Minister Tajani, the clash with the International Criminal Court continues unabated. As a moderate and a Europeanist, don’t you think this situation risks pushing us to the margins of Europe?
“Criticising the Court does not mean being against the Court. Just as criticising the EU or the UN does not mean opposing them. It is about encouraging them to operate better, to make them function more effectively. The ICC, in my view, has made some serious blunders, both legally and procedurally. They allowed the Libyan general to move freely around Europe without interference, only to later declare that he should be arrested. In short, a complete mess”.
And now?
“Now we must find a balance in our relationship with the ICC. And we need to do the same regarding the request for Netanyahu’s arrest. These things must be feasible. How exactly are we supposed to arrest Netanyahu? Should we send the Tuscania paratroopers to seize him aboard his state aircraft? Should we provoke a conflict with Mossad? It seems to me that today’s political and media rhetoric is rife with superficiality and demagoguery”.
Is it not also demagoguery to constantly criticise major international organisations?
“I am not against multilateralism; I simply say it must be exercised with wisdom and in a manner befitting the significance of the institutions we have established to ensure global stability, peace, cooperation, and justice. These institutions, including the ICC and others, must act decisively, but they must also operate with a true sense of responsibility. May I give you an example?”
Please do.
“I support the World Health Organisation. But during COVID, it made mistakes. One such mistake was sidelining Taiwanese scientists. Or take another example: why can’t a Europeanist like me criticise the excesses of the Green Deal in Europe? My broader point is that a secular, liberal approach means not treating any decision by international organisations as an unquestionable dogma. Supporting multilateralism does not mean turning a blind eye to reality. When Italian soldiers discovered Hezbollah digging tunnels in southern Lebanon—a real threat to Israel—they reported it to the UN, yet the UN gave no response whatsoever. Is it sacrilege to recall these facts, or is it simply a way to improve the operational effectiveness of the institutions we have rightly created and to which we absolutely do not wish to renounce?”.
The Munich Security Conference is about to begin. Will it be a moment of pragmatism, another missed opportunity, or even a moment of terrible weakness, as happened in Munich in 1938 against Hitler?
“The discussions will focus on Ukraine and the Middle East. Meanwhile, today, we are hosting the Balkan summit in Rome with the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, and the Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos. We aim to stabilise that region and integrate Mediterranean countries—both those already in the EU and those we hope to welcome in the future—into European strategies. Then, in Paris, there will be the 5+1 summit, bringing together Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Poland, and the UK”.
At the Munich conference, there will also be a G7 meeting. What is the purpose of your discussions?
“First and foremost, the Ukraine dossier: we want to reach a peace that does not humiliate Kyiv. But we will also discuss migration, particularly with US Secretary of State, Rubio”.
But Trump says he will handle Ukraine himself. Should we let him?
“The US and the EU are two sides of the same coin. We must work together. But America is in America, while we Europeans are here, in direct proximity to both the Ukrainians and the Russians. That is why it is right to rise to the American challenge and take on a greater role, including by increasing our defence spending, as they have requested”.
Should defence spending be excluded from the Stability Pact?
“Absolutely. Alternatively, there are two other options: using Eurobonds or reallocating unspent Next Generation EU funds”.
You are advocating for more Europe. But did you hear Salvini, at the Patriots’ summit in Madrid, say: ‘Less Europe, more freedom’? “I would modify Salvini’s slogan as follows: more Europe, more freedom. Our political heritage includes figures like Don Sturzo, De Gasperi, Einaudi, Adenauer, Schuman, and, if I may say so, Berlusconi. I mention this to clarify that I have nothing against Soros or Musk. But they are two very different businessmen, focused on their own business interests, and they do not represent reference points for Forza Italia, which is part of the EPP”.
Are you concerned about the anti-European activism of the Patriots?
“We are more active than they are. I do not share their positions, but I respect everyone”.
Support for AfD is growing in the German elections.
“Merz, leader of our sister party in the EPP, will certainly win, and the far-right AfD will remain on the margins. I believe there will be a governing alliance between the CDU and the Social Democrats”.
Without the Greens?
“I hope so, because governing with two parties is more effective”.
Do you really believe Merz’s assurances that he will never work with AfD?
“I respect him and understand his political culture. It is also our political culture. We share a vision of a social market economy, in which the state reduces its intervention. Forza Italia follows this principle: less bureaucracy, fewer regulations. In the EPP leaders’ document, I personally included this statement: for every new regulation, two existing ones must be abolished”.
Less state intervention also means lower taxes. But how can the tax burden be reduced?
“It can and must be done. Right now, we are fighting to reduce income tax from 35% to 33%, expanding the bracket of beneficiaries to include those earning up to €60,000 a year”.
Speaking of Italy, are you satisfied with the election of the new ANM president, Parodi? He is considered a moderate…
“I will call him to discuss our views. Our reform on the separation of judicial careers, and our entire vision of justice as a fair service to citizens, is not at all an attack on the judiciary. Fortunately, not all magistrates share the views of those who seek confrontation with the political sphere. I hope that the silent majority of judges will resist extremist temptations”.
Do you consider Lo Voi’s actions to be an extremist overreach, and does this mean he can no longer lead the Rome Prosecutor’s Office?
“That is for the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) to decide. I will only say that the confrontation with the Tribunal of Ministers could have been avoided. Lo Voi did not merely transmit the case files. He identified crimes in the actions of Meloni, Nordio, Piantedosi, and Mantovano, something he was not obliged to do. I do not agree with his choice, either legally or politically. But setting these considerations aside, it is now time to engage in dialogue with that section of the judiciary that resists overreach and, like us, is genuinely interested in making the system work efficiently and avoiding unnecessary conflicts”.
