Charles Michel (Namur, Belgium, 48 years old) faces the European elections with unusual calm regarding the rise of extremism. Faced with the warnings issued by other leaders, this liberal politician plays down the polls and trusts that the pro-European forces will retain the helm in the next community legislature. Beyond expressing that desire, the leader of the European Council – the institution that brings together the rulers of the member countries – is elusive about whether or not it is advisable to agree with the ultra forces of the European ecosystem. He expresses himself much more emphatically about the war in Gaza. The former Belgian prime minister warns Israel that failing to comply with international law may have “consequences” on the association agreement that regulates the community bloc’s relationship with that country. Michel, visiting Spain this Thursday to meet with President Pedro Sánchez, receives Morning Express shortly before heading to La Moncloa.
Ask. Macron says Europe is now deadly. Do you perceive this risk for the first time in the face of the European elections?
Answer. We are in a world where weaknesses are exposed. But the EU has strengths and advantages. What makes me optimistic—realistic, but also optimistic—is that there is a political awareness in the 27 countries about what is essential: that we must strengthen the European project to make it resilient and capable of influencing the world. That’s not enough. Measures must be applied. And my role is to work for the unity of this project, which is unique in history.
Q. In the 2019 European elections, warnings began about the rise in extremism. Why is the situation more critical now?
R. Even then there was a lot of pessimistic analysis. Afterwards, the reading was that the pro-European forces had resisted well, that the European Parliament was clearly dominated by parties that support integration and values. Calm must be keeped. Citizens see that the EU brings stability. Without the EU there would have been a risk of division of the continent after Russia’s war against Ukraine. And with covid we saw joint solidarity and investment projects. I hope that we can form a stable majority in favor of European integration and support for Ukraine.
Q. So you don’t anticipate the rise in extremism that different studies and polls show?
Join Morning Express to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
R. I don’t want to look down. I see the polls. But with the polls, Brexit would not have happened. With the polls, Trump would not have been president of the United States. My experience is that surveys are wrong regularly.
Q. You were one of the first European leaders to join, in 2014, a populist formation, the N-VA [el partido nacionalista de Flandes], in the Belgian Government. Did that experience contribute to normalizing the phenomenon?
R. I refute that the N-VA is a populist or extremist party. It is a party with which we undertake structural reforms. That Government supported without the slightest ambiguity European integration, multilateralism, a migration policy that was both firm and very humane…
Q. But precisely the differences over migration ended up breaking the Government.
R. That shows my personal consistency. I was convinced that Belgium should defend a mechanism for regulated and orderly migration.
Q. Migration is now inflaming public opinion and the European response seems to be to tighten policies. Doesn’t that strengthen extremist forces?
R. Europe has progressed. We have agreed on the migration pact, which means more solidarity between Europeans after years of blockade. And we have begun to do what we said had to be done: cooperate with third countries to get to the bottom of the causes of migration. And very important: we have made it clear that we want to work on legal migration paths. You have to be consistent. If we are firm to combat irregular migration and the business model of traffickers, in parallel we must open legal channels.
Q. But there is much less commitment to that option, it is less visible.
R. I don’t share it. Since the European Council has given its guidelines, the path to identifying ways [de migración legal] for students, businessmen or people who come to train and return to their countries to contribute to development.
Q. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has opened the door to understanding with some extremist forces. What is her position, and that of the liberals, on the matter?
R. My role is to be the guardian of EU unity. Let’s wait for the results of the elections, we cannot anticipate them.
Q. But with her experience as president of the European Council, is the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, a person with whom you can negotiate?
R. Without wanting to personalize, I note that during my mandate we have had to face storms, at first the difficulties of maintaining climate ambition, then the covid, which destabilized the world, and then the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. They were all potentially very divisive issues. In each of them there was a risk of implosion of the EU. The Council has been the cement that has guaranteed European unity.
Q. Do you fear Russian interference in the European elections?
R. We know that Russia is determined to make all electoral processes difficult because it is about democracy, about legitimacy: everything that Russia detests. There will surely be interference. But we are much more realistic than other times, we are better prepared. We have decided to entrust all our national services [electorales] cooperate as closely as possible in detecting, preventing and shedding light on voters.
Q. Regarding Ukraine, is it realistic to think about the EU integrating a country at war, with all the challenges that entails?
R. It is certainly a challenge, I do not minimize it. But it is a deliberate, strategic, geopolitical decision. We see a very strong will in Ukraine to make the necessary reforms. Europe will be stronger to the extent that it expands. There will be financial and political challenges, but I am confident that we will find solutions. We hope that Ukraine will no longer be at war when we make the decision [de que se incorpore a la UE].
Q. Do you support the idea of sending European instructors to Ukrainian soil?
R. I do not want to comment publicly on the details of this proposal. It is not sensible to give ideas to help Putin about what we are willing and unwilling to do.
Q. It was a red line and it is mentioned more and more.
R. Every time there has been a debate about Ukraine I have maintained a maximalist position. And the facts have proven me right. When we decided not to go that far with the decisions we made, several weeks later we did go. We have seen it with tanks, with fighters, with long-range missiles. We have to defend the interests of our citizens. It is not just a question of generosity towards Ukraine; it is in the EU’s interest not to tolerate a Russian victory.
Q. Is what is happening in Gaza genocide?
R. I take note of the language of international justice institutions, which speak of the risk of genocide. As a European I support international justice, which began in Nuremberg. But beyond that, the war has to stop, there has to be an immediate ceasefire. It is difficult because in the EU there are different sensitivities, but a two-state solution must be found. To do this, the Palestinians have to make the necessary reforms and pressure must be put on Israel because the Israeli Government does everything possible to complicate the option for the Palestinians to have more authority, credibility and legitimacy. The finances blocked by Israel do not allow the Palestinian Authority to provide the necessary services to the Palestinian population. We must try to convince them to return to the two-state solution.
Q. Israel says the war will be long. Is a ceasefire realistic?
R. We cannot resign ourselves. On the one hand, we are partners with Israel, which is a democratic country. On the other hand, we have an association agreement that provides for respect for international law. I am in favor of debating the association agreement, [Josep] Borrell has managed to reopen it and involve the Israelis in a dialogue in which we can ask ourselves very serious questions about respect for that clause of the agreement. If it is not respected, there must be consequences.
.
.
_
