Charles Michel: ‘The Israeli government is doing everything possible to make it difficult for the Palestinians to have more authority, credibility and legitimacy’

Charles Michel is awaiting the European elections with an unusual sense of calm regarding the strength of extremism. Contrary to the warnings issued by other leaders, the liberal politician, 48, plays down the polls and is confident that the pro-European forces will remain at the helm in the next EU legislature. Beyond expressing this hope, the leader of the European Council — the institution that brings together the leaders of the member states — is elusive about whether or not it is a good idea to make a pact with the far-right forces of the European ecosystem. He is much more emphatic about the war in Gaza. The former Belgian prime minister warns Benjamin Netanyahu’s government that not complying with international law could have “consequences” on the association agreement that regulates the relationship between the community bloc and Israel. Michel, on a visit to Spain on May 30 to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, receives EL PAÍS shortly before heading to La Moncloa, the Spanish seat of government.

Question. Macron says that Europe is now in a deadly situation. Do you perceive that 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 of what is essential: that we must strengthen the European project to make it resilient and capable of influencing the world. That is not enough. We have to implement measures. And my role is to work for the unity of this project, which is unique in history.

Q. During the 2019 European elections, you began to warn of the rise of extremism. Why is the situation more critical now?

A. 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. We must remain calm. Citizens see that the EU brings stability. Without the EU, there would have been a risk of the 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 ascent of extremism shown by different studies and polls?

A. I don’t want to look the other way. I look at the polls. But looking at the polls, Brexit would not have happened. Looking at the polls, Trump would not have been president of the United States. My experience is that polls are wrong on a regular basis.

Q. You were one of the first European leaders, in 2014, to integrate a populist formation, the N-VA (the Flemish nationalist party), into the Belgian government. Did that experience contribute to normalizing the phenomenon?

A. I refute that the N-VA is a populist or extremist party. It is a party with which we undertook structural reforms. This government supported, without the slightest ambiguity, European integration, multilateralism, a migration policy that was both firm and very humane…

Q. But it was precisely differences over migration that ended up breaking up the government.

A. That shows my personal coherence. 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?

A. Europe has made progress. We have agreed on the migration pact, which means more solidarity among Europeans after years of deadlock. And we have started to do what we said we had to do: cooperate with third countries to get to the root causes of migration. And this is very important: we have made it clear that we want to work on legal migration channels. We have to be consistent. If we are firm in combating irregular migration and the business model of traffickers, in parallel we have to open legal channels.

Q. But there is much less commitment to that option, it is less visible.

A. I don’t agree. Since the European Council issued its guidelines, the path to identifying [legal migration] pathways for students, entrepreneurs or people who come to train and return to their countries to contribute to development has accelerated.

Q. The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has opened the door to an understanding with some extremist forces. What is your position, and that of the liberals, in this regard?

A. 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 in your experience as president of the European Council, is the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni a person with whom you can make a pact?

A. Without wishing to personalize, I note that in my mandate we have had storms to face, at first the difficulties in maintaining climate ambition, then Covid, which destabilized the world, and then the wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East. All were potentially very divisive issues. On each of them there was a risk of EU implosion. The Council has been the cement that has guaranteed European unity.

Q. Do you fear Russian interference in the European elections?

A. We know that Russia is determined to make all electoral processes difficult because they are about democracy, about legitimacy: everything that Russia detests. Undoubtedly there will be interference. But we are much more realistic than on other occasions, we are better prepared. We have decided to task all our national [election] services to cooperate as closely as possible in detection, prevention and transparency for voters.

Q. Regarding Ukraine, is it realistic to think of the EU integrating a country at war, with all the challenges that entails?

A. It is certainly a challenge, I don’t downplay 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 as it enlarges. There will be financial and political challenges, but I am sure we will find solutions. We hope that Ukraine will no longer be at war when we make the decision [for Kyiv to join the EU].

Q. Do you support the idea of sending European military instructors to Ukraine?

A. I don’t want to make a public pronouncement on the details of this proposal. It is not wise to give Putin clues about what we are willing and unwilling to do.

Q. It was a red line and it is being talked about more and more frequently.

A. Every time there has been a debate on 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 took, several weeks later we did. We saw it with tanks, with fighter jets, 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?

A. I take note of the language of the 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 the two-state solution must be found. For that, the Palestinians have to make the necessary reforms and pressure has to be put on Israel because the Israeli government is doing everything possible to make it difficult 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?

A. 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 foresees the respect of international law. I am in favor of discussing the association agreement, [Josep] Borrell has managed to reopen it and involve the Israelis in a dialogue in which we will be able to ask very serious questions about respect for this clause of the agreement. If it is not respected, there must be consequences.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition