A total of 43 countries from both shores of the Mediterranean Sea met today in Barcelona to celebrate the VIII Regional Forum of the Union for the Mediterranean, an event with a single point on the agenda: to analyze the situation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. and reflect on how to overcome the current dramatic moment. “It will be the first time that European countries, beyond the Twenty-Seven, and Arab countries sit down to talk about the situation,” celebrates Josep Borrell, who will co-chair the meeting together with the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Jordan, Ayman. Safadi. Borrell would not be surprised, he admits, if the Arab countries take advantage of the meeting to reproach Europe for something that he clearly perceived during his trip to the region last week, the outright rejection of the European position, which they do not understand. “Their perception of him is that by saying that Israel has the right to defend itself, we are giving Israel carte blanche. This is not the case, the EU common position says very clearly that international law, including humanitarian law, must be respected. The visit of President Pedro Sánchez and the Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, to Israel has shown that we demand that it be respected," Borrell commented in an interview held on Friday in his office, hours before the Jewish State accused Spain and Belgium for complicity with terrorism. Concern about the rise of the far right also influenced the talk, in which the former Foreign Minister speaks for the first time of his displeasure with the PSOE's pacts with ERC and Junts and criticizes the PP for bringing “national debates” to Europe.
Such animosity toward the Western position on Gaza is not unique to the Arab world.
That's how it is. Look at the reaction of Latin America. From a diplomatic point of view it has been even stronger. Some countries have broken off relations or have summoned our ambassadors to tell them that they see our attitude in Gaza as incompatible with what we defend in Ukraine. Countries like Chile, which have helped us a lot in condemning Russia, tell us that they do not understand our position on Gaza. They don't think we're consistent. They are different conflicts but world public opinions compare our position regarding both.
Could this take its toll on the EU, for example, by seeking support from the UN on Ukraine?
That risk is real. There are many countries that have been against the Russian invasion because they understand that it is a violation of the United Nations Charter, but they have only had a formal condemnation and have not applied sanctions. They do not have the same feeling of moral indignation at what is happening in Ukraine as we do, who are much more committed to principled and existential issues. Their feeling is that this does not correspond to our attitude towards Gaza. Some Arab head of state has said it in very crude words, they say that it seems that we do not value the lives of each other equally.
How many times have you heard it on your tour of the region?
Many times. It is difficult to explain that the EU is a group of states and that each one is sovereign in its foreign policy. Sometimes these national positions are at a common minimum that does not allow me to go further. I must build a common European position and represent it when there is one.
In this case, the EU established its common position on October 15.
Yes, there is a minimum agreement of the European Council that supports Israel's right to defend itself but within respect for international law and humanitarian law, and calls for humanitarian pauses, in plural, – that is, intermittent – because some said that asking for a pause seemed to ask for a ceasefire, and that is not the common position of the EU or the US. But when the time comes to vote at the UN our unity breaks. The only point of agreement with our common position would have been abstention, but if four countries say they are going to vote against, then there are eight that vote in favor. It is a reflection of the deep division that exists and that responds to historical reasons, to the different responsibility that some and others feel they have with respect to the State of Israel. Now fortunately this truce has been achieved, associated with an exchange of hostages, but it has been negotiated by Qatar.
What will happen when it's over?
Let's hope it lasts and leads to a ceasefire. The agreement itself provides for the possibility of extending it if Hamas releases more hostages. The hope is that during this time negotiations can be held, as Sánchez and De Croo have requested. The problem is that here everyone looks at their own pain and does not take into account that of the other, but the images of the bombings of Gaza are as horrible as those of the kibbutz massacres. I visited one and I told the Israeli minister: one horror does not justify another horror, and a few kilometers from there things happen that the UN describes in those same terms, as a horror, due to the number of civilian victims. The International Criminal Court is investigating it.
Regarding the animosity towards the EU's stance, shouldn't the EC be self-critical? Perhaps it did not help to understand the European position that Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi announced out of nowhere the suspension of all aid, or that President Ursula von der Leyen forgot to specify for several days that Israel must act within international law, as the position says. common.
The commissioner's announcement to suspend aid did not help at all. As vice-president of the EC I had to express my disagreement with that decision, which my fellow commissioner could not make freely. The foreign ministers were of the same opinion. If we Europeans want to have credibility in the defense of universal values, we need maximum consistency in our position on different conflicts. Our position has been weakened by the position we have taken in Gaza, because we limit ourselves to saying that the law must be respected, when the question is whether it is being done or not. It seems to me, like Sánchez and the UN agencies, that much more should and can be done to limit civilian casualties and the suffering of the population.
Are you concerned about the announced absence of the Israeli Government today at the UPM or the accusation that its original meaning is being “undermined” to turn it into “just another forum where all Arab countries attack Israel”?
Yes, the original meaning of the UPM is regional cooperation but we are experiencing exceptional circumstances. Frankly, if at a time like this we sat down to talk about youth exchanges or renewable energies it would seem that we are out of touch with reality. Our Arab colleagues said that either the meeting was suspended or there was only one item on the agenda: the conflict situation. But this is not an anti-Israel conspiracy either. Israel, as a member of the UPM, is invited and has the right to come or not. In fact, it has always been represented at a very low level in the past.
But he had never left his chair empty.
No, but his presence was symbolic. The organization cannot ignore the great problems of the region. Talking is the first step. I insist, this is not a plot against Israel.
The EU maintains that Israel will only have security if it signs peace with the Palestinians, that it is not worth making an agreement only with the Arab countries. Based on your contacts in Israel with the Government and civil society, do you think they are beginning to see it?
The State of Israel is one thing and its government another, and its policies are one thing and the Jewish people another. I claim my right to criticize the Israeli Government without being accused of being anti-Semitic. This Government lived in a certain denial of reality and, in some way, continues to deny it, for example in the West Bank, despite the fact that it is a pressure cooker. When you talk to them about the serious crisis of violence that exists, which this year has claimed 400 Palestinian victims, about the demolitions, about the occupation of Palestinian territories by settlers, they minimize the problem. There is no awareness that there is a serious problem, if not even permissiveness on the part of those who could avoid it.
¿And a Biden presionando a Netanyahu money negociar?
Biden has put a lot of pressure on Netanyahu to make the military response consistent with international law and has shown more empathy for the Palestinian situation than several European leaders. Biden has said that they should not let themselves be dominated by anger, because that will only create more conflicts for the future. I will be told that it could do much more, after all the US is its largest military supplier. But diplomatically and politically he has acted to stop the extent of the Israeli response.
There are more than 14,000 dead...
I'm not saying we've gotten what we want.
The two-state solution is proposed again, but the region says it is too late.
By repeating the two-state solution for 30 years without doing anything to make it a reality, what we have done is give tactical cover to a strategy of making it impossible in the medium term. While we were talking about the two states, a strategy of occupying the territory and settling the population has been developed that has made it increasingly difficult. But someone tell me what alternative there is! What I don't want is to listen to Israeli ministers who say that the 2.5 million Gazans must leave, or the invitation to other countries in the region to each take a piece. It was hard for me to admit it but too many voices have asked for this to be a solution.
The victory of the far-right Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has been a shock for the EU. What lessons should I draw for the 2024 elections?
What happens in Gaza and Ukraine will be the defining parameters of that meeting. Europe is a society that is beginning to feel a lot of fear, and fear is not a good advisor. Society sees that it is surrounded by a circle of conflicts, it is experiencing a demographic winter that can only be reversed by the immigrant population that some countries reject, and it lives in a system in which the external borders of each country are those of all, but there are no a common immigration policy. All of this creates a feeling of fear and insecurity that even gives rise to violent reactions, look at Ireland. There is a breeding ground, a land that is fertile for false solutions to real problems. The schemes on which Europe has built its modus vivendi are breaking down and this raises existential questions. Politics must respond to these questions.
Should Mark Rutte have defended the EU more against the Europhobic Wilders attacks?
I am a convinced European but not a Euroblessed. I do not see only virtues and zero defects in Europe, but I am convinced that most of the problems of Europeans have no solution within the national framework. In the same way that there are national problems for which solutions should not be sought within the European framework, for example bringing to the European Parliament what is a strictly national debate, the amnesty law. That is misusing Europe. I already said it when I was president of the EP, Europeans have let Europe be created because it suited them and it has worked but there has been no political commitment about what Europe we want. In the end, Europe will be more political or it will not be at all. In the EU we have technically solved political problems, but there is a limit to that.
What effects does the PP strategy have in Brussels?
It seems counterproductive to me because we give an image of Spain that does not correspond to our reality. You cannot criticize the entire Spanish political and legal system. One can discuss amnesty, be for or against. But it cannot be said that the Spanish political and legal system has suffered a kind of cardiac arrest. It is counterproductive because, in addition to not being true, it ends up giving weapons to the independentists themselves in their criticism of the Spanish system.
“Those who know me can imagine what I think about the amnesty,” he told us a few days ago. What do you think of the law?
Leaving aside the questions of constitutionality, of which I am not an expert, and those of its political motivation, that is, its necessity and its virtue, I can tell you that I do not share the story of the process that is made in the agreements between the PSOE and Junts and ERC. The actions and responsibilities of the independence movement are not even mentioned. It seems that we accept a good part of his thesis about a conflict that supposedly began in 1714. I do not share that story. And I don't know if it was necessary. But it is not my interpretation of what happened in Catalonia those years.
Brussels has asked to see the law. What route do you see in the exam?
Commissioner Didier Reynders already said it: when it is approved, the EC will study it, as it does with any regulation that is approved in a member state because every year it makes a report on the rule of law in all EU countries.
