«The firmness and dignity shown by Giulio Regeni’s parents are truly exemplary. One more reason for the institutions to insist with an equal amount of coherence and firmness. As for Egypt’s answers, we will first hear the opinion of Prosecutor Pignatone. If we don’t receive convincing answers, we will take the following steps». Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni thus responded to the appeal launched by Paola and Claudio Regeni yesterday asking for a «firm reply» from the government if the Cairo authorities don’t come up with substantial new information.
Exactly what do we want from the Egyptian government?
«The truth, meaning thereby the culprits. On the one hand this can be achieved by exerting constant political pressure; this is what we have done and continue to do and that constitutes a deterrent against coming up with a convenient truth; on the other hand, by collaborating in the investigations. This latter approach, we believe, needs to make a quantum leap mainly because we have not received all the documents and materials requested. Furthermore, it would be necessary to carry out at least part of the investigations together. Cooperation cannot only be formal. The steady stream of improbable leads has had a multiplier effect on the pain of the family and offends our whole Country.»
How long are we willing to wait for this quantum leap before considering measures like recalling our ambassador?
«It’s not a question of time but of method. If collaboration becomes substantial, there will be the conditions to make progress on the path towards finding the truth. The Egyptian investigators’ visit to Rome, scheduled for April 5 but not yet confirmed, could be an occasion for a change in speed. Clearly, any decision can be delayed to a later phase once we see that there is margin for effective cooperation.»
Aren’t we kidding ourselves? Proof of this is the case of Russia which, in the incident of the tourist plane downed in Sharm el Sheik, is still before the wall raised by the authorities in Cairo.
«Should we not obtain cooperation, we will evaluate the possible measures to take but we confide that the relationship between Italy and Egypt can produce the necessary quantum leap. If this is not achieved, as I said, we would be more than ready to draw the consequences. In the case you mentioned, Moscow did not break off diplomatic relations but instead suspended Russian flights to Egypt and Egypt Air’s flights to Russia.»
In Libya we are facing the same dilemma: political process or action to counter ISIS? How long can we sit and wait for the former without compromising the effectiveness of the latter?
«The current situation presents many vulnerabilities. During the past few months a window opened for a unitary government, in which Italy has invested because we, more than anyone else, have the clear aim of stabilising the Country. A failed State at 400 km from our coasts risks becoming a free zone for traffickers, falling prey to Daesh and becoming a base for terrorism. There has been some progress but it is insufficient. Italy, together with its international and regional partners, supports the determination of the Government of National Accord led by al-Serraj to install itself in Tripoli. We are working to expand the base of political support. All this must occur within a reasonable timeframe, otherwise we risk seeing the stance of those who think that stabilising Libya is a delusion prevail, kicking off a campaign of massive air strikes on jihadist positions.»
If this actually happened, what would we do?
«The aim of politically stabilising Libya is now a shared objective. It is not only the position of Italy but that of the whole international community, endorsed by the UN Security Council’s latest resolution. We must pursue this aim, keeping in mind that time is not unlimited. Failure to achieve results in the negotiation process could lead people to abandon this stance.»
And how would Italy behave?
«We have never denied the need to combat terrorism; however, saying that this is Libya’s only option would risk being counterproductive today. I remind you that Daesh has 5,000 fighters but there are 200,000 men who belong to local and Islamic militias, many of whom could join the ranks of the jihadists. Today Daesh is mainly seen as a foreign presence being fought by Libyan forces. The danger is to favour the waters in which they swim through an exclusively military action.»
In Syria Assad’s troops, supported by Russia, are advancing into Daesh-controlled territories. What does this mean for the political process? What did you and Lavrov tell each other in Moscow?
«In Syria, during the last month, the ceasefire agreed between the regime and the militants of the opposition has essentially been respected. Bombings have been drastically reduced. It has been a half miracle, which nobody was ready to believe in Munich last February, when we sealed the deal. The next step is the resumption of talks, subsequently verifying the possibility of converting them into direct negotiations. The role played by the U.S. and Russia has been very useful. Moscow insists on the fact that even if it wanted to, which would need to be substantiated, it would not be in the position of dictating a course of action to Assad. We are instead convinced that it has significant influence. The possible path is to reduce Assad’s role from the start, without even changing the Constitution. Putin and Kerry confirmed that in 6 months’ time we will need to put into play an “inclusive governance”, namely a new form of government. It is evident to everyone that from this crisis there will be no winner. And I think that it is evident to the Russians that Bashar al-Assad cannot embody the future of Syria. Even if Moscow insists that the solution of the problem should be decided by the Syrian people in future elections.»
In relation to the Brussels attacks, what does Italy propose at European level?
«What we say is that we need to respond in terms of security, although this does not accomplish the task. Italy is the second Country in terms of military presence in Iraq. Nobody can say that we are not aware of this, although it was our decision on how and where to intervene. Having said this, we can certainly not bomb Molenbeek, which means that the challenge is cultural, social and political and requires dialogue with the Islamic communities and to isolate the terrorists, in addition to sharing intelligence.»
Must we become accustomed to less open societies than we are now used to, following the post-9/11 model in the U.S.?
«From a certain point of view, yes. For example, it is not acceptable that there is still some reluctance on the 2012 Passenger Name Record Directive, making it possible to keep the name records of passengers flying within the EU for six months. These are petty details and they surely do not undermine people’s right to privacy. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable to have military troops in the streets. I mean to say that it is a question of accepting reasonable measures, not of giving up our open society model.»
