Check against delivery! 

Good afternoon, 

It is Saturday evening almost and everybody must be tired of this long week where we went from the Defence Ministers’ Council, then the European Council, then [the EU] Indo-Pacific [Ministerial Forum], the [EU-]ASEAN [Ministerial Meeting]. Now, Gymnich. 

It has been a meeting in ‘Gymnich spirit’. ‘Gymnich spirit’ means no tie and open and frank exchanges between Ministers in an informal setting, discussing in-depth things on which we have to concentrate our political discussion.  

We started [with the] handling our relations with Africa and we just finished on Turkey.  

We discussed our approach to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and we had a debate on the situation in Gaza and on UNRWA funding, in particular. 

This was not a formal Foreign Affairs Council, so there are no formal conclusions, and I will only be saying what I think the discussion has been about. And I will ask my Belgian colleague, President of the Council [of the European Union and Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, European Affairs and Foreign Trade, and the Federal Cultural Institutions, Hadja Lahbib] to help me in trying to summarise what we have been discussing. 

On Africa. You know, you cannot talk about Africa like this. Africa is too big and too varied to say “Africa”. But we have been discussing the continent as a geopolitical priority, [and] our absolute determination to increase our dialogue and cooperation. We have a meeting pending at the Ministerial level, and we will support Africa’s quest for greater representation in multilateral fora. But I cannot summarise a long discussion about Africa, from several points of view, only that we have to increase our interaction and partnership with Africa, with a stronger coordination among us. 

On Gaza, you know that the European Council discussed about the situation in the Middle East with no conclusions. 

Today, we discussed - very lively, because there are different positions among Member States - the situation in Gaza and the region: the catastrophic humanitarian situation. But this catastrophic humanitarian situation not because there has been an earthquake or there has been a natural catastrophe, it is because there is a war.  

This war has pushed hundreds of thousands of people to the South [of Gaza], and now that they are in the South, the South continues being bombed, and continues creating a very dire humanitarian situation. But it is a man-made catastrophe. 

We discussed the issue of financing of UNRWA, in light of the allegations against some of their staff. Member States welcomed the measures taken quickly by UNRWA to launch an investigation, showing how seriously the United Nations take this issue. Certainly, we expect the review, an audit, to be carried out swiftly and effectively.  

We want to know more about how UNRWA is working and that is why I have invited Commissioner General of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini - with whom I am in permanent contact - to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council in the format of Development Ministers on 12 February to exchange with him about all the aspects related to this issue. 

Let me make one thing clear: the [European] Commission – when we say “the European Union”, we mean “the EU Commission” - has not suspended its funding. Some days ago, there was a kind of a snowball [effect] saying that everybody suspended [their funding] and since everybody suspended [it], then we have to suspend [our funding] also. 

There were a lot of fake news, a lot of misinformation. Germany has not suspended, France has not suspended, Spain has not suspended [their funding]. Some Member States have suspended, but very few have clearly suspended [their funding]. Others have been taking just precautionary measures “waiting for”, but not stopping payments. 

And this is the case of the [European] Commission: it has not stopped payments, among other things because the next payment is due at the end of the month. So, you cannot suspend something that is not moving. Let’s see, from now until the end of the month where we are.  

Certainly, we will ask for reviews, we will ask for controls, [about] the lack of accountability, but I can say that for the majority of Member States, the general feeling, is that there is no substitute for UNRWA. I repeat: there is no substitute for UNRWA.  

UNRWA has been playing a critical role [in] support [of] the Palestinian refugees, and not only in Gaza. People talk about UNRWA as [if] it was only an agency for Gaza. There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan and in the West Bank - and UNRWA is also in charge of these people. UNRWA is feeding two million people, providing 30,000 medical assistance [actions] per day. Providing school for more than 400,000 pupils. 

Who can substitute that overnight? UNRWA is playing a critical role. It is true that the Israeli government has been very critical of UNRWA – not [only] now, many times before  – but we cannot punish two million people by depriving them from the support that UNRWA is providing. Who will take care of that? 

That is what we discussed at the European Council and here, I think most of the Member States that participated in the debate were very clear about that. We have to look for accountability. We have to look for verification of the allegations which are serious, but they affect a small number of the 13,000 staff of UNRWA in Gaza. And in the meantime, some Member States said: “I am not only not stopping, I am increasing the support to UNRWA.” Several of them said: “No, no, I am not stopping, I am increasing the support to UNRWA.” 

So, once again there is a variety of positions among Member States, but the general feeling is that the support to the Palestinian people has to continue. We talk about the lives of millions of people. 

I said [that] I invited Philippe Lazzarini. 

We discussed about the absolute urgency to avoid regional escalation and about the importance of finally liberating the hostages unconditionally, as [we] always do. 

We will continue discussing in the Foreign Ministers’ format. I hope that the naval mission [for the Red Sea] will be launched at the next Foreign Affairs Council [on 19 February]. 

On Ukraine: [we had] substantial discussion about the military assistance, our unity, looking for a peaceful future for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.  

We discussed about the situation in the battlefield, the situation of military supplies, the Ukraine Assistance Fund that I hope will be agreed in the next days, inside the European Peace Facility. 

Our position remains firm: Ukraine needs more support and needs quicker support.  Support has to come now. Ukrainian victory is crucial not only for Ukraine, but for the peace and the stability in Europe.

Finally on Turkey: after a long pause; we brought the topic of our relations back on the agenda. 

I think that we have to call for a closer cooperation between the European Union and Turkey, avoid confrontation and increase cooperation. For that, we have to reach out to Turkey, taking into account the Cyprus issue. 

We discussed the situation and opportunities in the area of foreign policy, and the conclusion is that we need to engage more with Turkey and work on areas where our interests converge and avoid irritants among us. 

This has been a summary of a very intense debate – an intense political debate because time requires such kinds of meetings. 

Q&A 

Q. High Representative, you mentioned the “absolute urgency” of avoiding a regional escalation. Given that the United States carried out airstrikes overnight in Iraq and Syria on more than 85 targets and reportedly killing nearly 40 people, do you regard that as an escalation? And how dangerous of a step do you see that? And did the ministers around the table have a view on that? 

It was expected. It was expected that the United States were going to retaliate to answer the attacks that they have suffered recently. I think three soldiers [were] killed and many more wounded. It was expected, it was even announced – and the continuation also of these attacks. Certainly, every attack contributes to the escalation, and the ministers have expressed serious concerns for this process. But we only can call on everybody to understand that at any moment, in these series of attacks and counterattacks, a spark can produce a greater incident. We take our part in trying to avoid it, by launching this naval mission in the Red Sea, which I hope will be approved at the next Foreign Affairs Council in the next couple of weeks, and immediately will be deployed because we have enough naval assets, in order to launch it immediately. And in the meantime, since we do not have a military presence on the ground, the only thing that we can do is to try to use our diplomatic capacity, in order to avoid this kind of increasing level of action-reaction. 

Q. Every time that we have meetings like that, and we have a new development in the Middle East, I am being asked on air: “What can the European Union do to contribute to ending the Israel-Hamas war?”. So, I would use this opportunity to put the question to you: what can the European Union do? And what is it doing to contribute to ending the war? 

I would like to have the capacity to end the war. First, the European Union is not a state. It is a group of states, and as you know, they have different approaches to this war. We have a minimum ground, everybody agrees on the need for humanitarian pauses, and increased humanitarian support to the people affected by the war. That is the minimum agreement among Member States. But when comes the moment to vote in the United Nations, some people ask for a ceasefire, an immediate and permanent ceasefire; some states ask for it. Others vote against [it], and others abstain. So, it is very difficult to play an important role if you have - inside the club - such different positions. And today, in our discussion, it has been clear that some Member States consider that an immediate ceasefire is necessary, others still do not see this necessity, because they consider that Israel has to continue fighting against Hamas. And the discussion has been – as the minister has said – approaching to a position closer to ask for a cessation of hostilities.  

What we can do is what we do. Many ministers have been travelling to the Middle East. Today, the French Minister [for Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Séjourné] was travelling to Israel, others have gone [before]. There is a lot of diplomatic activity, a lot of humanitarian support to the people in Gaza. We are now discussing our position with respect to UNRWA where, as I said, there are also different approaches. Some say: “Ok this is the moment to increase our support to UNRWA - not to cancel but to increase”. And others say: “I am going to think twice before continuing the support”. And others say: “Yes, I will continue the support, but I wait until there is a clear understanding of the situation”.

In general terms, the position of the European Union and Member States is to put pressure on Israel to obey to international law. Because one thing is to say that international law has to be respected and another thing is that international law is effectively respected. And on that also, there are different approaches. 

Q. On Turkey: I would like to ask if 2024 will keep being a testing year for Turkey or are the steps made until now are enough for more progress, even regarding the visa liberalisation? 

Well, as I said, everybody agrees I think that we have to go for a strong engagement with Turkey to avoid confrontation and increase cooperation. But this will depend on the evolution of facts. What is clear is that we have to engage more with Turkey. If we want to avoid confrontation and increase cooperation, we have to engage more. I do not know exactly what is going to happen with the visa [liberalisation] and other particular issues – that has not been discussed today. But the general feeling is that in order even to solve the Cyprus question – which for us, Cyprus is a Member of the European Union – it’s very high on our agenda, we have to engage more with Turkey in a positive manner. 

Q. I would like to ask about the Two-state solution. You are talking about a lot, and you say that there is only one way to peace. And this week, US State Secretary Antony Blinken asked the State Department to conduct a review and present policy options on possible US recognition of Palestinian state after the war in Gaza. How do you assess that? Is it a good sign? What can the European Union do? Is this possible? I know that the European Union cannot recognise the Palestinian state, but what can you do to convince maybe other Member States to recognise the Palestinian state? 

Well, first, it is a good sign of US engagement in trying to look for a solution to the conflict based on the ‘Two-State solution’. Secondly, these are not official news, these are considerations – I would not say rumours, but there is nothing official. But if this is the case - and it looks like it – that the United States is taking more and more the need to engage on the ‘Two-State solution’ becoming a reality, which will not come from the sky, will not grow in the trees - certainly not. We have been waiting for thirty years and it has not happened. And that is why my words and my speech “if you want this to happen, you have to engage as much as you can”. The international community has to push for it. Because it is clear – and I am not inventing anything – that the Netanyahu government does not want it. But, does the international community want it? If the United States is considering the possibility of recognition, if this is the case, the European Union cannot recognise anyone because we do not have this capacity, it is the Member States who recognise. And I know that some Member States are thinking about it, but I cannot talk on their behalf.  

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-252314