Check against delivery!
Good afternoon,
Before updating you on the college meeting, I would also like to focus on one key issue, which is in recent weeks, Russia has escalated its war against Ukraine thrown incursions into Poland and Romania signalling more a dangerous stage of this war.
Russia is testing the West. Should Putin sense any weakness, he will continue to push forward because he wants to test us. Europe must respond firmly. As President von der Leyen said yesterday, the Commission will soon present its 19th sanctions package. We must hit Russian banks, energy companies, crypto exchanges and shadow fleet ships harder. Depriving Moscow of the funds to wage a war is essential to end this conflict.
Today in the College, we also addressed the war in Gaza, Israeli government’s push into Gaza City is a new escalation of the war and will further deepen the humanitarian crisis. Today, I presented a robust package of sanctions on Hamas terrorists, extremist ministers in the Israeli government and violent settlers and entities supporting the impunity going on in the West Bank.
The Commission adopted a proposal to partially suspend trade concessions. Commissioner Šefčovič will update you on the trade details in a minute, and I want to be very clear: the aim is not to punish Israel. The aim is to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. All Member States agree that the situation in Gaza is untenable. The war needs to end. The suffering must stop, and all hostages must be released. We must use all the tools we have towards this outcome. We must also not lose sight of the dangerous developments in the West Bank that reduce the viability of a two-state solution.
Then, on EU India relations, we have adopted a new EU-India strategy. India is a crucial partner for the European Union. The EU and India together account for 25% of the global population and GDP. India also is the world’s largest democracy and is the fastest growing economy. Closer European Union-India, relations are vital for strengthening economic security and diversifying supply chains. Our new communication sets out possibilities for closer cooperation on trade, technology, security and defence, and climate. A Free Trade Agreement, an Investment Protection Agreement and a Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement can be pillars of this partnership.
Security and Defence is another backbone of this partnership. We are working towards EU-India Security and Defence Partnership. We will enhance cooperation, including maritime security, counter terrorism and cyber defence. We are also negotiating an agreement of exchange of classified information and deepening ties between defence industry.
However, also the College had hesitations were the areas that we have disagreement. India’s participation in Russia’s military exercises and its purchase of Russian oil stand in the way of closer ties. Because, ultimately, our partnership is not only about trade, but also about defending rules-based international order. Our negotiations will address these challenges with the aim of adopting a joint roadmap at the EU-India Summit in early 2026.
Finally, on Iran earlier today, we had a discussion with the Foreign Minister Araghchi, alongside with my European counterparts. The window for finding a diplomatic solution on Iran’s nuclear issue is closing really fast; we are weeks away from the reimposition of international sanctions. Iran must show credible steps towards addressing the demands of France, UK and Germany, and this means demonstrating full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and allowing inspections of all nuclear sites without delay.
Thank you.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-277180
Q&A (for the EU-India New Strategic Partnership).
Q. My second question is to High Representative, so the presentation of the 19th sanctions package is delayed. Could you brief us how the coordination with the United States is going regarding this sanctions package and sanctions policy in general? And, for now, plenty of the EU diplomats are voicing the concerns that the United States President demanding from the EU to make the sanctions to offer, actually, is looking for the pretext to postpone his own sanctions. Do you share this feeling, and how optimistic are you when it comes to reaching the deal on sanctions with the US leadership?
Thank you. So, partly already the answer was there, but [on] the 19th package, we are working on this and closely coordinating also with the Americans. Of course, in the end, we are responsible for our decisions, and we have a very straight and understandable course: we need to be stronger on sanctions and move forward. And of course, we are trying to work together with our US partners to do the same. Thank you.
Q. I was wondering, is this the right moment to have a strategic agenda with India when they are joining Russian military exercises and are increasingly buying more oil despite EU sanctions on infrastructure in India? How do you hope to, let’s say, move forward from this particular moment that India is actually forging closer ties with Russia in this particular time?
This was the discussion also we had in the College. To be very clear, we are having clear areas of disagreement with India regarding these issues. Yesterday, I had also a call with the External Affairs Minister of India regarding these issues. I mean, participating in military exercises, purchase of oil – all these are obstacles to our cooperation when it comes to deepening the ties. And, if you read the communication, it also addresses these points. We are living in these very turbulent times, and we need to build partnerships. And the question is always whether we leave this void to be filled by somebody else or we try to fill it ourselves. So, deepening the ties also with India, in order to not push them to the Russia’s corner was the agreement by the College.
Q. [In Estonian] What should we do if India just says that they do not care about buying Russian oil? That they participate in the military exercises? Is it then possible that we cancel this strategic agenda, or would we have this parallel way of working that we sanction only one part of the company? So, what will happen if they say that they don’t care?
Thank you very much for this opportunity to reply in Estonian, our beautiful language. Indeed, we had these discussions, and we agreed that we should have this possibility to take a step back and of being completely clear with the Indian counterparts, letting them know what the obstacles are. So, if you read our communication about the new strategic agenda, then all these conditions are actually included. When we consider the situation, then this relation is equally beneficial to India as it is to us. It benefits us both to take into account the concerns we have in Europe and vice-versa. It is always a two-way street, but we will definitely always raise these questions, and currently we don’t have a mutual understanding here.
Q. [In Estonian] Is it possible then that we cancel this plan if India doesn’t accept the conditions?
Negotiations are negotiations, and until we agree about everything, then nothing is agreed. So, it depends on the team. We have to take everything into account, so nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Therefore, we know what the conditions are, and we have to take into account the interest and concerns and problematic issues.
Q. To be clear on this point, do you think that if India, at the end of the year, beginning of next year, will still buy Russian oil and have a closer relationship with Vladimir Putin, the Commission should conclude – so give its agreement – to the Free Trade Agreement that you are negotiating and you should conclude at the end of the year, at the best?
The discussions we also had was whether it is possible to completely decouple India from Russia, considering their history as well. I do not think we have illusions regarding this. The problems we have between ourselves in the relationship are very clear, and we are trying to address them in the negotiations as we speak. So, if everything is not agreed, then nothing is agreed in the end, whether we reach the agreement.
Q. You mentioned that you spoke with your Indian counterpart, among other things, about the Zapad exercise. I was wondering if you could tell us anything more about their take on this, why they did it. This particular exercise is not any ordinary one. It is one that’s directly targeted against EU countries in the Eastern flank, including, if I’m not mistaken, your country. What is their take on this? Why did they participate?
Well, I am not communicating on behalf of India. So, you can ask them the arguments on that side. We will meet in person as well, because this is a great concern for our countries. If you want closer ties with us, then why participate in exercises that are existential threats to us. So, to be very clear on this message. We are not taking this, lightly, but I will not just reflect on our conversations and be communicating on their behalf.
Q. Just wanted to clarify what India has said to the EU about those military drills, it wasn’t quite clear what that position is. And, if you will allow me to get philosophical, I think potentially this question is for you, Madam Kallas, but maybe for Commissioner Šefčovič as well. Because in terms of trade, it is a priority for the European Union. We’re in the age where the concept of the rules-based international order – I mean, that’s a whole other philosophical debate that we can go into – but considering trade is mutually beneficial for both sides, I am then asking you whether trade can be separated from this agenda? I read the document, you speak about Defence and Security, but will trade always be something that you continue on? Because, as you yourself said, you have no illusions about whether this can change. So, I kind of wanted to ask about whether, because trade is so geopolitical and so separate from the issues of yesteryear and the way that we look at it, and you mentioned shift in paradigm once upon a time yourself. Just wanted to know if the European Commission is looking at these issues with a bit more, maybe pragmatic realpolitik view.
If you look at the communication, you can see also that it has different parts. And when I am talking about also these concerns and disagreement, it is about the defence and security partnership that we are building. So, the trade relations, we also need to be mutually beneficial, and the trade people are working on that. But our teams are addressing also the concerns we have in other files, because it definitely impacts our relationship. So, clearly we are in this world like you say that you know, world order is changing. It is in our interest to defend the international rules-based order, and it is also in the interest of India to defend this. So, considering the breaches of the international law, we should be on the same side.
Q. We spoke a lot about Russia, but there is another big, important country with which India maintains very close relations, and that is China. How do you position this closer partnership between EU and India in respect to China? How do you see this playing out in this geopolitical chessboard?
Very good question. I think this is part of the bigger picture. This is clear when we look all around the world. If we are not building those partnerships, then this void is filled by China and other actors. And if we look the geopolitical power, we need to have those partnerships, and that is why we are moving also forward to find additional partners to counterweight the economic might that comes from China or the problems that we have with China regarding economic coercion, regarding unfair trading practices. And, therefore, our answer is to build relationships with other countries, including the biggest democracy, India; the large and growing economy like India is.
Q. Are you saying it is a condition of the EU for India to stop purchasing Russian oil for this strategic cooperation to go through? And secondly, if we could get clarity on: is the EU planning to impose tariffs, as reportedly Washington wants up 200% on India?
So, what I was saying is that we have clear areas of disagreement that we need to address with India, which is also when you read the communication, you know the problems that we have [and] the proposals also that we have on the table. So, the relationship has to be mutually beneficial, which means that you know it has carrots as well as sticks, if you put it this way. The concerns we have and the benefits that could derive for both parties from these relationships, if the worries and interests are taken into account.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-277225
Q&A. (For the package of proposals on Israel)
Q. I would like to know from the High Representative, why now, exactly, why not a year ago, or a couple of months ago? A year ago, there were already 40,000 dead in Gaza. So why, specifically, in this moment, the situation is such that these measures are needed and not why a year ago?
We all heard the speech of the President of the Commission where she proposed these points. And I think this shows how the situation has really changed. We see the E1 settlements. We see also the action now in Gaza City, all these things that bring more suffering to the people. Why today? Because a week ago we had the State of the Union speech where President von der Leyen proposed these things.
Q. Now, naturally, the question is, will the Member States approve the question that you put forward, the issue, the proposal you put forward. And there are two tracks here, because the sanctions against the Ministers and settlers and all of that requires unanimity and those on trade QMV. Now you as a chair of the FAC, can you tell us a bit what is the atmosphere in the room? Do you have confidence that at some point these proposals will be adopted, either in QMV or in unanimity? If not, what does that tell us a bit about the state of affairs of the EU?
So yes, you’re correct that the sanctions require unanimity and the trade proposal, the QMV. You know very well how the situation in the council is. Although we see that the public opinion in Member States is really shifting because of the suffering in Gaza, and people really want to see the stopping of this suffering. On the political level I think we will have the discussions after these proposals are made, but I think the political lines are very much in the place where they have been so far.
Q. I may, a question on measures against Israel on a different level. High Representative, as you mentioned, like the public opinion right now we see also how political entertainment and culture are becoming when it comes to Israel. In particular, when we talk about also the Eurovision Song Contest taking place next year in Vienna, and seeing Member States like the Netherlands, Spain or Ireland threatening to not participate, in case Israel will participate. So as the EU’s most senior diplomat, I’d be interested in what are your thoughts on this?
What I want to stress, and what we stress all the time is that we are proposing these measures not to punish Israel or Israeli people, but to really try to pressure the Israeli government to change course and to end the human suffering in in Gaza. So that’s why the proposals that we have made are not really touching or somehow affecting the people so much as to put the pressure on the Israeli government to change course. So, all these steps that go to the direction of punishing Israeli people, I think, are wrong, and we are not proposing them.
Q. It’s a question on something that if I’m not wrong, is not in the package. Several former ambassadors to the EU have recently called for additional trade related measures, including export control measures and the suspension of all arms and dual use exports to Israel. So what is the reasoning, if I may ask, Commissioner Šefčovič behind the exclusion of such measures from today’s package?
Of course, you can always ask, why don’t we propose other things? These are the things we are proposing right now and that is the discussion. Yes, in June, I presented an options paper where all the options are listed, what are the tools in our hands. But these are the choices that the Commission made right now.
Q. For High Representative, presumably in the past, part of the calculation for not putting such measures on the table is the risk that they get caught up in the Member States. That risk remains. You’ve addressed it a bit already, but have you basically just changed your calculation in seeing that it’s better to look like you have something on the table in the works than the risk of looking like you have a total inaction until now? We know that we might be here in several months’ time, and that none of these measures have moved forward.
Yes, thank you. First, I object to the statement that was in your question that we have been inactive. That’s not true. We have been the most active actors on the international sphere, on this file, trying to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground, really, day in and day out, working with what more can do. Yes, the proposal is now on the table to put more pressure on the Israeli government, derived from the State of the Union speech. And yes, it’s true that the College has now proposed, but now it’s up to the Member States to discuss in the in the Council. But really, it shows that the public opinion in all the Member States has really shifted. When we have the discussions, all the Member States or representatives foreign ministers agree that the situation is untenable. So, if we all agree on this, then the question is, what do we do about this? What are the tools in our hands? And that’s why we have proposed, then, from the Commission to go with these proposals. If these do not fly, then we can find other things, if we all agree that we need to do additional steps in order to have really a change on the ground.
Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/media/video/I-277231