The second edition of Med, introduced in Rome by Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, opens a window on an increasingly agitated Mediterranean covered by threatening dark clouds. The challenges are many and the time is short: the imperative of world leaders is dialogue. Let’s start with Putin. On «La Stampa» you entreated Europe to trust him. Can we trust him despite what is going on in Aleppo?
“Italy has never cultivated nostalgia for the Cold War. Together with our allies we have supported the need for dialogue with Moscow and to fully cooperate against terrorism. However, dialogue is not sufficient to rebuild trust. We are awaiting tangible steps forward on the Minsk agreements and for Russia to commit to stop Assad from bombing East Aleppo.”
From Putin to Castro. No matter what people think, his death closes the 20th century. What is your judgment of Fidel?
“He was a leader who, for half a century, made the history of the Cuban people, a population we have always felt close to. But the 20th Century is behind us and with it Latin America’s mythical revolutionaries. Keeping them necessarily alive in Cuba or Venezuela does not benefit anyone. Rather, it would be worthwhile to push forward in thawing US-Cuba relations, by lifting the embargo and re-establishing normal relations.”
The Mediterranean. What do you expect from this edition of Med?
“I expect a positive message. The Mediterranean is an extraordinarily disorderly scenario and the essential point is now how to rebuild the groundwork for a possible order. There are current events, Trump, the possible defeat of ISIS in 2017 and the ensuing consequences, migrations, the many local crises. But, above all, there is the urgency to rebuild a minimal basis for reducing tension, increasing trust, developing a trade agenda and confidence building measures.”
What point are we at in Libya?
“We are at one year from the Rome conference, the one that launched the international agreement that subsequently led to the installation of al-Sarraj. Now Libya has a government recognised by the UN. The Country’s stabilisation process is extremely slow but we must admit that there is no alternative option. Endorsing any division of Libya would be unacceptable. On the immigration issue, the first steps are being taken starting with the training of the coast guard and the common Situation Room. I’m not expecting results tomorrow, quite the opposite. But in the meantime, backstage, we are working to establish a bridge between the government and General Haftar.”
Instead, are we at a standstill in Syria?
“In Libya, although every Country works on its own, there is at least a formal international agreement promoted by the U.S. and Italy. In Syria, it’s the opposite. I hope that the Rome meeting will be an opportunity for debate. Unfortunately, in Syria we are where we started off and the Damascus regime is clearly trying to use the two-month transition before Trump is sworn in to put the world before the fait accompli of a military victory in East Aleppo. I hope that Russia discourages Assad from being tempted to do this because it is clear that no military solution is possible in Syria.”
Many disagree with the agreement with Turkey because, they say, it has contracted out the protection of Europe’s borders to a tyrant. What is your opinion now that Erdogan threatens the EU with a new wave of refugees?
“I don’t regret the March agreement. It is true that the EU has put 3 billion on the table, plus another possible 8, but these resources do not go to pay Turkish civil servants, they pay for refugee reception and camps. The UNHCR was very critical at the beginning, but it is less so now. Moreover, the agreement works: we have gone from 2000 transits a day in the Aegean to only a few dozen. So, the point is not the agreement but the road taken by Erdogan. Turkey is a Country under attack: it has suffered an attempted coup and it lives with the daily threat of terrorism. But this does not justify some of his reactions, which we judge to be inacceptable, starting with the cancellation of parliamentary immunity and the arrest of the leaders of the Country’s third-largest party, the HDP. In relation to the new threats addressed to the EU, Erdogan should decide what he wants. If he goes through with his threats, he will have to take responsibility. And we will take note of it. It is our common interest to keep the door open or at least ajar.”
Is it true that a Turkey-like agreement is being sought with Tunisia?
“With Tunisia we have a good agreement on the control of migration flows and joint repatriations. But it has nothing to do with Turkey, a country that hosts millions of refugees and carries out a strong control over its territory and borders. Indeed, if there is once country that is key in reducing migration flows in the Central Mediterranean, this is Niger. And Italy, together with France and Germany, is working on a package entailing the provision of several hundred million euros from the three countries concerned and from the EU, that I hope will be passed in the upcoming weeks. This package is unique and will be able to considerably reduce migration flows on the short term because Niger is the antechamber to Libya and, being a transit Country without migrants or remissions of its own, it is willing to cooperate.”
The issue of migration quotas in Europe is far from being solved. Has Italy obtained anything by raising its voice?
“It has obtained that it no longer accepts a Europe that is overly strict on the details in budget bills and flexible on the commitments made on the redistribution of migrants. In theory, the EU is there but the practical results are yet nowhere to be seen: we will measure the EU’s real helpfulness also through the speed at which they will make economic commitments towards the Migration Compact and their significance. We cannot allow the idea that migration is an Italian problem to take root. After the agreement with Turkey, the EU has loosened up somewhat and I hope it will change attitude and assume a new awareness and not only because the Aegean route has possibly reopened.”
