Check against delivery! 

Thank you to all of you for coming here, in Brussels.  

Thank you to the European Parliament for hosting this meeting. 

Thank you to all the staff members that have been working hard in order to make it happen. 

Thank you to the Members of the [European] Parliament with whom I have been exchanging the last four years, and they are kind enough to participate in this meeting. 

I see many Ministers from the 27 Member States. I see many Ministers from our partners – more than 50 partners’ Ministers and Ambassadors [from] outside the European Union.  

[To] all of you, thank you for attending this meeting where we will exchange our views on the main security and defence threats and see how we can better work together to face them. 

Security and defence is part of the description of my job. It is [High Representative] for Foreign [and] Security [Policy]. This second part of the job of the High Representative, which in the past was not so important, today is the most important part of the job. 

Security and defence issues have been growing and they are high on the world’s agenda. 

I am sure these discussions will show that we are not agreeing on everything, but we could – and we should - find many commonalities.  

In order to be concrete, and not to give you a long lecture about everything, let’s focus on three questions – quite general, but only three [questions]. 

The first one: What are the common threats we are facing? We talk about them, but which are they? Can we have a list of which are the common threats? 

Second: How [can] we, at the European Union, try to adapt our security and defence [policy] in order to face these threats? 

And third: How can we work together? This is the main question. If we are partners, it means that we share the same concerns, and we work together in order to face them. That is what partners do. 

So, let’s go to these three issues. 

Which are the threats? 

It is clear that power politics is back. All forms of interdependence are becoming an arm. “I am dependent on you. You will use my dependence on you as a weapon against [me]”. Dependencies were considered as the right thing to do in order to build a common set of interests and mutual exchanges. Now, interdependencies become dependencies and dependencies are being used as a weapon. 

We are seeing the return of the classical high intensity war. A high intensity war with tanks, trenches, planes, explosions, not only in Ukraine and Gaza. Not only there – there are many wars in Africa, a lot of – not wars – but instability in Latin America. We see, not a war but war games in the Indo-Pacific. 

We do not talk a lot about them. The wars in Africa are not on the [headlines] of our newspapers, but they are there, and they are causing a lot of casualties. 

Then, we see the rise of hybrid threats. “Hybrid threats”, a new word. What is a hybrid threat? It is not a classical threat, it is not tanks and trenches. It is about something more subtle.  

It is about information manipulation. It is about the weaponisation of migration, to make the migrants a weapon that you project against the border. We see cyberattacks. You do not need to bomb, sometimes it is just a “click” in order to create big problems. You can paralyse a whole electricity system without launching a single bomb. 

For us, certainly, the war in Ukraine is the most important existential threat, and the war in Gaza is the biggest ethical question for us. 

A Russian victory in Ukraine would put the European Union in enormous danger. But the [Russian] aggression against Ukraine is not only a European problem.  

I think that a victory of the aggressor – Putin's Russia - would demonstrate that a military aggression pays off. And every country would be in danger if this becomes the norm. “I am stronger than you so I use my force to impose my will.” This cannot be the rule. 

It has been the rule in the past. Yes, maybe the Western countries were using [that] years ago. But today, I think that we have to engage [in] rejecting that the use of force becomes the norm. 

In the Middle East, we are perceiving another severe test for the international rules-based order. The international rules-based order is based on institutions, for example the International Court of Justice (ICJ).  

The rulings of the International Court of Justice are [binding]. All members of the European Union have to abide by these rules. If this is not the case, then the international rules-based order is much weaker than we could imagine.  

Certainly, the terrorist attack – Hamas' terrorist attack – against Israel, and the response of Israel has plunged the region into a cycle of violence - the worst in decades - with the constant threat for regional escalation. What we see in Gaza certainly is a horror. And I have said it many times: one horror cannot justify another horror.  

It is difficult to qualify what is happening in Ukraine, if you do not use the same qualifications to what is happening in Gaza. A different situation, certainly, but human rights have been violated in both places.  

But there are not only these two wars. We tend to focus on them but there are many others.  

In 2022, 56 states suffered armed conflict. In 2010, there were “only” 30. Two years ago, it was 56 and the intensity of the war has been increasing. How many casualties in Sudan, how many casualties in the Horn of Africa that will never come to the headlines of the European press? 

Yes, the world is becoming a “single security theatre”. Hotspots - anywhere they are - have a broader impact on global security.  

There are at least three hotspots, I was talking about them yesterday night. Three straits in the world: the Bosphorus, the Red Sea, and Taiwan. The Bosphorus is about grain, about food. The Red Sea Bab-el-Mandeb [Strait] is about energy, oil and gas. And Taiwan is about chips, about technology.  

Well, in these three places, the fate of the world can be written. And the threats about food, about energy and about technology are pending over us. And whatever happens in one of them will for sure send shockwaves to the rest of the world.  

We see North Korea and Iran supporting Russia. We see what is happening in the Gulf of Aden, where 40% of the world shipping [is] transiting. This certainly has consequences across the globe.  

We see the Indo-Pacific region, where 80% of the chips that we use every day for almost everything are being produced. We see where there are the critical materials, which are absolutely necessary for the digital transition. And there is less and less of what we could say is an agreement, a consensus. 

Look at what is happening at the [United Nations] Security Council; there are no agreements, there are only vetoes. And by the way, I can say that the EU Member States have not used the veto right in these last times. But the United Nations’ system is paralysed by vetoes, and these vetoes maintain conflicts. And these conflicts can kill people and spread insecurity and put ethical questions to all of us.  

So, in front of this panorama, in front of this landscape, how are we trying to adapt? How do we try to face the security and defence threats?  

[The] first thing is that these threats have become for us a wakeup call, and it has changed the approach of the European Union to the world.  

The power, the use of power - in particular military power - was not in the DNA of the European Union. We are not a military alliance, and we were created in order to make peace among Europeans. And this has been an extraordinary success. For more than 70 years, peace has been the normal situation in Europe. But maybe we have forgotten that peace is not the normal state of things, that conflict is more the norm than peace.  

For us, it has become clear that we need quickly to become a capable actor in the field of security and defence, because trading and preaching the rule of law is not enough today. 

We have been opening borders. We have been expanding trade. We have been pushing for international trade where you are creating economic progress around the world. But today, we have to become an actor able to provide security as we do – or try to do – with our missions [and operations]. 

I see some of the representatives of our navies who are sailing the Mediterranean waters, the coast of Africa’s water, the coast of Guinea, [or] the Red Sea, trying to provide security. 

And that is why, two years ago, we adopted the Strategic Compass. That was a milestone, we were setting new ambitions for our security and defence. 

And we are trying to create a Rapid Deployment Capacity – let’s call it a Rapid Deployment force, because, in the end this is what we are talking about – that could mobilise about 5,000 soldiers, that will be operational next year. 

We are increasing our defence spending, and we want to work together in order to buy equipment in a more economic and quicker way. We know that we have a lot of gaps in our defence capacities, we know that we do not have a European army. We have 27 European armies, and we have to decrease duplication and increase interoperability of these armies. 

We are also in the process of boosting our defence industry, not only to be able to better support Ukraine, but [also] to replenish our stocks and reduce our excessive dependencies in this field.  

European citizens support it. 80% of respondents to the latest Eurobarometer [survey] - 80% of European citizens that will put a vote in 10 days, and I want to remind you that we are in an electoral time in Europe - said they want more European Union cooperation on defence, clearly. Common sense. 

People understand [it]: working together at 27 [Member States] is much better than each 27 doing each one on their side. Much more efficient, less expensive and overall, with a lot of political meaning. Citizens understand and want it. 

The problem is the political will of the Member States. And let me remind [recall] that defence remains a competence of Member States. It is the Member States who are entitled to develop defence policies, and they want to create a common defence policy – which I have the honour to try to build, with the support of my staff at the [European] External Action Service.  

It is not an easy task. It is not an easy task because the army is the last sign of sovereignty. We can share a currency but to share defence capabilities touches much more to the core of a sovereign state. And that is why to build a common defence policy in Europe, it has to [come from] the ones who are entitled to do that, which are the Member States. 

We have not created a community of defence yet, maybe in the future. We have to go in this direction, which is the sense of history but without trying to do things that are not on the agenda or are not in the competencies of the European institutions. 

We are fully aware that we cannot achieve security alone.  

This brings me to the third point of my speech: how can we work better with our partners?  

First, let’s be concrete. How? 

First, through our missions on land and at sea.  

Second, by supporting capacity building through the European Peace Facility (EPF), which, by the way, is not part of the European Union budget, voted by the parliamentarians. It is an intergovernmental instrument managed by the Member States, because the European Union budget cannot buy arms. That is why we invented an extra budget, where Member States decide to support our partners in this difficult issue of providing arms.  

Third, by broadening and deepening our security dialogue.  

During my mandate, I have had the honour of launching nine new missions and operations, often in cooperation with other [partners]. Maybe the most popular one is the military assistance to Ukraine [EUMAM Ukraine] which has trained 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers. Not only us, for example, having the invaluable support of Norway.  

We launched a mission in Mozambique [EUTM Mozambique]. We cooperate also with Rwanda, and with the South Africa Development Community (SADC).  

Three years ago, we established the European Peace Facility. I think it has been a game changer, because it allows us to provide lethal military equipment to our partners. This instrument is central to our support to Ukraine.  

But its role goes much beyond. 22 countries around the world have been receiving the support of the European Peace Facility.  

I know that many of you expect more from the European Union, and from our contribution to your security capacities.  

Africa is a case in point. The European Union has said repeatedly – and we believe in it – that we want “African solutions to African problems.” 

In order to build these African solutions, last year, summing up, [this is] what I have done since I came here to Brussels, we have allocated almost €1 billion in military support [through the EPF] to the African Union and African countries. €1 billion.  

We are drawing lessons from the setbacks experienced in the Sahel region by developing more flexible and accurate solutions. We have to learn from what is happening in [the] Sahel in order to engage better, more efficiently with our partners.  

A good example is the new [Security and Defence] Initiative in the Gulf of Guinea launched last December to help to address the spill over of instability from the Sahel to the Gulf of Guinea. We see that [with] open eyes. We have been talking about it, it happens. The terrorism activities are spilling over down from Sahel to the Gulf of Guinea. It requires a more flexible and fitted response to this threat.  

I was in Ghana some months ago, providing more than 100 armoured vehicles to the army. But we need a tailor-made support based on the needs identified by the Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), by Ghana, by Togo, and Benin.  

Let me say some words about freedom of navigation. It is also a major global public good. Freedom of navigation is a public good. Just imagine for a minute that the sea transportation stops. Imagine [it]. How would [our life be], everywhere around the world? No more ships transporting goods from one part of the world to another.  

It would be a catastrophe. Not only for the Europeans, who are the biggest exporters and importers, but for everybody. Food, energy and technology flow through the seas every day. Hundreds, thousands of ships. They are navigating freely – well there are some piracy attacks, and we deploy missions to prevent it. Now there are some rockets attacks, which [are] the threats for tomorrow in some of these hotspots I have been mentioning before.  

That is why we have [EUNAVFOR] Atalanta in the Horn of Africa, our Coordinated Maritime [Presence] in the Gulf of Guinea, and we are ready to deploy any mission where it could be useful to ensure the freedom of navigation.  

[EUNAVFOR] ASPIDES, which has been criticised, is there in the Red Sea. In [less than] two months, it escorted more than 100 merchant vessels and repelled 16 rocket attacks. You cannot imagine how many people are knocking on my door here in Brussels saying, “Please, ensure freedom of navigation. Ensure that the ships [can] go through the shortest way.’ Egypt is losing a lot of money. People are waiting more than two weeks with the cost it represents, for the ships arriving to their harbours.  

This is an inconvenience - not only for the ones that receive the goods, but also for the ones transiting, exporting the goods. It is a very important issue. Today, it is being identified in some places in the world, but we see piracy increasing in many other places.  

I thank Indonesia and India [for joining] activities with [EUNAVFOR] Atalanta. I thank Brazil and India [for joining] the European Union ships in the Gulf of Guinea. And I also want to celebrate the first ever European Union-United States joint [naval] exercise last year.  

Yes, the sea and the space will be the new battlefields. The sea – not in the coastline. All the seas in the world will become a place where threats will increase.  

We want also to be a strong partner in facing the new hybrid warfare.  

We have seen that in Moldova. Moldova is not [under] military attack, but it is under attack, cyber-attacks. And we have to support them in order to be able to face this new warfare techniques.  

I mentioned the space as a new battlefield. Yes, many partners increasingly ask us to support them on geospatial intelligence through our European Union Satellite Centre.  

Yes, threats multiply. We want to expand our cooperation framework with new security and defence partnerships. I just signed the first ones, with Moldova and Norway. Six more are in the pipelines.  

I invite all of you who could be interested in approaching the European Union and building security and defence partnerships with us, because we want to create a network around the world, in order to ensure that, all together, we can contribute better to the world security and peace. 

As I said at the beginning, that we have more than 80 security dialogues with partners around the world. Every time I am being asked [by] one of my staff: “Where is he? Where is she?”. He or she is doing a dialogue in security and defence somewhere.  

Well, that is good. It is good that we are present. It is good that we care. It is good that we go [there]. It is good that we listen. It is good that we partner.  

This month we held the first [Security] dialogue with Morocco, and [one with the] European Union with the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries [EU-GCC Regional Security Dialogue], with the Gulf. A security dialogue of the Gulf. Very timely, it was launched earlier this year. We are going to try to do the same with Colombia and with Chile.  

We are expanding our dialogues with NATO. Certainly, the European Union is not part of NATO, but our Member States, most of them are. There is a European pillar inside NATO, and the stronger this European pillar [will be], the stronger NATO [will be].  

We have to dialogue inside NATO, the Europeans and the rest of Members on space, on cyber, on emerging technologies, and also on climate, because climate will be one of the most important security problems for the world. Millions of people will have to move from countries that do not have any responsibility [for] the climate problem, and they are the most heavily affected. 

This will create new waves of migrations, and we will have to take care of these people, and try to help the states that will be strongly destabilised by climate consequences. They are destabilised by the drug[s]. We see many countries in the world being undermined from inside by the consequences of the high drug trafficking, in which we Europeans are also involved as consumers. 

All that makes us understand that we have a strong responsibility and a certain capacity, and, certainly, a will. A will to try to reverse these trends by building bridges, by finding common ground, by understanding the priorities of others which are not always the same as ours. 

So, this is the merit and the value of this Forum. Normally, people go to forums, they deliver a speech and they leave. They do not listen [to] the following speech, they do not interact. Here, we are here to interact [with] each other. 

A lot of bilaterals will take place, but at the end of the day, when we close this Forum, I hope that we have been able to listen [to] others, to try to understand - which is the first and most important condition in order to be able to partner.  

If you do not understand your partner, it is not going to be a balanced partnership. And Europe wants to contribute to build, not to build, balanced partnerships with the rest of the world.  

So, I am stopping here. I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, to everybody who came here with good will and everybody who has been working in order to make this gathering possible.  

Thank you very much, see you at the end of the day.  

Link to the video: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-257389