“Really, Rohani’s won? A reformer, who also has close ties to Khatami, winning the elections in Teheran is the best news of all. And not only for the West”. Just in from Moscow, Emma Bonino and puffing on a cigarette she fires a flurry of questions at her team of assistants: can you get me Kerry on the phone, can we go straight to the Council of Ministers, what time am I meeting with Letta? As the cloud of smoke expands, she goes back to Iran, “that 80% turnout is an excellent sign that legitimises the importance of this election, which was a vote for change. With that kind of turnout it is clear that the young people are backing the past line of the reformists, of Khatami. It will be up to us in the West to capitalise on it, without starting out though by sticking our finger in the eye of the regime…”.
Not yet a foreign minister, Bonino as still simply a pro-Europe Radical Party member and former EU Commissioner when the Hojatoleslam who kept Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason on his night table was forced to hand over the leadership of Iran to the reactionary son of a barber – Ahmadinejad. She wags her finger: Europe bears its own clear responsibility for having isolated a reformer like Khatami, for leaving him alone. “That’s the truth, and it’s even truer today: we must set up an immediate agenda of meetings with Iran”.
You mean not only on the nuclear question?
«No, not only nuclear and starting with Syria. I hope now that even Laurent Fabius will have be having second thoughts. There has been a lot of arguing over whether to invite Iran to what we are calling the Geneva 2, and France has been strongly against it. But it’s not as if by excluding Teheran from the negotiating table that the problem of Iran, and its influence over Syria, is going to go away, was my objection».
You have just held a long meeting, complete with official luncheon, with your Russian colleague Lavrov. And precisely on the day that the Pentagon’s plans for a possible no-fly zone in Syria were made public, since the White House claims to have proof of the Damascus regime’s use of gas.
«We take the American statements very seriously: as a result of their capacity for intelligence but also because history has taught them not to be too impulsive. I was told by the French about those same incidents in which the regime is supposed to have used gas. I hope that all this proof is submitted to the United Nations chemical weapons commission for their assessment; and what’s more, also the White House’s approach, it seems to me, given that their statement says that they would inform Ban Ki-moon by letter, and that they wish to share the proof they have with their allies and the public. Of course, they add that the use of gas is forcing Obama to put all options on the table».
And among them the authorisation to sell light weapons to those in opposition to Bashar Assad. You have voiced Italy’s opposition to arming the rebels.
«As far as I know, to date no one has officially armed the rebels. As I predicted; furthermore William Hague himself told me that for the moment the UK did not intend to arm the rebels. What I didn’t like about all the discussion that went on in Brussels was the institutional damage it did to Europe: a piece of common policy was re-nationalised».
What about the Russian 5-300 missiles to Damascus? Did you ask Lavrov about that?
«Of course I asked him. He confirmed the existence of a contract for the sale of the missiles to Assad, but said that it had not been filled. I pointed out to him that, given the situation in Syria, the decision to sell or not to sell weapons was a political one – not a commercial one. Lavrov reiterated that the contract had not been honoured».
So, Moscow plans to sell missiles to Assad and then doesn’t give them to him; the White House plans a strike that for now it doesn’t carry out. Is there something tactical going on between Russia and the United States ?
«There are tactics going on, mainly a jockeying for position. And this, as any sign of real and mutual attention to the Syrian question would be, is a good sign».
So, Gineva 2 is coming up?
«I hope so, the signs are good. When it was first announced, some considered it a fait accomplì and possibly even a success. I think there is still a lot of work to do. I asked Lavrov about the date. He said that the 6th or 7th of July could be considered possible dates; John Kerry too is counting heavily on the conference. What I reiterated to them is that all successful peace conferences have lasted weeks, if not months; a couple of days, 24 hours, wouldn’t accomplish anything. I think that, in the case of a dossier such as Syria, we cannot just sit and wait for someone to do something. We have to take the initiative. One hundred thousand dead – do we get it? And concern in also mounting for the overall situation in the Middle East. I will be going to the Jordanian refugee camps on the 25th of June as a sign, to remind everyone of that tragedy. But we have to realise that the road is very long, and that we must be tenacious. In a few days I’ll be going to Serbia and Kosovo. It took 20 years for that peace, and yet, even with all their tensions, the Balkans have prospects. But history is a long time in the making and people often have a short memory – unfortunately».
