Informal meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers (Gymnich): Press conference by High Representative Kaja Kallas
Check against delivery!
Dear representatives of the press, dear Constantinos,
Thank you for hosting us in this sunny Limassol. We had very open and very good discussions, like it is usual for the Gymnich format.
First, we discussed the situation in the Middle East, together with the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal and India’s Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar. Both countries play an important role through their extensive diplomatic engagement across the region, and it was good to hear their views. It was very eye-opening also for us and to see what more we can do together.
On Iran, the Strait of Hormuz remains caught in a dangerous grey-zone between war and peace. There is now genuine diplomatic push underway to extend the ceasefire and reopen the Strait. But any first phase agreement between the US and Iran must be followed by deeper talks about the nuclear stockpile but other critical issues for the regional security. The EU can contribute with technical expertise when it comes to nuclear talk, for example.
The EU is helping to protect the freedom of navigation in the region, including through Operation ASPIDES. We have already reinforced the mission with more ships, but additional capabilities will be required if we want to do more. At the same time, the EU is stepping up our security and defence cooperation with the Gulf countries.
Beyond Iran, we also discussed other issues in the Middle East and other crisis. In Lebanon, the ceasefire appears to be more nominal by the day; a return to a full-scale war is a real possibility.
We also discussed Gaza and the West Bank, including possible restrictions on the trade linked to settlements and sanctions to ministers, was also raised. But as Gymnich format is a place where we do not do decisions, so we will revert to this issue back to when we are having the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg.
Then on Russia, the dynamics of the war are shifting in Ukraine's favor. Russia is on the back foot, militarily, economically, but also diplomatically. But as the latest strikes on Kyiv have shown, Russia still shows no genuine interest in peace, which was also the clear view of the ministers today. Moscow's direct threat to kill foreign diplomats in Kyiv is a public announcement of a war crime.
Today we also discussed our own European core security interests regarding Russia. It is good that ministers have the chance to reflect, and we had really thorough discussions on what concessions Europe should ask from Moscow, and what our red lines are. And one thing is very clear: Europe will never be a neutral mediator between Russia and Ukraine, because we are on Ukraine's side and we are defending our own core security interests.
I put forward a discussion paper already in February, but just let me recall a few of the points that were there. Unconditional ceasefire is a prerequisite for any kind of peace negotiations that was also underlined by ministers today. Russia must stop sabotage operations, cyber-attacks, election interference, airspace violations across Europe, limiting Ukraine's military while Russia rearms which directly threaten European security. If there are gaps for Ukraine's army, there must be also limitations for Russia's.
There can be no legal recognition of the occupied Ukrainian territory, and there must be also accountability and that is very important. Russia must cooperate with the international investigations and should pay for the destruction it has caused.
Any peace agreement must fully accept Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and the right to choose its own alliances. And of course, there are broader security concerns when we look at the presence of Russian troops in countries such as Georgia and Moldova. It is clearly in Europe's interest that these forces are no longer stationed there.
There are more issues, of course it was a long paper, but let me leave it there.
Also, ministers were proposing some new ideas that should be there, but the bottom line is this: Europe has valid demands to ensure that any peace is lasting, and the ministers asked me to take this work forward.
Ministers also discussed how to increase the pressure on Russia globally. Too many countries continue to do business with Moscow, while simultaneously enjoying privileged access to European markets and investments. So, Europe must use its leverage more effectively when it comes to trade, investment, market access, partnerships. And this is why we are also preparing new sanctions to Russia to really pressure them, so that they would go from pretending to negotiate to actually come to the negotiation table.
Overall, there was a strong unity today to defend European interests, to support Ukraine, and put more pressure on Russia.
So, dear Constantinos, thank you again for organising this wonderful meeting, and thank you for the hospitality that you have shown to all of us here.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/media/video/I-289809
Q&A
Q. Regarding the participation of Indian and Saudi Foreign Ministers, given the geopolitical environment and the focus of the Cyprus presidency, Ms Kallas, priorities of the Cyprus presidency are regional stability and maritime security. How did their contribution fit into shaping today's discussions? And was their presence useful?
The answer to the last question is yes, it was very useful, and really we appreciated them being here. We heard a lot about the discussion on the overall security architecture of the Middle East. We have multiple crises coming up, and just like in our security theatre, they are also worried about these things starting over and over again. So, what more can we do together in order to have stability and peace in the Middle East? Because it is our immediate neighborhood, it has a huge effect also on us. Of course, also with India, we discussed the broader impact of the war in Iran, because it shows how much we are actually globally connected, which also shows that all of us need to diversify. We need to diversify our trade portfolios, need to diversify our energy portfolios, need to diversify also our trade routes and supply chains. There is a lot of mutual interest in taking projects forward that will provide alternative, so that one choke point is not holding everybody hostage. So, it was very useful.
Q. You didn't mention in your speech any progress or what was the latest on the discussion around having an envoy to talk to Moscow. Was there any unity or guidance given in the room by the ministers, or was it divisions that you saw over the issue? And then, just following up on what you said, you said the EU will never be a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, but Ukraine is asking the EU to step in and to get involved and play a bigger role now that the US has stepped back. So, are you telling Ukraine you are not going to step in at the moment?
The talk was mostly on the substance, but of course it was also briefly touched upon, so how should we actually move forward with answering the question that you have on who. The broad consensus was that we have the European institutions, we have the treaties in place, and the treaties provide us a framework on how we can actually decide, on how to go forward. So, sticking to the substance, is much more important, to be really ready on the issues that we want to see. And the other question was about the mediator. Ukraine's ask is about actually also being thumb on a scale on their side, because all the concessions so far have been on the Ukrainian side, but there should be also concessions on the Russian side. Meaning that we should also help them in these negotiations, but we cannot be mediators, because we are defending the interests of Europe and the interest of Ukraine, because Ukraine is also in Europe. That is why whether it is a ceasefire, whether it is any other issue that I discussed before, we cannot be mediators, we cannot be neutral, treating them equally, because we have been clearly on Ukraine side.
Q. A question to the High Rep on the peace efforts for Ukraine. Can you tell us what kind of exchanges are currently taking place with the United States on this issue? Are there any exchanges at all? And also, perhaps a quick question to both of you. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that apparently only the United States can handle these peace negotiations with Russia on Ukraine. Do you agree?
It is clear that all our efforts have to be also complementary to US efforts, and ministers were also very clear about this. We are not coming in instead of the United States, but we are actually addressing the issues that they have not been addressing in these talks. Recently, it was last week, when the majority of Foreign Ministers of the European Union met with the Secretary of State of the US in NATO and actually also were discussing how this process goes forward.
Q. I wanted to follow up on the ideas you suggested in this paper in February. So, first of all, you said there were some new ideas in the room for what these conditions could be. Can you tell us any more about what those ideas were? And then, is there any consensus on those conditions you put forward, for example restrictions on Russia's military or withdrawal of those troops from Georgia and Moldova? Are these merely your ideas or can we think of them as EU conditions at this stage? And to both of you, if the EU won’t be a mediator and the US won't be a mediator, who should mediate? I am aware that your Saudi Arabian counterpart was in the room today. Have you got any ideas?
There were some additional ideas put forward. For example, the issue of Ukrainian civilian detainees because there have been also journalists detained in the occupied territories these should also be raised. Ukrainian children . the return of them. It is also in the interest of Europe that these children are returned. And then on the question of the Russian troops in Moldova and Georgia. So it is one idea, because when we talk about European core security interests, then it is not in the interest of those countries nor us. If those countries are looking or trying to be on the European path, then that there are Russian troops stationed there. It is a clear security risk, and it is in our interest that they are moved. So, nobody was opposing that, so it is still there.
Just one more thing on who could be mediator. I think it is very important that we push Ukraine and Russia to talk to each other, because there are so many issues where only they can decide and nobody else. There can be countries that do this shuttle diplomacy, but in the end it has to be them who sit down on these issues that only they can decide.
Q. I just want to get back to the Iran war, you have mentioned that on freedom of navigation ASPIDES could be expanded, and that more resources are needed. I just wanted to ask you, what kind of resources? Can you outline the vision of how the EU will respond to ensure freedom of navigation once hostilities end - for sure?
Our naval mission, what it needs is more ships, so that is a very simple answer. Of course, the discussion is also, if we look at the mandate of the Operation ASPIDES, then it actually covers the wide area. We only have to change the operational plan of this mandate. But if we want to also add demining ships, then we need to change the mandate as well, because we have countries that have de-mining ships. But it is a defensive operation; like you said, after the end of the hostilities, willing to escort the ships via the Strait of Hormuz, because it is also needed later on, but it mostly needs more ships. Good news is that we already have one more and we are working on that.
Q. I actually had a freedom of navigation question, also. We saw a lot of enthusiasm by EU partners when Cyprus was attacked by that Hezbollah drone in February, and a lot of talk about strengthening Article 42 paragraph 7 of the EU treaties. So, my question is, do you now see similar enthusiasm to bring together an EU fleet in the Strait of Hormuz? Can you tell us how many EU Member States are expressing willingness to participate, because some countries like Greece have said they will, but there has to be a decent number involved.
I tasked my services already before this war started to operationalise the 42.7 because we have different scenarios. We have a scenario where you have a NATO member that is also a European member attacked, we have a scenario where a European member that is not a NATO member is attacked, and then we have everything that is also below the threshold of article five in NATO. So, we have come forward with papers, how we can operationalise the 42.7, we already did tabletop exercise for our ambassadors to actually identify the gaps. And what is the end goal of this? It is to come up with sort of a manual on how we can use this 42.7 if it is the case. On your second question this is my plea as well. We have Operation ASPIDES already in the region, and yes, it has too few ships. We have other initiatives, like the UK-France initiative, but I think this can be complementary. The problem is that every Member State has just one ship that they can contribute, so if they contribute this via the operation ASPIDES, then we are a united European front. We are credible security providers, also when it comes to the Gulf, we are also credible in the eyes of the world, because together we are stronger, and also we can contribute to the French-UK initiative that is also bringing aboard countries from outside Europe. I have had these meetings with Defence Ministers, Foreign Ministers, also the Heads of the Armies of the European Union, and the thoughts have been planted. So, let us see how we can actually move forward in a very tangible way.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/media/video/I-290203