Dear Editor-in Chief,
If these days are harbingers of the year to come, Europe will truly have some stormy waters to negotiate. And the centre of the upheaval, more than ever, will be the Mediterranean – with Italy in the front line, therefore, for historical, geographical, economic and cultural reasons. Wondering if the government’s policy is up to the task, as Angelo Panebianco did yesterday, is legitimate, in part because there is certainly no shortage of questions still to be solved, first and foremost how to tackle the challenge of terrorism.
I shall begin with the two matters that Panebianco termed “strategic errors”. His first claim is that insufficient solidarity has been shown to terrorism-hit France. That is not the case. Our solidarity, in January as in November, has been total and has involved not just the government but also a large swathe of Italian society. I know of no requests from the French that Italy has not fulfilled. And I trust that this alleged, but non-existent error, has not been mentioned to portray Italy again as reluctant to stand up against terrorism while our allies are committed interventionists led by little Churchills. Panebianco knows that it is not so and that our soldiers are among the most committed – and appreciated – in the wider crisis that ranges from the Gulf of Guinea to Pakistan. If, for example, the anti-Daesh coalition, which has a summit in less than a month in Rome, has retaken land in Iraq, then the merit belongs to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces and also to the three or four countries, Italy included, that arm them, train them and contribute to administering the liberated areas in a non-sectarian manner. It is true, however, that the government has strongly emphasised the importance of diverse non-military dimensions to the war on terror. I do not consider that an error. I have no time for sociological interpretations (for one thing, some of the attackers were far from “poor”), but I have even less for those who still peddle the myth that the challenge before us can be resolved with some brilliant military action. We are still paying the consequences, 15 years on, for the blitzes that were supposed to wipe out the terrorist threat. Wiping it out will be the effort of a generation. A military effort, of course. A diplomatic effort, as in Syria or Libya. An information effort. An effort of cooperation with the countries whose stability is at risk. And certainly a cultural effort. I know that we are not dealing with “the wretched of the earth” 50 years after Frantz Fanon, but the dreadful subjectivity of Islamist fundamentalism must absolutely be defeated by isolating it at every level in Islamic and in European countries. Yes, in our own backyard as well.
With regard to the strategic questions, the main one is how, in a complex multilateral scenario not dominated by one or two superpowers, we should tackle the storm caused by the triple tumult affecting various countries in the area: between peoples and regimes, between Shiites and Sunnis, and between Sunni majorities and jihadi minorities. Many draw parallels with the Thirty Years’ War, and rightly so. But how far away is Westphalia? And will our diplomatic efforts be able, as Italy proposes, to foster a “Mediterranean accord” to promote minimum measures to re-establish dialogue and trust? That is what the recent meetings on Syria and Libya were ultimately about. In all this, a crucial factor like never before is the role of Europe. But not a Europe that allows itself to be overwhelmed by migrants to the point of reinstating borders. Rather, a Europe of growth, capable of managing migration and of making its voice heard on the world stage. For unless we rise to the challenge, we shall all be weaker.
