Informal meeting of Foreign Ministers: Press conference by High Representative Kaja Kallas
Check against delivery!
Good afternoon, everybody.
Thank you for being here in the EU delegation. We just met with the EU Foreign Ministers and a few of our partners.
Our priorities for this week are very clear: first, Russia's war against Ukraine; second, Middle East. Third, global food security that is also connected to both crises in Ukraine and Middle East. Fourth, accountability because that is also related to all these wars; maritime security and [a] multilateral system that delivers.
Europe faces a fast proliferation of sabotage attacks and airspace violations. Moscow is trying to scare Europe into winding down its support for Ukraine. As Russia is willing to take greater risks, we also need to impose greater costs.
There are many ways to do that, to begin with: stronger action against Russia's shadow fleet and tougher measures targeting its military-industrial complex.
Russia's economy is one of its weakest parts, and we need to increase the pressure on it, so that they would stop this war.
Ministers today discussed the rollover of the EU's Russia sanctions. Sanctions are a core pillar of our response to Russia's war. This is our biggest sanctions regime of more than 3,000 listings, and discussions are ongoing. We aim to close them soon and hopefully have the rollover swiftly.
On the Middle East, we raised the worsening situation in the Red Sea, which is already affecting European interests. Houthi attacks also sabotaged the global economy.
EU Operation ASPIDES is making a crucial contribution to the security in the region, and global shipping, for that matter. But the Operation needs more naval assets and more air assets to address the increased level of threats in the region. The Black Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb are three critical maritime choke points whose disruption spread far behind the regions. Freedom of navigation and maritime security are essential for trade, food security, and our economies.
For the second part of our session, also ministers from Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea joined us. And these are the countries with which European Union has signed Security and Defence Partnerships.
I want to single out three areas of closer cooperation.
First, making the multilateral system more effective, which means that Europe is strongly committed to it, both politically and financially, as the largest contributor to a UN system. Yet too often, UN is paralysed when it comes to preventing or ending conflicts. The focus today was on how to make multilateralism more effective, including through stronger preventive diplomacy and mediation, UN reform is essential, and we need a UN that is more effective and capable of delivering. Of course, the next choice of UN Secretary General is crucial, and we need strong leadership to defend the UN Charter, but also drive reform. Beyond institutions we need closer international cooperation where the rules are under pressure, like at sea, or still taking shape, such as artificial intelligence.
Second, Ministers discussed the growing connection between the security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific. Russia and North Korea's actions affect both regions. Tens of thousands of North Korean troops have supported Russia's war in exchange for Moscow's money, supplies, and technical assistance.
Through the supply of dual-use goods, China remains the key enabler of Russia's war. What happens in Asia matters for Europe, and what happens in Europe matters for Asia. Free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific is essential for global stability and prosperity, and EU Member States and our partners support the international law, including UNCLOS, freedom of navigation and overflight, and peaceful settlement of disputes. Protection of the critical maritime infrastructure is also somewhere where we can work much closely together.
Third, we discussed with the Ministers also what we can do more effectively to respond to common risks affecting our economic security. We are all struggling with the same issues. Close cooperation between EU and Asia Pacific partners to diversify and reduce our dependencies is in our mutual interest, and we have plenty where we can cooperate on these subjects. But I stop here to take your questions.
Q&A
Q. I have two questions. One is on ASPIDES; how many more ships do you actually need for the mission to be effective, and are there governments that are actually refusing to take part in this mission? And you obviously mentioned the rollover. The EU is struggling to renew this listing. How can the EU even consider lifting sanctions on Russia, particularly two oligarchs? And what kind of message would it send to Moscow if these two listings did not get renewed?
First, on ASPIDES. When ASPIDES was put in place, then the indication was that it needs at least ten ships. The situation is even more grave right now, as we see increased attacks, also we see that the Strait of Hormuz is closed. This is a vital waterway for the trade. So, I would assume that it is more than ten, but we do not have that much right now.
On your other question, yes, the discussions are ongoing. Like I said, sanctions are our core policy regarding pressuring Russia into really stopping this war, and they are depriving Russia of finances to fund this war, and that is why we are doing them. Now, nothing has changed. That is that is very clear. Certain Member States have raised certain people to be delisted, and that is why these discussions are right now ongoing. Definitely, we need to have this stability that the sanctions remain in place for a longer time. That is why we are also working on a new package of sanctions because there is clearly an appetite to put more in place when it comes to Russia's military complex, military-industrial complex regarding shadow fleet and all these steps. We are doing two things at the same time. One is the renewal of all the sanctions that we have in place right now, and the other side is putting in place new sanctions.
Q. You have called today in your remarks for a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine, and you said that accountability should not and cannot be selective. Given the scale of alleged international humanitarian laws violation in Gaza, why has the EU not pursued the same or a similar mechanism there? And do the block’s continued economic and political ties with Israel constitute the selectivity you have warned against?
Accountability is extremely important. We have the international law, international humanitarian law, that is very clear. But it also needs to have accountability. What happens if you break those rules? Nobody should be above the law. Now that is why we are also supporting ICC that is dealing with crimes that are committed all across the world. The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression is a different thing because crime of aggression is one country starting a war against another country. If you talk about war crimes, if somebody breaches the international humanitarian law, like targeting civilians, these can be really prosecuted by the judicial systems in that country or by the ICC. But the crime of aggression regarding the leaders of a country attacking another country cannot be prosecuted under that regime, and that is why we have worked with Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. If that works, and hopefully we get this rolling, then it could be also a good example for others.
Q. And can I ask you about the ICC? What are the concrete steps the EU is taking to support ICC in the face of all the attacks, especially when it comes to the Gaza files?
Yes, ICC is under attacks that is very clear. We have been also very clear in our statements of support to ICC. As you know, we have the tools in our toolbox when it gets really serious how to defend ICC, and here we are rallying countries behind supporting the ICC functioning and the accountability part because it is not only an European issue; it is much broader than that.
Q. There is a very pressing demand from Ukraine to hand over more air defence, specifically Patriot missiles. Ukraine is particularly insisting on getting those that will be decommissioned soon. A number of countries have those. Is there any progress in the room? Could you feel any readiness in the room to hand over those stocks?
We did not discuss this today, as we did not have much time. But last time when we had the informal meeting, then there were countries inside the room who were saying that they are giving these air defence to Ukraine. So, I hope we can follow up whether this is happening in practice as well.
Q. What are your realistic expectations about any diplomacy with Russia and Ukraine this week? Are there any off-ramps? And President Trump has been very critical about the Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy. I wonder what do you think about that?
Well, realistic expectations for this week of diplomatic track. We are all doing the outreach, especially regarding the Black Sea, because it is about food security and it is about affecting the South, I mean Africa, Asia. So, we hope that we have some breakthrough there because one is the words that you need to have, or the commitments that one is ready [have] for peace. But on the Russian side, we do not see that. It could be good if they show this in their deeds. Stop bombing civilians. Stop bombing the vessels with grain in the Black Sea and stop bombing the civilian infrastructure. When it comes to the energy infrastructure, then again, the call should be on Russia to stop this, because Ukraine has agreed to unconditional ceasefire already two years ago, and they are clearly not the problem. The pressure should be on the aggressor to stop attacking civilians, civilian infrastructure, and I am sure that Ukrainians will respond the same way.
Q. Two questions. President Trump just signed the Lindsey Graham sanctions legislation. Do you have any expectation that the US will finally put on sanctions, and do you worry that he might use the bill to sanction some of his European partners, or put tariffs on I guess because it gives him new tariff authority?
We very much welcome that the Graham bill is going forward because we have been expecting this for long. We see from the data that when we impose sanctions together with our US and UK partners, these are most effective, also secondary sanctions. And again, if you want to end this war, then we need to put pressure on the side that is doing this war, which is Russia, and that is why this is very welcoming. But I have not thought about the other side, and I hope it is not true.
Q. What do you make of the agreement that the US says that it will be signing tomorrow with Denmark and Greenland, and are you convinced that it does in fact satisfy all of President Donald Trump's security concerns and his previous desire to annex Greenland?
I do not know the details of this agreement, but I think any agreement that increases the security in the Arctic is welcome. I hope this settles the case.
Q. I want to follow up on the ICC. So, some outlets are reporting that the US is considering placing sanctions on the entire ICC as soon as this week. I was wondering what your stance is.
The European stance has been very clear. We have been supportive of the ICC. It is fundamental that its accountability for the international law functions properly, and therefore we stand behind ICC. And, like I said, we have different tools in our toolbox. But of course, we hope that it does not go that far.
Q. Just one broad thing on middle powers. A lot of people talk about this inflection point at the UN that it feels like it is not relevant anymore. Does it feel relevant this week?
It feels very relevant this week. There is a lot of talk in the corridors and in our bilateral meetings. It is clear that most of the countries in the world want a world that is based on some kind of rules. What the United Nations has actually signified.It was created after the Second World War in order for there not to be any more wars. Then the UN Charter is very clear. Most of the countries in the world really stick to those principles, and therefore the discussions with the middle powers, but also between smaller countries is that how can we keep the world functioning[so] that we have some kind of rules in place, and there the key question is accountability. Because if there are feelings that somebody is above the law, then it does not work like this. If you think about the League of Nations that was before the United Nations, it did not fail because of the principles were wrong. It failed because the countries did not follow those principles, and we are at this same point right now. So, clearly there is appetite to work on the rules-based world for a majority of the countries in the world. We as European Union are really working with this together with our partners.
Q. Just a follow-up on the UN and the reform that you mentioned before. Because the EU is not united in proposal of reforms, especially about the Security Council. So, should your job not be also to try to find a common voice here in the UN for this kind of reform?
Well, it is very popular to talk about things that we are not united, but there are actually a lot of things that we are united about in the European Union. We are united behind the international law and the multilateral system being the way forward. We have clear understanding how this should function, and it is clear that we are 27 countries, 27 democracies for that matter, which means that we have discussions and we are not always of the same opinion, but this is very serious what we have right now, and that is why we need to stick together. If we stick together, if we are united, then we are also able to rally other countries behind what we are trying to do here with the smaller steps. The European Union was also growing from smaller projects to do together, so we can build on that on the bigger scale as well on our experience.