Union. 

Second, we agreed to sanction those responsible for the murder of Alexei Navalny – [over] 30 individuals and entities - under the EU’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. 

We also discussed the issue of frozen assets. Let’s be clear: we talk about the revenues. We talk about the windfall profits. We do not talk about the capital. We talk about the revenues of this capital which has been extraordinary. This is something that we have identified to put aside. Now the issue is to take it and to use it for the benefit of Ukraine. 

I discussed that with the Ministers, we had been discussing that for months. At the end of the discussion, I told the Ministers: “Look, we have to take a decision on the basis of a concrete proposal, a Council decision, a legal text, that only the High Representative can table to the Council.” [I told them] that - as always, every time there is a restrictive measure, and this is a restrictive measure taken under the Common Foreign and Security Policy – it will be accompanied by a joint regulation from the High Representative and the [European] Commission.  

Decisions and regulations. They are two different legal texts. A Council decision, tabled by the High Representative, and a Council regulation to implement the decision, which will be according to a joint communication from the High Representative and the [European] Commission.  

But the first step is the Council decision. If there is no decision there cannot be a regulation. To regulate what? To regulate the implementation of the decision. So, after the discussion today, I have seen there is strong support. There are some Member States that want to have more details, but there is a strong support to take the revenues [from] the windfall profits. And to use it to support Ukraine.  

How? Militarily, to increase the resources of the European Peace Facility, and also to support the development of the Ukrainian defence industry. I am going to table this Council decision proposal and work with the Commission to approve a Council regulation, in order for the Member States to discuss a concrete proposal before the European Union Council. I cannot say that there was unanimity but a strong consensus to take this decision.  

Then, we exchanged on the presidential “elections” in Russia – you have seen the EU27 Statement on this. These so-called elections took place in a highly restricted environment, with voters deprived of a real choice and systematic internal repression. 

There was no electoral observation mission, certainly not from our side but not even from the OSCE. So, we can only consider that these elections have been taking [place] in the middle of a systematic repression of the voters. And we have to condemn the illegal holding of these so-called “elections” in the territories of Ukraine that Russia has temporarily occupied.  

We discussed the situation in Belarus and the constantly worsening internal situation. Belarus remains high on our agenda.  

The violations of civil and political rights of the Belarusian people continue. There are more than 1,400 political prisoners. We ask for their release, and we will take further measures according with the proposal of the Member States to continue supporting the Belarusian opposition.  

Then, we went to the situation in the Middle East – in general – and in Gaza – in particular. 

Today, the World Food Programme has issued a report on the situation in Gaza. The report says that they have never seen a starvation situation as the one that people in Gaza are suffering. 70% of the population are at risk of starvation and 100% - almost everybody – is under severe food stress. 

This is the situation in Gaza. 

We discussed about the Cyprus Maritime Route. I issued a statement this afternoon together with Commissioner [for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, Janez] Lenarčič about this situation in Gaza. 

Certainly, when we talk about the situation in Gaza, we have to repeat our condemnation of the Hamas attacks, and to ask for the freedom of the hostages – as we always do. But this statement from this body attached to the World Food Programme is very important to have a clear understanding of what is going on there. 

Certainly, the Cyprus Maritime Route has to be developed, but more access by land has to be facilitated by Israel.  

I want to repeat again that all hostages should be unconditionally freed. Nobody should bargain with civilian lives. 

Then, we discussed about the sanctions on Hamas. And we also agreed on sanctions on extremist settlers. It was not possible last Foreign Affairs Council; this time it has been possible.  

A solid compromise has been agreed at the working level. And I hope this will be continued until full adoption soon. But the political agreement is there. 

We also had an orientation debate on the EU-Israel Association Agreement. This Association Agreement is explicitly based on the shared values between us – on respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy.  

We have to further engage with Israel to further discuss the situation in Gaza. To call for an Association Council certainly was complicated and had not [received] strong support because first, you have to agree on an agenda, and you have to agree on a common position from Member States, which was going to be very difficult to get.  

By the contrary, many Member States had, instead of that, in order to continue reaching out to Israel and to discuss about this issue, we could invite again the Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel [Yisrael Katz] to attend the Foreign Affairs Council, and certainly, the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority [Mohammad Mustafa] should also be invited [for us] to listen from the Palestinian side. 

In any case, the respect of human rights around the world is something that matters to us, wherever there is a problem. And we have an EU Special Representative for Human Rights [Olof Skoog] who takes care of these issues all around the world. And what is happening in Gaza is also something that concerns all of us, remembering, once and again that the terrorist attack of Hamas against the Israeli people. But the answer from Israel has to be studied, considered. Many voices have been asking for Israel not to attack Rafah and to take more measures to protect the civilians. 

We also discussed the recent developments in Haiti.  We support a viable, inclusive and sustainable Haitian-led political transition. We emphasised the importance of deploying the Multinational Security Support Mission authorised by the United Nations Security Council.  We are also exploring how we can indirectly support the objectives of the multinational mission.  

Haiti is the typical example of a failed state – completely failed – in the hand of gangs, of organised crime. When there is not a state that can provide a framework for security, that cannot provide security from police forces, a judiciary. When there is not an organised society, then what happens? Well, it happens that the gangs are taking arms and try to control the country, fighting against each other, terrorising the civilian population, and bringing the society towards a complete chaotic dangerous situation. 

Haiti is a typical example. We have seen that in Somalia also – before, in Mogadishu. And I am sorry to say that, the situation in Gaza can also be something [like] that. We see the development of gangs, we see the development of forces which take advantage of the dire situation. And we have to restore security, and we have to restore human support to the population in Gaza, if we [do not] want Gaza to become a Mediterranean Haiti. 

This is a reflection that I put on the table of the Ministers in order to increase our support, to take into account the role of UNRWA – who has to continue to be supported. Some Member States have retaken the support to UNRWA. But also organisations can also participate on the support of the Palestinians. 

We want to stress that, certainly, we support the right of Israel to defend itself, but it has to be done in accordance with international law and humanitarian law. And we do not accept the blaming of UNRWA saying that UNRWA is a partner – or is cooperating – with Hamas or any terrorist organisation. We have to reject this accusation, and wait for the Colonna mission in order to analyse what has happened during the 7 October day, and to follow the result of this audit. 

Q&A 

Q. We have read that Ukraine’s Assistance Fund is designed to incentivise the European defence industry and the defence industry of Norway. My question is: is that project, in the framework of this Ukraine Assistance Fund open for Ukranian enterprises? I mean, would this money be directed to producing ammunition or military equipment in Ukraine itself? And the second question, if I may, but as we are speaking about the framework contracts on ammunition production, when can we expect the first delivery of ammunition from those projects to Ukraine? Because you know – maybe the best of all - that each and every minute of delay costs a horrible price for Ukrainians.

Yes, we are very much aware of that. Well, the Ukrainian Assistance Fund is to assist Ukraine. It is not to develop the European defence industry. It is to support Ukraine. And I put that clearly today, that any Member State who wants to buy ammunition outside of the European Union - because they have an offer or they know where to buy it – they can do it, and this is eligible to be refunded from the European Peace Facility. It has always been like this. Member States who want to buy the munition to Ukraine can take this ammunition from wherever. From their stocks, from the European defence industry, from any supplier around the world.  

In fact, this Czech initiative, to provide - they say - 800,000 [pieces of] ammunition is perfectly eligible to use the Ukrainian Assistance Fund to refund part of the cost to the Member States who participate in this initiative. But, at the same time, there are proposals for joint procurement to the European industry. But do not confuse joint procurement from the European industry, and the fact that any Member State can look around the world, to look ammunition, to buy it, to sell it to Ukraine, and after to be refunded. That has always been like this. 

If the Member States agree on seizing the revenues from the Russian frozen assets, these resources could partially be allocated to the European Peace Facility to increase our military support to Ukraine. It is nothing new, we have been discussing that for months and, also, to increase the defence capacity of the industrial sector in Ukraine.  

Both things are needed. We have to push for the industrial capacity of [the] Ukrainian defence sector, at home, and we can, in the meantime, provide [and] supply arms to Ukraine. For that we have an instrument which is the European Peace Facility for a simple reason: the European Union budget cannot use its resources to buy arms. Not to buy arms. That is why you have this extra budgetary fund, which is not submitted to these restrictions. But the Ukrainian Assistance Fund is to support Ukrainians, [it] has only this purpose.  

Q. Concernant les sanctions sur les colons israéliens extrémistes, je voulais avoir quelques précisions. Là on a un accord politique, et il faut ensuite que vous fassiez des propositions pour sanctionner ces personnes avec un gel des avoirs et un interdiction visa, ou seulement un de deux aspects. Est-ce-que vous espérez rapidement que ces décisions pourront entrer en vigueur sachant que Antony Blinken vous en a parlé et que les américains ont été plus vite que les européens dans ce côté-là. Et je voulais une deuxième question sur le corridor maritime: vous étiez assez réticents, enfin du moins j'avais compris ça au départ sur la faisabilité de ce corridor. Il se met en place ? Est-ce-que vous allez de soutenir financièrement d’une façon ou d'une autre, afin qu’il puisse avoir plus de bateaux qui s’arrivait sur place? Comment ça fait que les européens ont été incapable de mettre en place ce corridor plus tôt?  

Je n’ai jamais été réticent. Ecoutez : l’aide à Gaza, par tous les moyens. Normalement ça devrait être par route. C’est la façon la plus efficace, mais si ce n’est pas possible parce qu’il y a une limitation au nombre des camions qui peuvent entrer - et il y a une limite, c’est évident - alors, s’il y a des bateaux, faisons-le par bateaux. Mais, écoutez, le bateau qui est allé de Chypre à Gaza, c’est un bateau d’une organisation privée. C'était un cuisinier espagnol qui a une ONG, qui donne de la nourriture aux gens de Gaza. Oui, il a utilisé - je ne sais pas si on peut dire le corridor maritime - il est sorti de Chypre et il est arrivé à Gaza. Oui, il est un corridor maritime, mais quand on est arrivé à Gaza le bateau a débarqué sa cargaison d’une façon assez précaire. 

Mais, c’est quand même fait. C’est bien. C’est très bien. Mais c’est une organisation privée. Évidemment, nous, on va aider développer les cargaisons par bateau, s’il n’y a pas d’autres solutions, il est mieux par bateau que rien. Donc, il faut vraiment dire que c’est une initiative positive, et au même temps il faut dire aussi que la seule alternative qui peut fournir la quantité d’aide nécessaire c’est l’ouverture de la frontière terrestre. C’est comme le parachutage. Un parachute de colis est à une heure et demie de là où le parachute tombe il a un aéroport. À une heure et demie par route de là où le parachute tombe il a un aéroport. Mais l’aéroport est fermé.  

Bon, alors, on fait un parachutage. Le normal serait que vous puisse atterrir avec un avion-cargo. De la même façon qu’on demande Israël d’ouvrir un port. Et là, Chypre a joué un rôle très important, et je vais remercier Chypre parce qu’il a lancé cette idée et cette idée commence à marcher.  

Mais pour les settlers, le dernier conseil, on n’a pas eu d’unanimité. Alors on a déjà chacun que peut le faire de son côté. Mais les gels des actifs financés ne peuvent pas être fait chacun de son côté. Parce que ça c’est une compétence de l’Union. Soit on le fait au niveau de l’Union, soit on ne le fait pas. Pas contre les visas, oui, les visas c’est une compétence des États membres. Donc, chacun peut le faire. Alors, maintenant il y a l’unanimité. Le pays qui avait bloqué maintenant il dit qu’il est d’accord. Bon, ‘il est d’accord’ - il s’abstient. Il ne s’oppose pas. Alors, on avait déjà préparé la liste des personnes qui allaient être sanctionné. Il faut tout simplement remettre ça en route, et proposer ça à nouveau en Coreper, [pour] que la décision soit adoptée. 

Q. High Representative, you said there is strong support for using the revenues – or the proceeds – from frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine but there was not unanimity. How many countries are not convinced? Do you need unanimity to be able to do this? Are there more reservations when it comes to the idea of using this for military purposes? Would it be easier to get an agreement if it was only to be used for reconstruction? 

No, I do not think so. There is an issue in itself, which is the legal basis and the financial consequences of seizing not the assets, but the revenues generated by these assets in exceptional circumstances. I cannot say that anyone was opposing but they wanted to have a concrete proposal in order to carefully study the legal basis. I understand [that]. We live in a state of law, we cannot take arbitrary measures. The decisions that we take have to be supported by international law or be compatible with international law. Some Member States want to study carefully the text that will be presented to them in a couple of days.  

Q. We read the reports, we hear you speaking, we listen to the ministers entering the Foreign Affairs Council complaining about the starvation in Gaza. But what the EU can do to literally and actually help the people in Gaza? You invite now the Foreign Minister of Israel; what do you expect from him? Do you want to put some pressure on him in order to stop the situation of starvation or not to attack in Rafah? 

Pues, claro. Certainly, we are going to put pressure. We are doing that. Chancellor [of Germany, Olaf] Scholz went to discuss with Prime Minister [of Israel, Benjamin] Netanyahu and I think he put a lot of pressure, saying that the Europeans cannot sit and look what is happening, cannot look at the starvation of the Palestinians without doing nothing. So, I understand that, this statement – and other statement – coming also from the US is an expression of the will to put pressure on Israel in order to make them understand that they have to allow more humanitarian support coming into Gaza. But, from our side - maybe others can take other measures - but from our side it is the political and diplomatic pressure on Israel, in order to make them understand that this situation is not acceptable. This is what all political leaders of the European Union have been saying. And today, it was a clear consensus that the situation is not acceptable, and the only solution is to put political pressure on Israel. 

Q. Me gustaría preguntarle por las elecciones rusas, preguntarle por el comunicado que es contundente, pero me gustaría saber si cree usted que se podría haber llegado un poco más lejos. Dice que no se reconoce los resultados en los territorios ocupados, en Crimea y en el Donbás, pero ¿se podría haber llegado al punto de no reconocer las elecciones en todo el territorio ruso?  

Bueno, hay una diferencia clara entre celebrar elecciones en casa del otro y hacerlas en tu casa. Llueve sobre mojado. No solamente las elecciones son unas elecciones ‘fake’, en el sentido de que no hay libertad de expresión, ni candidatos alternativos. En fin, todo el mundo sabe cómo son las llamadas elecciones en Rusia. Pero si además las hace usted en un territorio que no pertenece a Rusia, sino que lo ha usurpado del país vecino, pues doble condena, ¿no? Doble condena. No solamente las elecciones son elecciones que no pueden ser reconocidas como tales, en su esencia misma, sino que encima se hacen violando la ley internacional porque se hace en un territorio que no reconocemos como territorio ruso.  

¿Qué más podemos decir, más que lo que ya he dicho? Son elecciones que han tenido lugar en un contexto altamente represivo, donde todos los electores y candidatos – candidatos entre comillas alternativas - han estado bajo una fuerte presión donde las libertades públicas no son reconocidas. ¿Qué más puedo decir para descalificar la esencia democrática de estas elecciones?  

Q. On the Israeli extremists, can you name the organisations? Are there individuals? What exactly are the sanctions? Is it a travel ban plus freezing of their assets? How do you identify those assets?  

Se trata de personas concretas que han sido identificadas como responsables de acciones violentas contra los colonos. Nuestras sanciones siempre son individuales, son siempre de la misma naturaleza, que es: prohibir el acceso a territorio europeo, y congelar activos si se identifican. ¿Qué más podemos hacer?  Siempre sancionamos a los individuos y a las organizaciones de la misma manera. Usted no está autorizado de venir a Europa, y si tiene activos se los congelamos.

Y eso será lo mismo que hagamos con estas personas violentas cuyo nombre, como dice el Quijote, no quiero acordarme. Tampoco creo que sea importante el nombre en concreto y en particular, que no tengo en la cabeza. Pero ya estaban perfectamente identificados, y las sanciones propuestas.  

Ahora se va a volver a poner sobre la mesa lo que no fue aprobado en el anterior FAC [Foreign Affairs Council], y ahora sí.  

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-254137