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 \u2013 two facets of foreign policy theory that are often irreconcilable \u2013 and he does it by drawing a clear line between what today is (has become) the stuff \u201cof the left\u201d and what instead is \u201cof the right\u201d. 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 \u2013 \u201cno\u201d to immigration in other words \u2013 belongs to the political right; \u201cit 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\u201d.<\/P>
\n
\u201cThere is a continuity in Italian foreign policy\u201d, says the Minister to [daily newspaper<\/I>] Il Foglio, sitting in his office at the foreign ministry, \u201cthat is founded on four basic elements: pro-Atlantic relations, a pro-Europe stance, openness to trade and a commitment to peacekeeping and human rights\u201d. This is our history and it is a history of left-leaning action; today\u2019s 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\u2019s name stands out during the interview while that of Barack Obama hardly even comes up) and her 3 Ds \u2013 Diplomacy, Defence and Development \u2013 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\u2019s risks are entirely new\u201d.<\/P>
\n
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\u201d, says Gentiloni. \u201cAnd the government\u2019s first reaction cannot but be one of total solidarity\u201d. But these repeated attacks in Jerusalem reveal \u201can escalation of a religious nature\u201d that could end up transforming the battle of the Palestinians against Israel that, at least for the Fatah leadership \u2013Jerusalem\u2019s only interlocutor \u2013 \u201chas always had more nationalistic than religious connotations\u201d. \u201cThis shift, in fact, is dangerous, aggravated by Israeli measures for access to the Al Aqsa mosque\u201d, 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. \u201cI have spoken with both sides\u201d, Gentiloni admits, \u201cand the positions are very distant\u201d. But the process must resume, the minister is sure of that (\u201calso because there are no alternatives\u201d); a launch is expected from the U.S. Department of State (\u201cit\u2019s going to take a few weeks\u201d), 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\u201d and \u201cjeopardising the two-State solution\u201d. Is the minister\u2019s position equidistant? The diplomatic response is that \u201cthe heart wants peace, the mind recognises that there are problems on both sides\u201d and going into detail he cites his \u201cadmiration for the Israeli society and what it has succeeded in creating\u201d.<\/P>
\n
The Jihadist bond<\/STRONG><\/P> The bond among the Jihadists represented by the Islamic State, which the minister refers to exclusively as \u201cDaesh\u201d (acronym for Dawlah Islamiyahfi Iraq wa Sham, used derogatorily by adversaries as it resembles the term \u201cto crush\u201d, and used by France in all official communiqu\u00e9s) and the Palestinian cause is dangerous. In the face of this, Gentiloni\u2019s realism comes out strongly: luckily there\u2019s 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. \u201cEgypt plays a positive role in the region\u201d, he explains. \u201cThere would never have been peace in Gaza without Egyptian intermediation, and the battle against Jihadism find a strong ally in him\u201d.<\/P> In acknowledging this role, Gentiloni says that the violent clash that led to the ouster of Islamic President Mohammed Morsi two years ago \u201cwas not a military coup\u201d (which was Obama\u2019s \u2014 debatable \u2014 version), \u201cbut an intervention in response to massive popular backlash against the Islamic government\u2019s inefficiency\u201d. \u201cThis does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the human rights violations\u201d, Gentiloni hastens to point out, but it is as if to say: let\u2019s deal with worst evil now \u2013 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: \u201cTunisia is the only one\u201d). <\/P> The worst evil is the Daesh, not only because of Abu Bakar al Baghdadi\u2019s violence and brutality, but also because it is erasing the borders between countries that have their internal dynamics and external relations. \u201cIs this the end game in the battle against the Daesh?\u201d, Gentiloni asks. \u201cThere 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\u201d. Gentiloni chooses the latter, saying that splitting Libya into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica \u201cwould not be to anyone\u2019s advantage, and would only be the fruit of a bloody war\u201d. 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?<\/P> 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. \u201cThe time has come to think about a future without Assad\u201d, says Gentiloni, recalling the many and unforgivable crimes of the Syrian regime, but, at the same time, saying that last year\u2019s painful decision whether or not to go to war against Assad ended up on the right side: \u201cNot to attack was prudent\u201d. The consequences were unpredictable, clearly, but why is humanitarian intervention valid in Libya but not in Syria? \u201cThe situation in Libya has not been clarified, and the word that crudely describes what is still happening in Tripoli and Benghazi is \u201cchaos\u201d; but it is clear that what a post-Assad Syria will be is even less certain, if that were possible\u201d. <\/P> Security policy in our hands<\/STRONG><\/P> Gentiloni\u2019s line of reasoning leads us to ask an obligatory question associated with one of Western democracy\u2019s 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: \u201cI 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\u201d. <\/P> \u201cAnd 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\u201d. Gentiloni, philosopher of the change regime? \u201cNot exactly. I have no difficulty recognising that our country\u2019s 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\u201d. What\u2019s that? \u201cNational interests\u201d \u2013 concept that seems to us to already be present on another playing field: our relations with Russia. <\/P> \u201cOnly 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\u2019s reform process\u201d.<\/P> 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\u2019s 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\u201d. 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. \u201cRenzi 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\u2019ll see that it will go forward to the last”.<\/P> “When Roberto writes…”<\/STRONG><\/P> 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\u2019s from his days in the Rutelli city government (Rome), he smiles and says, \u201cAnd when Roberto writes, I often re-tweet\u2026obviously I wouldn\u2019t do it again today!\u201d. Italy, therefore, and the government. We try to ask Gentiloni if the RAI\u2019s 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\u2019s enemies: \u201cIt\u2019s 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\u201d. Gentiloni\u2019s assistants glance nervously at their watches, pointing at them to journalists, but before he leaves the minister \u2013 indicated by many as Renzi\u2019s perfect candidate for President of the Republic \u2013 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: \u201cGuys, let\u2019s talk about that another time\u201d. <\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"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 \u2013 two facets of foreign policy theory that are often irreconcilable \u2013 and he does it by drawing a clear line between what today is (has become) the […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[9,6,76],"class_list":["post-23687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-interviste","tag-europa","tag-mediterraneo-e-medio-oriente","tag-ministri-precedenti"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esteri.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n