Debate: Foreign policy consequences of the COVID- crisis - The PRC national security law for Hong Kong and the need for the EU to defend Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy - The EU's response to the possible Israeli annexation in the West Bank
Date: THURSDAY, 18 JUNE 2020
Speaker: Josep Borrell Fontelles
Language: ES

Mr President, we have three issues to discuss. I will go directly to the three of them. First, from the European Union response to the coronavirus crisis, it’s clear that the global pandemic needs global solutions, and the European Union must be at the centre of the response. To do so, in April we launched a Team Europe response to support our partner countries facing the pandemic. I have already presented this in your committee meetings. On 8 June, we discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on Development how to move forward quickly and we mobilised EUR 35 billion to help the most vulnerable countries in Africa, Latin America and our neighbourhood. One could say that it is not fresh money but just redirecting already—allocated resources, but anyway, it was very important to give priority to the pandemic. The extension of the key European Union programmes for refugees is also crucial during this crisis, and we appreciate Parliament’s efforts to approve the necessary Draft Amending Budget in July to allocate more than EUR 400 million in support of Syrian refugees. In the new MMF proposal, we have included a top-up for external action policies, financed through the Next Generation European Union instrument. Part of this funding will go to humanitarian aid, and part to the provision of a higher ceiling for the External Action Guarantee under the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI).  We have also provided for an additional provisioning of EUR 10.5 billion, and with that, we could provide guarantees up to EUR 130 billion under European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+) operations, as well as additional macro-financial assistance and loans to third countries. This will allow us to help to boost sustainable and green investment in our partner countries worldwide. I hope I can count on your support so that we can maintain an ambitious level of resources for our EU external action. Let me say that it is badly needed – because this crisis will be a crisis of biblical consequences. Look at the situation, for example, in Latin America, where things are becoming worse. Happily, in Africa, things are not as bad as expected. But, in general, both health and economic consequences of this crisis will be very important and, I am afraid, long lasting.  The second issue in our debate today is about the People’s Republic of China and the national security law for Hong Kong. Let me frame my answer on a very evident fact. COVID has accelerated existing trends, with tensions between China and the US growing by the day, and I want to repeat what I have already said and written many times: that Europe needs to find its own way when it comes to balancing its relations towards both actors. Yesterday, the French Minister of Foreign Relations was saying more or less the same thing in the French press and I think it’s quite a shared point of view at the Foreign Affairs Council. But independence does not mean equidistance. The transatlantic partnership remains the most important and strategic relationship for the European Union. We maintain divergences with the current administration in the US, that’s clear, evident, with regard to their stand on multilateralism about the International Criminal Court, for example, the last one. Nevertheless, we seek positive engagement wherever possible.  Our relationship with China does not fit into a single category. I am sorry for the people who would like to have simple schemes. This is not possible. This is complex, and complex it will remain, and it needs to be based on trust, transparency and reciprocity. China is clearly a necessary partner, like it or not, to solve global challenges such as the global pandemic and climate change. No one can imagine that we can solve climate change without a strong commitment from China’s side. At the same time, human rights remain a contentious issue in our relations. I raised these concerns on the situation in Hong Kong with the Chinese Foreign Minister last week. We had a long conversation: more than three hours face to face. I think it was a useful and frank conversation about all issues of a complex relationship and, for sure, the adoption of a security law for Hong Kong is not in conformity with China’s international commitments, particularly under the Sino-British Joint Declaration enshrined in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Pressure on Hong Kong’s autonomy and fundamental freedoms affect us directly. It’s not just a matter for the Hong Kong people. It’s a matter of values, principles and the need to uphold international commitments, seriously undermining the ‘one country, two systems’ principle and Hong Kong’s autonomy. As you may be aware, I made this point very clear in my declaration on behalf of the EU27 on 22 and 29 May. On that issue, there was unanimity, something that is less and less frequent in the debates at the Foreign Affairs Council. I also raised these matters in the United Nations Security Council when I had the opportunity to address this body, on the very day this decision was adopted. I am at your disposal during the question and answers to discuss the specific measures taken by the EU and to go deeper into this issue.  On the third point, on the possible Israeli annexation in the West Bank: let me turn now to this issue, the possible annexation by Israel of parts of the occupied Palestinian territory. There, our position is clear, although, once again, it’s difficult to find unanimity. But there is very much a strong majority of countries that continue supporting a negotiated two-state solution based on international parameters and considering that any annexation would be against international law. Consequently, we strongly urge Israel to refrain from any unilateral decisions that would lead to this annexation of any part of occupied Palestinian territory. I had the opportunity of expressing this point of view in my phone calls to the new Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence of Israel. This would constitute a serious violation of international law. In March, in Geneva, 27 Member States agreed on that. At the last Foreign Affairs Council, unhappily, unanimity was not found on this same issue, but as I said, very much a strong majority of countries continue to support this principle.  Second, this would cause real damage to the prospects for a two-state solution. Third, it would negatively affect regional stability, our relations with Israel, and between Israel and Arab states, and potentially the security of Israel, which is something not negotiable for us. Let me stress that also. And finally, from a European Union perspective, annexation would inevitably have significant consequences for the close relationship we currently enjoy with Israel.  My time is reaching the end. I will stick to my time. I will not prejudge today the specific impact of a possible annexation, but let me underline that the European Union has its own obligations and responsibilities under international and European law, and as agreed in the mid-May Foreign Affairs Council, we engage with our Israeli partners to avoid such a step before it’s too late. We are using all our diplomatic capacities in order to put pressure for that not to happen. As I said, I opened a constructive conversation with Alternate Prime Minister Gantz and Foreign Minister Ashkenazi, where I expressed in the same terms as I explained to you the gravity of such an announcement. I have also been in close contact with the Palestinian leadership and other key Arab representatives. Several EU Foreign Ministers passed the same messages on, and we held an important discussion with the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier this week. This issue took an important part of the one-and-a-half-hour discussion with Mike Pompeo. In the coming weeks and months, we will continue engaging with the parties and the international community in support of a negotiated two-state solution based on the international parameters and which ensures equal rights for all.  Thank you very much, Mr President, for giving me half a minute more. Thank you for your attention. I need to stop here. I think my time is over, but I will remain at your disposal for the many issues I am sure you will raise during our dialogue.