Check against delivery! 

Good morning,  

Thank you for attending this press meeting.  

It is clear that the United Nations is a good mirror of the state of the world. 

Being here you see how crises are accumulating and how the response most of the time is blocked or it is inadequate. And the war in Ukraine is increasing tensions around the world.  

But in these two years, I also had the impression that many countries around the world continue looking at the United Nations to provide solutions.   

And even many of them see potential in a stronger role for the European Union.  

I am happy to perceive this attitude.  

And, today, delivering my third briefing for the Security Council as High Representative [for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy] of the European Union, I also perceive this feeling that the European Union is doing quite a lot and people are expecting us to do more. [I perceived this] coming from 14 members of the Security Council – just one in a completely different mode –, but 14 were very much appreciating what the European Union is doing and asking for more.  

So, let’s start by thanking Malta for holding this month’s presidency [of the United Nations Security Council], and for their invitation. 

It is the third time I address the Security Council, and unfortunately, my message has not changed in these three occasions. I had to say that we face a deficit in multilateralism, that we are facing global emergencies, that we need collective solutions – that they are too weak collectively – they have to strengthen it. 

This week which marks one year since [the start of] Russia’s [aggression] against Ukraine is especially important to stress that multilateral solutions have to be implemented.  

Because, in a world where the illegal use of force – by a permanent member of the Security Council, by the way – is ‘normalised’, there is no hope for progress, justice, freedom. These are the important issues we have to discuss.  

The intervention in the United Nations Security Council this morning, for me has highlighted the positive contribution of the European Union to the global agenda. And I thank the appreciation of 14 out of 15 members of the Council, talking about our cooperation with the African Union, for example, on peace and security, Asian partners on connectivity, [and] on the climate change, which is one of the biggest battles of our time. 

We have to accelerate the green transition, but it has to be a just transition – otherwise, it will not happen. It will not happen because those least responsible for this problem are the ones that are most affected by it. 

And that is why - and I had the opportunity to stress how important it is for us - we are the [world’s] biggest contributor of public climate finance. Certainly, there are not enough resources but the biggest contributor to climate finance [it is us], the European Union, with €23 billion per year. 

And, then, the urgency with which we addressed the pandemic, or the urgency with which we addressed the war in Ukraine is clearly perceived by many as an example of the kind of commitment that they would like to see from us on other urgent issues: development, climate.  

And yes, we are a huge donor – the greatest donor on [development] cooperation. But we have to do more than that. 

For me, it is clear that – being a huge donor – we should be ready to discuss development issues on an equal [footing] with our partners. We should work for the reform of the financial global architecture to make it more equitable, [fairer] and effective.  

And we have to embark on this discussion and to provide [deliverables] to make the global financial architecture [fairer] and [more] effective. We have to make our Member States to show more leadership on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  

Above all, let’s [remember] that it is not just about offering solidarity. It is about enlightening self-interest, and about enlightening geopolitical positioning of the European Union. I think this is what comes from the landscape created by the Russian aggression against Ukraine: that being the one who does more, we have to be perceived as the one who is ready to challenge the current institutional structure, to discuss openly and on an equal foot with our partners around the world. 

And today, I presented some of our deeds – not words, but deeds. 

In Afghanistan, where we will not tolerate the “gender apartheid” that the Taliban regime is installing. It is a real “gender apartheid”. And we will not continue doing business as usual with the [de facto] Afghan government, but we cannot abandon the Afghan women to be punished twice – first, by the Taliban’s decision and then, second, by us cutting development support.  

In the Sahel, where the situation continues deteriorating in a very complex political context. We have to talk with our partners there, with prudence and caution with Mali and Burkina Faso but advancing our partnership with Niger and Mauritania. We just launched a new military assistance mission in Niger (EUMPM Niger) last Monday.  

In the Western Balkans, with our mission EUFOR/Althea, and engagement with the new authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [Also] with the Dialogue with Kosovo and Serbia. Next Monday, I will host a new high-level dialogue with Belgrade and Pristina. 

So I think the picture of what the European Union is doing around the world, with more than 20 missions as peacekeepers, and more than 5,000 people deployed, and being the biggest donor – remember, the 2 billion doses exported and donated during the pandemic - has to be highlighted with a political approach in order to be considered as someone ready to have a look at what is not working well in the current architecture of security, financing, the world governance as a whole. We can do that, the G7, the G20 [and] here, at the United Nations. 

I heard from some of the Ambassadors that really, they want more Europe. They want Europe to engage more. Not only providing in financial assistance, but to consider with them how we can improve the world’s governance architecture. 

The only different voice is the one that came today from Russia, which has presented a picture of what the European Union is that has more to do with [psychiatry] than with politics.  

I think that we are entering in a field of paranoia and a grotesque representation of what the European Union is and what the European Union is doing.  

Well, I [did not have] the opportunity to reply at the end. But frankly speaking, if someone could believe that Russia is an example from the point of view of freedom of the press [compared] to the rest of the world – and in particular to the European Union – it is that they are living in a different planet. They are living in a completely parallel reality. And it becomes completely impossible or useless to discuss with someone who presents facts in this way.  

The intervention of the Russian delegate has been a good example of the disinformation that they practice every day: twisting things, falsification [of] data, ‘what do they say’, ‘what do you do’ - entering in a landscape in which it is no longer about politics.  

It is about what [George] Orwell would have been very happy to say is the kind of [Newspeak] language that distorts reality in a way that makes political dialogue – frankly – useless. Because there is no way to engage in a political discussion with someone who presents things the way the Russian ambassador has presented them: about the ‘moral perversion of those who wants to force men [to] become women and vice-versa', and ‘destroy the moral basis in which gender relations are ... 

Frankly speaking, I was very much surprised by the way they presented things. I think it is part of a completely distortional reality that makes [it difficult to consider] Russia [an interlocutor] with whom you can have a political, reasonable discussion based on facts and ideas in order to get some kind of agreements.  

Unhappily, it is the way it is. I am very sorry that things have been like this, but I am very happy that only Russia has been on this attitude. All other 14 member states were with their feet on the ground and recognising that certainly, the European Union  [makes] an important contribution to peace and security in the world – in concrete ways,  [with] concrete facts, in concrete places, through concrete activities. 

And I think that in the end, the meeting has been very useful for what I came here [for]: to present the European Union as an actor that contributes to a better world, through our financial resources and the engagement of going beyond the Russian aggression against Ukraine - which is not the only problem of the world, which is not the only crisis of the world, which is not the only thing that worries our partners. 

And we have to understand that, when we ask them to support the United Nations Charter, it is not on this specific case. Universal values have to be implemented universally, at any moment, in any place, for everybody. 

This is my engagement as High-Representative and this is the will of the European Union. 

Thank you. 

Q&A 

Q. My question is on Ukraine. Several speakers in the General Assembly asked for negotiations, but there is no sign of negotiations from the parties. What would take to have both sides to engage in serious negotiations besides, of course, Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine? 

Everybody is for peace; I haven’t heard anyone saying that it is for war. No, openly and explicitly, nobody comes here and say, “I want more war”. Everybody says, “I want peace”. Ok, perfect. Which peace and how? Let’s go from the nice words to the practical things.  

We cannot put on the same ground the aggressor and the aggressed. You cannot ask to Ukraine not defend themself. What I can tell you, unhappily, is that Russia has not sent any positive signal of any minimum willingness to work [towards] peace. That is the reality. 

Everyone that went to the Kremlin, came back saying “Putin said he will continue with his – let's say – special military operation until he gets the military objective that he was unable to get.". 

So, what happened today? 50,000 shots of Russian artillery. This is a fact: 50,000 shots of Russian artillery. The same number of yesterday, and I am afraid, the same number of tomorrow. 

So, if you want to talk about peace, stop bombing. The people who say that they way to peace is “to stop the military support to Ukraine, and then negotiation will come.”. What kind of a naivety is this? We have to support Ukraine militarily as long as Russia keeps bombing. As long as Russia is bombing, we have to support [Ukraine] militarily. 

Certainly, I appreciate people willing to look for peace and asking [to] stop military support but how can we stop military support to someone that is being attacked every day? So, we look for peace, we keep the door open for any kind of negotiations but as long as it does not happen, we will have to continue supporting Ukraine. 

Q. First, how do you interpret the speech of Hungary [Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary, Péter Szijjártó] today at the [UN General Assembly today? And second, do you still see, as many European diplomats who try to convince us, that China is still neutral? 

Well, I have not heard the speech of my fellow colleague of Hungary in the [General] Assembly today. No, frankly no, I have not heard it. I suppose it should be is very  interesting but I have not heard it. So it is difficult for me to judge something that I have not heard. 

Q. He spoke against the sanctions, against sending weapons to Ukraine and against all the European principles in general. 

Well, it is against all European principles, but they are supporting it. They are supporting it. In order to decide sanctions, we need unanimity and Hungary has been part of this unanimity. And Hungary is paying their part of the bill of the military support to Ukraine. 

Q. Why this rhetoric? 

I am not an interpreter of my Hungarian colleague. I am only referring to facts and the fact is that Hungary is – in practical terms – making sanctions and military support possible, because we need its vote. And they have been supporting it. 

Q. And about China? 

And [on] China, the only thing I can say is that in my conversation with the Chinese State Counsellor [Wang Yi] - with whom I have to recognise I have a good personal relationship for many years -, when I asked him about the possible military support from China to Russia, he was very clear and assertive. I can only repeat what he told me: “China is not providing arms to Russia, and it will not provide arms to Russia.” Because it is part of their foreign policy, not to arm the parties in a conflict. 

We have to remain vigilant, certainly. We have to remain vigilant, but this is the clear statement of China when you talk with them about it. 

Q. Since you spoke about the peace and the absurdity of talking about peace now there is still bombing going on in Ukraine. It is said that you need to build your opponent – in any negotiation – a golden bridge through which he can find a way to retreat. So, I am wondering if anyone at the European Union is thinking along those lines, and what that golden bridge would look like. Second, we know that Ukrainians have risen. This is not the first time, we know that they want to join the European Union. They have risen domestically because they want to join the European Union. My question to you is: Should Europe consider, for example, encouraging the Ukrainians to do a deal whereby they secede a part of the Donbass to the Russians in exchange for joining the European Union and the security that comes with it? 

I do not have a crystal ball; I do not know how the war will continue. Unhappily, I am afraid that the war will continue. But I do not know what is going to happen or when. What I know is I have the possibility of checking every day, and what I am checking every day is an intensification of the Russian attacks. An intensification of the Russian massing troops. Before the invasion, they massed 150,000 soldiers. Now, they have 300,000 soldiers in the frontline – so twice the number they had when launching the invasion. They are bombing and the figure is 50,000 shots every day. This is the reality I have to face and, in front of this reality, I think that we do what we have to do: to support militarily Ukraine - with a contribution of Hungary – and putting sanctions to the Russian economy – with the agreement of Hungary, thank you – and trying to isolate Russian diplomatically – that is what we are trying to do these days here. And when a window of opportunity comes to try discussing about this, we will be the first. We will be the first in taking in initiatives that could bring peace. And it is not contradictory. On one hand, we support a country that is being attacked. On the other hand, we have to keep open the possibility for a cease-fire and negotiations. Under which terms? We have already said [it]: respect of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, respect of the sovereignty of Ukraine, asking for accountability and war reparations. This is for us the frame in which any discussion has to take place. When and how – I do not know. But I want to make it clear here that it is not us who are refusing to open the way for negotiations. We are open and we will always be open. 

 Q. One of the big issues that speaker after speaker have raised is the perilous state of the world as a result of the war in Ukraine – people raising the issue of possibly going into a “Third World War” if this does not end, the use of nuclear weapons. How do you see this: are you concerned, are you worried? How does one avert this, other than trying to get to the peace talks which we see neither side trying to do? And, just a quick follow up on what you said on gender apartheid in Afghanistan. Is there any way to really address that with the Taliban? 

Well, to address the Taliban [in itself/themselves] is a problem. You know that there is no recognition, that the European Union has a cell, a contact point in Kabul [through which] we try to get in touch with the Taliban authorities. We know that they are quite divided among them [themselves]. There are the verticals of the political direction of the Emir who is very much on the idea that girls have no right to exist as human beings [who are] ready to learn, that [they] have to be taken out of [school]. But others, other Taliban rulers, are against this idea. Because they believe that they are [isolating] Afghanistan from the rest of the world and creating serious problems for themselves. So, we have to use this division between the Taliban, and we have to put pressure.  

My concern [about] putting pressure – political and economic pressure – is who supports the pressure. Because if tomorrow, I cancel all financial support to Afghanistan through Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who are providing supplies for basic needs, I do not want to punish Afghan people twice. So, I have to punish the [de facto] Afghan government and try to avoid that this punishment goes directly to the population. And this is a difficult balance: it is like arming Ukraine and not becoming belligerent, it is a difficult and delicate balance.  

So, putting political pressure on [the Taliban], trying to exploit the divisions  [between] the rulers of Afghanistan, keeping in touch with civil society, supporting as much as we can – people, not the government. That is what we have to do. There is nothing miraculous, but it is the everyday work.  

With respect to the peace and how to deal with the Ukrainian war, I cannot add anything to what I already said. This is a war of attrition; this is not a World War III. Ce n’est pas une guerre mondiale. Mais c’est une guerre mondialisée. Elle est très mondialisée. It is more than globalised.  

In this war, everybody has, if not a part, at least an influence. Look [at] North Korea and Iran supplying arms to Russia. The so-called “West” fully engaged. Some swing states that do not take part. But everybody [is] being affected because the high prices on energy and food have created high inflation. Having high inflation has pushed all world Central Banks to increase interest rates, all together as never before. And this has created an economic slowdown and the recovery from the pandemic has been cut for everybody around the world. So, this is not a war that does not affect me because I am not being bombed, that is not affecting me because I live in another part of the planet. Yes, it affects the world economy. It has global effects. It is a toxic war for all people in the world. So we have to react against it and ask for an immediate cessation of hostilities. But who has to stop [the] hostilities. The one who started. The one who continues. Today, someone was asking me: “Why do you send tanks to Ukraine?” Why don’t you ask Putin who was the first one sending tanks to Ukraine? It looks like Putin never sent tanks to Ukraine. 

Q. You have talked a lot about Ukraine. What is the impact of this General Assembly resolution [which is] non-enforceable? Is it any more than the first one that was passed? People are asking what is the United Nations doing to stop this war. Is it undermining the entire United Nations system? 

A resolution of the United Nations General Assembly is not wet paper. The resolution of the United Nations General Assembly expressed the concerns of the international community. And if the United Nations cannot do more, it is not because the Secretary-General [of the United Nations, António Guterres] does not want to do [more]. I remember that the Secretary-General went to Moscow and came [back] the way came. If nothing more is possible, it is because of the lack of will from the side of Russia. 

Q. And nothing else can be done? 

You know the United Nations system as well as I do. 

Q. Yesterday, at the press stakeout, Foreign [Affairs] Minister [of Ukraine] Dmytro Kuleba said: “Some countries chose to stand by a country that violated the United Nations Charter.” He named the Islamic Republic of Iran sending drones and military aid to Russia, who is violating the United Nations Charter. As you know that the Islamic Republic is violating the Resolution 2231, and while you are in New York, are you going to talk to the Security Council members regarding the matter of Iranian drones and also with Islamic Republic officials regarding this matter? 

I have done it every day. I do it [at] every moment: directly to the Iranians and every time we have the occasion in which we express our concern about Iran supplying arms to Russia. But you know, there is nothing new about it. Every time I talk with my Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister[Hossein Amir-Abdollahian], I have the opportunity of expressing my strong condemnation of the internal repression in Iran, the [crackdown on] the demonstrations, the [use] of the capital punishment, providing drones to Russia and [the] lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-237558