Rome. Newly appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Paolo Gentiloni is able to keep the idealism of humanitarian intervention together with the realism of stabilisation – two facets of foreign policy theory that are often irreconcilable – and he does it by drawing a clear line between what today is (has become) the stuff “of the left” and what instead is “of the right”. Being open to the world, intervening in crisis areas, signing treaties and tirelessly insisting on negotiation and dialogue, is the stuff of the political left. Economic protectionism, isolationist foreign policy and even the closing of borders – “no” to immigration in other words – belongs to the political right; “it is wrong to imagine being able to put a wall between ourselves and the world, between us and migration, us and our neighbours. Those who embrace forms of social, beyond economic, protectionism like the Northern League and a part of the 5 Star Movement”.
“There is a continuity in Italian foreign policy”, says the Minister to [daily newspaper] Il Foglio, sitting in his office at the foreign ministry, “that is founded on four basic elements: pro-Atlantic relations, a pro-Europe stance, openness to trade and a commitment to peacekeeping and human rights”. This is our history and it is a history of left-leaning action; today’s problem, if there is one, is having to adapt to and keep abreast of rapidly changing external conditions. Gentiloni cites Hillary Clinton (the former secretary of state’s name stands out during the interview while that of Barack Obama hardly even comes up) and her 3 Ds – Diplomacy, Defence and Development – as a paradigm to which to refer in drafting a foreign policy based on continuity and that is at the same time modern. Because today’s risks are entirely new”.
Gentiloni immediately points out a very clear one: “The danger is religious conflict taking the upper hand in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the point of changing its nature and amplifying the risks, and creating a dynamic with the worst regional repercussions”. Take the recent tragic attack on the synagogue in Jerusalem, “whose symbolic gravity is obvious”, says Gentiloni. “And the government’s first reaction cannot but be one of total solidarity”. But these repeated attacks in Jerusalem reveal “an escalation of a religious nature” that could end up transforming the battle of the Palestinians against Israel that, at least for the Fatah leadership –Jerusalem’s only interlocutor – “has always had more nationalistic than religious connotations”. “This shift, in fact, is dangerous, aggravated by Israeli measures for access to the Al Aqsa mosque”, but the current status of the peace process is also fairly depressing. There are no set dates to count on; never before has the Israeli leadership been so harsh in condemning the Palestinian Authority for inciting hatred for Hews. “I have spoken with both sides”, Gentiloni admits, “and the positions are very distant”. But the process must resume, the minister is sure of that (“also because there are no alternatives”); a launch is expected from the U.S. Department of State (“it’s going to take a few weeks”), to which the question of recognition of the State of Palestine is also linked. Which is not a call for weapons to be brandished, as much as an instrument to be used for reviving dialogue, for avoiding the Palestinian Authority losing its leadership” and “jeopardising the two-State solution”. Is the minister’s position equidistant? The diplomatic response is that “the heart wants peace, the mind recognises that there are problems on both sides” and going into detail he cites his “admiration for the Israeli society and what it has succeeded in creating”.
The Jihadist bond
The bond among the Jihadists represented by the Islamic State, which the minister refers to exclusively as “Daesh” (acronym for Dawlah Islamiyahfi Iraq wa Sham, used derogatorily by adversaries as it resembles the term “to crush”, and used by France in all official communiqués) and the Palestinian cause is dangerous. In the face of this, Gentiloni’s realism comes out strongly: luckily there’s Egypt. President Abdel Fattah Sisi is on a visit to Italy on Monday, but it is not simply diplomatic courtesy that induces the minister to be so convinced of the role of the leaser of Cairo. “Egypt plays a positive role in the region”, he explains. “There would never have been peace in Gaza without Egyptian intermediation, and the battle against Jihadism find a strong ally in him”.
In acknowledging this role, Gentiloni says that the violent clash that led to the ouster of Islamic President Mohammed Morsi two years ago “was not a military coup” (which was Obama’s — debatable — version), “but an intervention in response to massive popular backlash against the Islamic government’s inefficiency”. “This does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the human rights violations”, Gentiloni hastens to point out, but it is as if to say: let’s deal with worst evil now – so much for moderate Islam, which was born and later died in the Arab spring (question: what is an example of moderate Islam that works? Answer: “Tunisia is the only one”).
The worst evil is the Daesh, not only because of Abu Bakar al Baghdadi’s violence and brutality, but also because it is erasing the borders between countries that have their internal dynamics and external relations. “Is this the end game in the battle against the Daesh?”, Gentiloni asks. “There are two paths: resign ourselves to the fact that the borders drawn a century ago have been cancelled and that we are going to be faced with a region redefined along ethnic-religious lines entirely different from those we know; or else recognise that we have the duty to strive to maintain the existing layout without going up in smoke”. Gentiloni chooses the latter, saying that splitting Libya into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica “would not be to anyone’s advantage, and would only be the fruit of a bloody war”. The same goes for Syria, which is the core of the battle. The country must remain united; the Daesh, which controls a good part of it, must be defeated, but then who is going to govern Syria?
With regard to Bashar al Assad, the dictator of Damascus who has massacred his own people (200,000 dead), humanitarian intervention and realism come into stark contrast, and not even the White House is trying to resolve that contradiction. “The time has come to think about a future without Assad”, says Gentiloni, recalling the many and unforgivable crimes of the Syrian regime, but, at the same time, saying that last year’s painful decision whether or not to go to war against Assad ended up on the right side: “Not to attack was prudent”. The consequences were unpredictable, clearly, but why is humanitarian intervention valid in Libya but not in Syria? “The situation in Libya has not been clarified, and the word that crudely describes what is still happening in Tripoli and Benghazi is “chaos”; but it is clear that what a post-Assad Syria will be is even less certain, if that were possible”.
Security policy in our hands
Gentiloni’s line of reasoning leads us to ask an obligatory question associated with one of Western democracy’s great modern enigmas, and that can be summarised in two letters: UN. We ask the minister: Can we or can we not say that the past 20 years have shown the effective strategic uselessness of the United Nations? Gentiloni goes serious, weighing his words carefully: “I was just thinking about this a few days ago on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. We have to be honest. Ten years later another myth rapidly crumbled: that there could be one super power in the world capable of governing all world processes. In the post-Twin Towers, and post-Lehman Brothers, era the sun has set on the end of history illusion. The United Nations does play an important role in come contexts, but it has not managed to fill the void created by the end of the geopolitical balance of powers. All nations, including our own, have to do their part in the new dynamic. There is no single external actor to which to delegate our security policies; at the risk moreover of being accused, as the U.S. has been, of trying to police the world”.
“And we, as Europe and at times even individually, are protagonists in the process. Our foreign policy has not changed direction, but we find ourselves looking out at a sea that has suddenly become an ocean, and an often-tempestuous one. The idea that we can remain passive in defining our security is unacceptable. Humanitarian intervention is, and must be, a fixture in democratic thinking”. Gentiloni, philosopher of the change regime? “Not exactly. I have no difficulty recognising that our country’s choice of intervening in support the United States in Afghanistan was, in addition to a moral obligation, also right; I also have no difficulty saying that the intervention in Iraq, on the other hand, was a mistake. The principle has to be this: intervene in a shared international context and with a well-defined strategic horizon. Without these two elements, no intervention can be considered legitimate. I would add another concrete concept to our strategy, of which we have no reason to be ashamed”. What’s that? “National interests” – concept that seems to us to already be present on another playing field: our relations with Russia.
“Only a myopic State could think of defining foreign policy without considering its own national interests. Mind you, national interests does not only mean economic interests, but must take in the broader context of geopolitical interests. As far as Russia is concerned, we are the first to agree that the sanctions need to be enforced, and on this we do not accept lessons from anyone, because Italy is one of the countries that applies them most consistently. At the same time, we have to fight to make it understood that Europe cannot limit itself to being an automatic generator of sanctions, but must also get its hands dirty and act on both fronts: pressing Russia to respect the basic principles of Ukrainian autonomy, while also watching over Kiev’s reform process”.
Could it be said that this is the only terrain on which Italy finds itself profoundly in agreement with Germany? Gentiloni thinks a moment, and confronts a theme that straddles foreign and economic policy. “Common ground with Germany is very broad. I am proud that our government has managed to call into question the orthodox technocratic approach. The Junker Plan will not be a Marshall Plan but could be decisive given Europe’s growth outlook for the coming months”. Asked if there was any outside chance of reducing the deficit next year, Gentiloni harks back to the congressional motion presented by Renzi at the primaries in 2013: Italy can only satisfy the 3% parameter with the help of serious reforms. So Gentiloni, have we done it? “I believe our position today is correct: once it says it wants to comply with the rules and only to best utilise the flexibility allowed by the treaties, Italy must behave in this way. With the reform procedure some rules can be discussed, but until they are re-discussed they simply cannot be broken”. But if results for Italy were delayed, would the Japan rule be valid? Healthy economy, the government goes forward; the economy collapses, the government goes back to the voters. “Renzi is not the kind of politician that means to govern at all costs, but I am convinced that this legislature will last longer than some would like to believe, and you’ll see that it will go forward to the last”.
“When Roberto writes…”
The reporters try to trap Gentiloni, showing him a provocative Twitter exchange a few months ago with Vice President of the Lower House Roberto Giachetti, an old friend of the minister’s from his days in the Rutelli city government (Rome), he smiles and says, “And when Roberto writes, I often re-tweet…obviously I wouldn’t do it again today!”. Italy, therefore, and the government. We try to ask Gentiloni if the RAI’s slap in the face to Renzi three days ago could be interpreted as a sign of an approaching parliamentary slap to the government, but Gentiloni, who puts his hands together prayer-like, has no desire to comment on the RAI from his position in the government. But he does say something about the government and Renzi’s enemies: “It’s a curious thing that we have to keep in mind. Political resistance to our government is being generated from very distant positions. Landini and Salvini are as different they could be, but radical changes have always had radical and transversal enemies, as happened in early 2000 with the Schroeder government, contested on the left and the right”. Gentiloni’s assistants glance nervously at their watches, pointing at them to journalists, but before he leaves the minister – indicated by many as Renzi’s perfect candidate for President of the Republic – takes one more question. Would you tell us what attributes the next President of the Republic should have? Gentiloni smiles and also looks at his watch: “Guys, let’s talk about that another time”.
