G20 Summit, press conference with President Giorgia Meloni

I'd like to conclude G20 with the South African Presidency. It's the first G20 in Boa's history, the first time, the first year in which all the members have held a Presidency. It's the first G20 held in Africa. I think it's very symbolic, because in the centre there are the themes of development and the future. I don't think we can talk about development and the future without talking about Africa. We have found ourselves, of course, for the themes of the South African Presidency, I would say, very comfortable, in the sense that on all the central issues that the South African Presidency has raised, Italy had already acted. I can give you some examples. We were talking here about the sustainability of the debt. You know that Italy has already announced that in the next ten years it wants to convert 50% of the debt of developing nations and the total amount of debt of the nations that are most in difficulty, into projects and investments to be made in those nations. Or we were talking about the need for these nations to be able to live from the many resources they have. You know that I have said many times that Africa is not a poor continent. It is often an exploited continent that we have to put in the condition of being able to live from the resources it has. This is partly the work that we do in Piano Mattei, both on the energy front and on the agricultural front. We were talking, of course, about food systems. Italy has recently co-chaired with Ethiopia, in Ethiopia, the Summit on Food Systems of the United Nations. In short, we were talking about artificial intelligence as a tool, another priority of the South African Presidency, as a development tool in Africa. You know that the Italian Presidency of the G7, after the G7, we launched the AI for Sustainable Development, which is an agency in Rome that helps African start-ups to work with artificial intelligence. So, let's say, maybe we didn't have the time to tell in the interviews, which, as you know, are very short, all the work that Italy has done. But I am very happy that in African countries there are questions as priorities that Italy had already seen and on which it had already worked. Clearly, apart from the work of this G20, there have been many bilateral meetings. I hope to remember them all. We talked with the Prime Minister of Singapore, with whom, clearly, the focus was mainly on the issue of mutual investments. We are already doing a great job. We can improve. We talked with the Chinese Prime Minister. We made, let's say, a summary of our relations after my visit, which you will remember. There is still work to be done, from our point of view, to rebalance our trade relations and direct investments between our two nations. We talked with the Ethiopian Prime Minister, mainly of the Italian-African summit. You know that tomorrow there will be the European-African summit. We are already working on the next Italian-African summit. This time it will take place in Africa. We talked with the Ethiopian Prime Minister mainly about this. We talked with President Erdogan mainly about international issues, the Middle East, but also Ukraine. In addition to our bilateral relations, we talked with our partners of the G7, the Canadian Prime Minister, with whom, of course, international affairs are a priority, but there is also a lot of work on the Canadian G7 Presidency, particularly on the subject of first-critical issues. I had the chance to meet the new Japanese Prime Minister, with whom I had a phone call. We are planning a visit for the first weeks of January to Tokyo, and, of course, the European partners on the Ukrainian dossier, which I imagine is the subject of your questions. And the Indian Prime Minister, with whom, of course, in addition to establishing a relationship that is growing a lot, we launched a common initiative on the fight against global terrorism, an initiative led by Italy and India, on which we would like to involve other nations in the future. President Trump, you talked about Ukraine. I imagine he found a way to amend the plan that was presented in the 28 points, taking into account the critical points that you have shown as Europeans, but not only as G7 members. Yes, I found an opportunity from the President of the United States. We had a fairly long phone call with the President of Finland, Alex Stubb. I found an opportunity. I think the work that our Sherpas are doing today in Geneva follows this intention. I mean, taking a step back, we have always worked for peace. We have always worked for peace from the beginning of this conflict. We did it as Europeans, as Americans, supporting Ukraine in its ability to resist a conflict, which many considered unexpected. It was not so unexpected. We built on the field the deterrence that allows us to speak of peace. I think we must avenge it, because it is a work that we have all done together. After that, clearly, anyone who works with the aim of working faster to reach a just, long-term peace does a valuable job. I think the American proposal must be read with this lens. After that, obviously, the American plan is a basis for discussion to reach a just and long-term peace. We need a discussion, which is what we are working on with our European partners, with NATO, with Americans and with Ukrainians today in a meeting of which, unfortunately, I do not know the results, because it is currently underway. In the American plan, as you already know, there are some points that certainly must be the subject of discussion, the issue of territories, the issue of financing for reconstruction, the issue of the Ukrainian army. There are also many points that I consider particularly positive, especially on the issue of security guarantees, where there is a direct involvement of the United States in a security guarantee proposal that, as you know, is based on an idea that was initially Italian, that is, security guarantees based on the model of Article 5. But, in short, I think we can do a positive job and we are certainly all committed to reaching a document, a proposal that can be as close as possible to the wishes, not so much ours, but to what is needed to have peace, to have an independent and sovereign Ukraine and to have security also for Europe. You, as a European leader, are also working on another alternative proposal. Do you think there are other moments of meetings, meetings before the 27th? There are an infinity of meetings, more or less, in every format, but this is a phase in which clearly everyone talks to everyone, everyone meets. In short, it is normal and right that this is the case. Clearly, I think we will probably make a point tonight on the outcome of what is happening, mainly on the phone, because then we are all traveling, so it is not very easy. Tomorrow morning there will be a coordination with the present European leaders at the top of Europe-Africa. On Tuesday there will be a meeting of the Volenterosi Coalition I imagine that there will also be other meetings, then we will see how the work of the Sherpas continues. After that, I do not think that the topic is to work on a total counter-proposal. There are many points that can be shared in the plan that we are reading. I think that, even for a matter of time, of energy, it makes more sense to work on the proposal that exists and focus on the issues that are really relevant. Well. ... I don't think they need Europe. A part of this plan needs Europe to be realized. This concerns the issue of security guarantees, the issue of reconstruction, the issue of Ukraine's access to the EU. There are a number of things that concern us and that others clearly need to negotiate with you. We can discuss everything, but I don't think it is particularly useful to go into these details now. We need to look at the goal, because the phase is very delicate. What we need to do now is a test of maturity for us, for Europe. We need to show that we can make a difference with serious proposals, proposals that take steps forward, not just saying, yes, everything is fine, no, everything is bad, which would be a childish approach for the phase we are in. I think we are all in agreement to do this work, that is, to understand where we can make a contribution to the point that we all share, because we all share that we want peace in Ukraine. I think it would be a good thing, as we said on the phone with President Trump, to understand if we can at least get a temporary ceasefire on strategic infrastructures that the Russians continue to bomb in a totally indiscriminate way, also because, let's be clear, here we are all demonstrating our goodwill from the beginning, except one, which is the Russians, who have not taken a step forward since the beginning, and I think that, and I have said this several times to the President of the United States, I think that the Russians must also give some concrete sign of wanting to achieve peace, because all the others, Americans, Ukrainians, Europeans, Turks, all of them are doing their part, except the Russians, and therefore, for example, I think that the sign of a ceasefire to temporarily stop the bombing of strategic civilian infrastructures with which, in short, bombing which Russia has always aimed to bend the Ukrainian people, which it fails to bend, would be, I think, a sign, an important step forward. Mr. President, I leave you with a very delicate question. It is not the case that I can answer it in the way you expect me to, but it is legitimately supported that we cannot do anything in the United States, that we have to depend on the United States of America, but how do you judge the fact that Trump decides that there is a need for war instead of putting more pressure on the aggressor at the end of the year? Well, let's be honest, there has also been pressure on the aggressor, because of what is happening with the Russian oil companies. In short, some signals have also been given in this sense. Clearly, I know that we must distinguish, I have always said that we must obviously distinguish the aggressor from the aggressor, but the pressure right now is being put on everyone. It is being put on Europe, it is being put on Ukraine, it is being put on Russia. The point is to understand where it leads us, ok? The point is, the real point, and I agree with you on this and I have already said it, it is not how much pressure is put on whom. The real point is that today the pressure has led to maximum availability on the part of Ukraine, maximum availability on the part of Europe, zero availability on the part of Russia. So yes, in this case, I think, and I continue to say to my interlocutors, to all my interlocutors, including the direct interested, that in the face of this unavailability, the pressure must be increased to reach an availability, because it is obvious that otherwise the possibility of building a peace becomes more difficult. I have been thinking for a long time that Putin, in good faith, does not have a real desire to close the war, to do it in a short time. I think that this bluff must be seen. But certainly the best way to see it is to make a sensible serious proposal and put it on the table and understand who is in it and who is not in it. And I am sure that in the face of a sensible serious proposal, there is Europe, there is Ukraine, there are the United States, and we hope that there is also Russia, but it could also be missing. President, you talked about pressure on Russia. In fact, Trump recently wrote, I don't know if you were informed, that the leadership of Ukraine has not expressed any gratitude for our efforts and that Europe continues to buy oil from Russia. He also said that Putin would never have attacked if there had not been a Biden. So I ask you, don't you think that this is a way for Trump to leave Ukraine and Europe? No, I don't think this is the goal. I think that this is not what I see. In the sense that you have been witnesses, I have been a witness to all the times when Ukrainians, Zelenskys, have clearly thanked the United States. Otherwise, look, it is endemic in the sense that the need to, let's say, continue to work with our American allies obviously also derives from the importance of their role in this matter. So if we were unrecognizable to them, there would probably be no need for them, in the sense that the importance they had in the conflict would not be understood. Instead, everyone understands it very well. Since on the subject of Europe, which continues to buy gas from Russia, I first explained to the President of the United States that, for example, Italy has done a crazy job since the beginning of the war. At the time, our dependence was certainly significant, so perhaps something of what happened later did not reach the media. But we, for example, have totally diversified, as you know very well, we no longer depend on Russia for anything. So Europe has done a very important job from this point of view. But I do think that, in short, some things that are said serve in the end to generate, let's say, pressure in the interlocutors. But it seems to me that it is done a little bit here, a little bit there. In short, we know the method of work a little bit. In some cases it has also been effective, as we have seen in the Middle East. After that, the real point, I repeat, in my opinion, are not the press statements. The real point is what, in the end, ends up black on white on the proposal with which Americans, Ukrainians, Europeans decide to get on the table with the Russians. We have a hat of anxiety, by the way. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. President, I want to know what kind of attitude you have seen from European partners if they are aligned on your idea of using the Trump plan as a starting point. And then I would ask you a digression on the topic of the Italians. What do you think of the Garofani question? And if, given that many exponents of the Middle East have explained their resignation, what is your opinion on it? And it seems to me that we are all on the same page. Besides, the presence of Italy, France, Germany, Great Britain, the European Union, NATO, today in Geneva, says this. That is, we want to get to work on the text. As for the Garofani story, you know that I spoke directly with the President of the Republic. I clarified the whole issue with the President of the Republic. I take this opportunity to reiterate, let's say, the excellent relationship that I have always had with President Mattarella. I do not think it is the case to return to this relationship. While the discussion on the American peace plan goes on, as far as the aid packages for Ukraine are concerned, now there is also a wave of aid for the electric generators, everything goes on. Will it continue, in short, as far as the arms supply is concerned? Yes, well, we are working on the 12th aid package, as you know, and we are working on it. This is something that I have always considered particularly important. The last time I met President Zelensky, I do not remember which recent summit, because there are so many, President Zelensky raised the issue of these electricity generators, because, as we said, you know, the European Council, thank you, because now one is losing them. President Zelensky asked for our help on these great electricity generators, because, as we said, especially when winter comes, Russia has the privilege of attacking strategic infrastructures, infrastructures that serve the civilian population, and he asked us for help in this sense, and we are, in short, I have spoken with the competent ministers, with Minister Giorgetti, and we are operating in that sense. I think it is, but I say it for Italy that looks at us, for the Italians, I think it is a very beautiful thing, and we take care, let's say, of a civilian population that some are trying to bend with the cold and with the cold. President, good evening. On the subject of aid, do you think that Italy should join the program of buying American weapons to turn to Ukraine, the so-called PERL, and in what times do you think that Italy will dissolve this reserve? And then, do you think that this scandal of corruption that broke out in the Ukrainian government can be an obstacle compared to this plan? Because this is the position that Vice-Premier Matteo Salvini expressed, saying, I'm afraid that this money of our pensioners may end up in the wrong hands. So, look, as far as PERL is concerned, we don't have a deadline, in the sense that we work for priority. Now, as I told you, we are working for a twelfth package of aid, and so, so far, we are not adhering. In the future we will see, but we don't have and we haven't given ourselves deadlines. As far as corruption is concerned, it clearly affects, obviously, but it also affects our public opinion, it is legitimate. I want to say that I consider, in any case, important that Ukraine has shown to have antibodies. In the end, we must always remember that these arrests come on the basis of initiatives of Ukrainian institutions. So, there is probably a problem, but there are also antibodies to deal with that problem. So, the Deputy Prime Minister Salvini says something correct. He says that money and Italians cannot end up in the hands of corrupt people. And, obviously, we must watch out because this does not happen, but, I repeat, it seems to me that the Ukrainian government has shown to have full will, that Ukrainian institutions have shown to have full will to fight, in short, any phenomenon of corruption, which, for the most part, are very serious for them, given that they have people who are dying on the brink. Yes, I would like to go back to the topic of Salvini. You, of course, have raised the question of the role of Europe, of the role of other countries, together with the United States, regarding the peace process and the document. But Salvini always seems to do the opposite, because he continually says, yesterday or the day before yesterday, he said that Europe must do its own thing, must do the work of Trump with a bellicose approach. This continuous opposition could not become a problem, sooner or later, or do you think that, instead, only... And then I wanted to close on one thing, on Garofani. I know he said he didn't want to go back, but I had to ask him if he was aware of the note, of the statement that Galeazzo Bignami made. No, I wasn't aware of the note that Galeazzo Bignami made, even if I continue to believe, as I have already told you, that the note, in reality, served precisely to evade doubts from the Quirinal, not, let's say, to focus attention on the Quirinal. After that, as far as Salvini is concerned, I don't consider him to be a countercant. I think that we are a coalition and not a barracks. I think that, within my majority, it is a good thing that everyone clearly expresses their positions, because this also helps me, clearly, to reason. So, I don't see it as you see it, let's say, as... Sometimes I read it on the press. I don't see it as a contradiction. Salvini yesterday, compared, for example, to how you read the words of Salvini yesterday, Salvini yesterday said that Europe does not block. So, let's say, he is monitoring the attitude that Europe is not adopting today. And if Europe had adopted that attitude, had said, irreceivable, we continue to send weapons and we don't want to talk about peace, I would have thought exactly what Salvini said, I would have said what Salvini said. So, Salvini monitored something that, thank God, did not materialize. After that, I repeat, for me, I always listen with great, great attention to what the majority says, I talk to them on a daily basis about all the files, the decisions we make are shared decisions. In the end, I am only interested in one thing. I am interested in the international position of Italy. I am interested that Italy continues to be perceived as a serious nation, as a credible nation, as a nation that has a clear line of foreign policy. And today, Italy is perceived in this way. And it is perceived in this way because this government has a stable majority that has allowed it to have, always voting in a compact way, this line of foreign policy. And so, let's say, I absolutely cannot complain about my allies. No, it's not true. This, let's say, but I don't allow myself to talk about the tone of the others. Gentlemen, thank you. But this, let's consider this a press conference or not, because you always do what... Ah, if you don't sit down, it's not good. They do. So, their questions are valid, yours are not. But his, yes, because he has a knee on the chair, he could sit down. Perfect. Let's go on. On the chair, I have seen three reports. also yesterday, first the narrow then also open to Italy. And also maybe it wasn't necessarily foreseen the Italian presence in Geneva, if there was this voice. Today, you spoke together with the Finnish President Trump. Is there a bit of a divergence, in this sense, is there a political problem? Is there a reason why you don't proceed? I have questions because... Look, I beg you, because really, this is a very delicate So, this job, in a phase like the one we live in, to take into account who is not there and is not there every time someone speaks, which I, frankly, consider a bit childish, but which becomes dangerous if it should infect the leader, sincerely, in this phase it should not be done. Ok? So, there is certainly an E3 format born from Minsk, it's not that we invented it today, no, and so they tend to see each other. After that, the other day I talked with Merz and when I talked with Merz there was no France, no Great Britain and no one asked why there was no France. Then I talked with Kostner and von der Leyen and there was no France, no Great Britain, no Germany. Why wasn't there France? Then I talked with Trump together with Stubb and why wasn't there Macron? And when Keir Starmer talked now with Trump, why wasn't there Macron? I beg you, don't read if I may say, in this phase in which it is important that we can talk all together as it happens and as it comes. There are interlocutions that are born from the fact that we have our numbers, we have the chats, I mean, there are many tools with which we work, ok? We write on the phone, ok? We don't make comments. No, but the chats, I say, there are various ones, but I mean, now, don't edit, there are various formats in which we talk about everything, ok? So, we don't build, let's say, political stories in a moment in which it is good that the interlocutions are as varied as possible, ok? At the moment it is difficult, and since, objectively, the public and European opinions are a little tired of this situation, is there a risk that some populist position takes advantage of this situation precisely to make populism and not foreign policy? Well, look, foreign policy is always an extremely complex thing and, clearly, no, all over the world it is a very complex thing because there are many things that, clearly, make decisions much more based, let's say, on much broader than those that can be made without knowing the dossier thoroughly. After that, I think, I have always thought, I have said many times that the difference between a leader and a follower is that you move, let's say, in foreign policy looking at the national interest not looking at the immediate interest on the electoral level of consensus. Foreign policy travels on the medium or the long distance. Look, the nations that are, let's say, having the best results are the ones that can reason from here to a hundred years because foreign policy is something that has to be done in a long time and therefore the benefits of what you build are almost never seen immediately. For this reason it is difficult to understand because the things that go better in the public are those that give an immediate result. After that, I did the world tour and I brought home 80 billion of investments but after six months of doing the world tour someone said but Meloni is not too much around and because he is doing too much foreign policy but it is not foreign policy it is internal policy because what you do if you are concrete in these meetings you will return in terms of benefits for your nation but it is normal that you see today I can start telling it three years that the first year I could not have told it with the same concreteness so I think that when you talk about foreign you have to have the courage the seriousness to work considering that some things you do in the immediate can not be completely understood but I also think that if you act with good faith and having at the center of your work the national interest people in the end as you see recognize it President one last last thing today you met Erdogan in which you praised the role in NATO tomorrow Erdogan will hear Putin he understood what kind of message he will convey I think that President Erdogan also has a constructive on the subject of the proposal in 28 points he is among the supporters of the ceasefire he will about strategic infrastructures he will talk tomorrow with Putin but I think he will also talk with President Trump and I think these are the messages he will convey anyway the role of Turkey has been from the beginning a constructive role in my opinion it can be strategic so it is good that President Erdogan is also involved in these talks thank you all Thank you all