The sad and notorious vicissitudes of the non-existence of an Italian foreign policy have hit rock bottom in the last three years, thus destroying even the minimum that we managed to create after the disappearance of the serious and experienced political class from the Movement of resistance and which lasted until the early 1990s.
The initial low profile of Italian foreign policy in the international scenario in the aftermath of World War II was certainly not due to phantom injustices in history or the inability or insight of politicians or diplomats at home. . For Italy, the reason was the necessary result of the Yalta alignments and the presence in our country of the most powerful communist party in the West.
The values of Patriotism, Nation and Flag – where they proved to be fundamental for the politico-economic reconstruction of the countries which had really fought and had been hard hit by the conflict (China, France, Germany, Japan, Great Britain, USSR, etc.) – were removed and erased in Italy by “a foreign nationalist party, inadmissible in the democracy of our countries”, as Gaetano Salvemini and Ernesto Rossi said.
Even the liberal epic of Risorgimento was lost: try asking the thirty-something on the street, let alone a younger one, about Cavour, Mazzini, King Victor Emmanuel II of Savoy, etc. He may know something about Garibaldi, thanks to television programs produced by the long wave of Bettino Craxi, a fan of the Italian general born in Nice.
The heritage of the country’s unity and Mussolini’s rhetoric recalled the very concept of nation and fascism. It was therefore in the interest of the Kremlin and therefore of the Italian Communist Party – when the Bolshevik revolution in Italy was only a chimera to be administered to the voting masses – that its point of reference set political parameters guaranteeing the international commitments of the Sarmatian region. Over the years they have come to brand words such as ‘Italianness’, ‘tricolor Italian flag’, ‘unredeemed ancient lost lands’, etc., such as Right wing synonymous with grief and tragedy.
The benchmark Soviet party in Italy then decided that, in order to remain credible in the eyes of voters and members who still wanted the mythos of the proletarian catharsis, it was necessary at least to destroy the only non-military or economic-industrial expression of the bourgeoisie, that is to say the sense of fatherland. At the same time, for the balances of the superpowers, the rest had to be left intact and unchanged.
From 1945 to the events of 1989-1991 – the fall of the Berlin wall and the implosion and collapse of the other countrySoviet – Italy’s foreign policy, while praising and exalting the skilful and refined experience inherited from Lorenzo the Magnificent, Westphalia, etc., was to evolve mutilated and unbalanced, deprived of the national interest motivation which, on the contrary, other States have placed and still place at the heart of their action.
For almost half a century, Italian politicians and diplomats have been the protagonists of fundamental engagements and commitments all over the world. It was not Italy – as an exclusive subject – that dictated the political lines leave contrahendibut there were specific schools of foreign policy, like De Gasperi, Nenni, Fanfani, Moro, Craxi, Andreotti, De Michelis, etc. to which governments have been subjected on the sacrificial altar of the internal balances desired by the Italian Communist Party.
Over the past thirty years, the end of the bipolar system, based on weapons of mass destruction, the opening of new international scenarios, and, in particular, the position taken by the President of the Italian Republic, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi – with his sincere appeals to rediscover Italy as a value and a pride to display not only in the football stadiums where the national team played – overthrew Mannerist minimalism, in which – as Achille Albonetti has maintained since April 2005 – the Italy’s downgrading, which “is neither admitted nor discussed”, has been developing for several months “in the almost general indifference of institutions, politicians, journalists and experts, including historians and diplomats”.
However, just as it took almost half a century after the struggle of the Resistance to bury the past, we hope it will take fewer years for Italy to resume the leading role it once had. played continuously since unification until a few decades ago. Three are the most obvious symptoms of Italy’s gradual downgrade.
First of all, the three summits between the President of the Republic Jacques Chirac, the German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair in June and September 2003, then in February 2004, which led to important agreements in the crucial sector of defence.
Secondly, the negotiations with Iran, initiated at the level of the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the United Kingdom in October 2003, on the delicate nuclear question.
ThirdlyGermany’s candidacy for a permanent member of the UN Security Council, supported by France and the United Kingdom.
What happened in those years between the three great European countries, from which Italy excluded, was the beginning of its downgrading, which would be a serious mistake not to record it.
It should be remembered that Italy has always been present in the leading groups and among the great European powers, since its birth (1861). It was therefore assured of a position similar to the British, French and German positions. Over the past 140 years, regardless of its internal regime and its real strength compared to others, Italy has played important and decisive roles: the Triple Alliance in 1882; the Algeciras Agreement in 1904; the pact with the allied powers in 1915; the Treaty of Locarno in 1926; the four-power pact in 1934; the Munich Mediation in 1938; the deployment of Euro-Missiles in 1979-80, etc. As we have seen above, in 1882 Italy concluded a pact with the Central, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires. However, he was contacted by the Triple Alliance, and from 1915 he secretly switched to supporting France, the United Kingdom and Russia.
During the Fascist period, Italy had important, albeit harmful and damaging allies, namely Nazi Germany and Japan. In the post-war period, it enthusiastically joined all the major European companies: the Council of Europe and the OEEC in 1948; the ECSC in 1950. After the failure of the EDC and the CPE in 1954, it promoted European revival in Messina in 1955, which resulted in the signing of the Treaties of Rome in March 1957, that is to say the European Economic Community and Euratom.
Italy joined the European Monetary System in the late 1970s; the Single European Act in 1985; and the Treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1996) and Nice (2000). It is one of the countries that joined the euro. Since 1975, it has been a member of the G5, which later became G7 and G8, and G14. In the sensitive military field, Italy has been the architect since 1957 – with France and Germany – of a military nuclear capability project. In 1969, it acceded to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, with twelve conditional clauses, including the European clause, etc.
However, when a Minister of Foreign Affairs exercises his mission – without knowing or even understanding what we mentioned above (acronyms included) – it is natural that the downgrading process continues. It must also be said, however, that the responsibility does not lie with the minister, but rather with those who placed him in this role of high responsibility.
The opportunity to try to make up for lost time and lost face in the Foreign Office could be the creation of the new government which – based on recent poll results – could even lead to the country having a woman as Prime Minister . It would be a historic turning point, as well as a missed opportunity for the left which, from the Liberation to the present day, has only expressed Nilde Iotti, president of the Chamber of Deputies from 1979 to 1992, as its highest female figure. chief.
At this point, while some media claim that any right-wing government would be an expression of the nostalgic right, I would like to point out that the alleged historical references of the protagonists of the future government have been erased from history by the United States and the United Kingdom, while the current leaders of the winning coalition are perfectly in tune with the wishes of the White House and the liberal-capitalist West.
In the meantime, let’s take a look at the foreign ministers of previous centre-right governments and try – based on our experience as former observers of foreign policy and international relations – to give some advice to the future Prime minister.
There were four foreign ministers in centre-right governments: Antonio Martino (Ω 2013), Renato Ruggiero (Ω 2013), Franco Frattini and Gianfranco Fini. The latter was also Deputy Prime Minister: a double responsibility that had previously only been exercised by Giuseppe Pella (1957-1958) and later by Massimo D’Alema (2006-2008), thus proving the skills and experience of the three aforementioned politicians. Gianfranco Fini was also President of the Chamber of Deputies from 2008 to 2013.
When I organized the face-to-face meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini (November 24, 2003), Sharon underlined Italy’s balanced position, praising it as an important contribution to advancing the peace process. Moreover, during his stay in Israel, Fini referred to the faults of Italy concerning the “infamous racial laws desired by fascism”, for the application of which the decisive signature was not that of Mussolini, who proposed, but of King Victor Emmanuel III of Savoy. , who approved them.
It was Marie José de Savoie who, during one of my stays in Switzerland, made me aware of the lack of determination of King Victor Emmanuel III, as well as the preponderant aspect of his wife mother family.
A cowardice that dishonored this King and his coat of arms indelibly before History. On the contrary, when the idea of marking Jews with a Star of David was floated, King Christian X of Denmark (who reigned from 1912 to 1947), said: “If this emblem is used, then we will wear it. all “. The government of this Nazi-occupied country did not enforce race laws.
It is good to recall history, but it is also edifying to underline the value of certain Italian politicians who have assumed their responsibilities in the right forums (even if they may have made personal mistakes which are not were not linked to their Equities policy).
At a time of political vacuum, it would be good to pick up the broken threads of a discourse of serious continuity in Italian diplomacy, which has recently gone through considerable stages of total embarrassment.