Italy's advantages. Is the Italian Presidency of the Council up to the delicate and arduous task described in this section yesterday of efficiently preparing the IGC (Intergovernmental conference), which is expected to approve the Constitutional treaty? Does it have the necessary trust of its partners and Community institutions? I believe that if certain conditions are satisfied the response will be in the affirmative, despite the reservations expressed by different governments. I don't intend to minimise the disagreeable incidents that cast a shadow over the first weeks of the Presidency in July, nor the certain distance from the country's traditional pro-European line. But I will take into account at the same time the permanence of Italy's solid basis of support for Community positions, a support rotted in the Institutions of State, in its political traditions and feelings at the grass roots.
Has the reader noticed the difference between the official texts of the Presidency of the Council and certain informal or improvised positions of different Ministers? Was this same Minister, the Prime Minister? The general programme presented to the European Parliament and the sectoral programmes announced for the different Council groupings are in line with Community orthodoxy, as well as with the objectives of the Union for the four months leading up to the end of the year. This is also the case for the economic and technical aspects as well as for the political aspects, such as the will to finish the IGC in December by safeguarding the Convention's results. The direction of the Presidential programme is evidence of the solidity of the pro-European tradition of the national government, as well as that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and this is the first positive element.
The second element concerns the attitude of the President of the Republic. His powers are well delineated and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi is not a man who would pass them overreach them. But he does represent a guarantee and he would not hesitate to take initiatives if he thinks it opportune. It was him who at the moment the Convention appeared to hesitate on the way forward and when the Iraq conflict appeared to divide Member States, personally wrote to Heads of State from the founding countries suggesting that the "six" sign a common document recalling the spirit of the European enterprise. Reactions were overall in favour, in principle, and the Heads of State - the German and French Presidents, the Queen of the Netherlands, King of the Belgians and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg recognised the role and the responsibility of the "six". In the end the initiative failed, despite several diplomatic meetings due to the divergences between France and Germany on the one hand and those between the three Benelux countries on the other with regard to certain aspects of the institutional infrastructure of the future Europe and the position taken by Italy in the Iraqi affair. But for Mr Ciampi, there were no doubts: Italy's place was in the "old Europe" if the imbecilic position of the US Minister of Defence was to be taken seriously.
The weight of the "Ancients" and the relevance of Altiero Spinelli. The third positive element, which I've already alluded to in this section, is the intense activity of those who always traditionally support in Italy the European cause, whether it is the official authorities or on their fringes. Emilio Colombo, former President of the European Parliament and Giulio Andreotti, who Chaired some of the European Council's decisive sessions and the former European Commissioners, Cesidio Guarazzaroni and Emilio Pandolfi at the "Group of Ten" bring their unadulterated political experience and their convictions and they are just a few examples. I also consider that the revival of Altiero Spinelli is important from two points of view: his re-evaluation of a key player in European construction and the relevant character of his thoughts and texts, starting with the "Ventonene Manifesto" of 1941 up to the draft of the European Constitution which he succeeded in getting voted on in 1984 by the European Parliament (and which in large part was a forerunner of the current draft). The fact that a writer of the quality of Luciano Angelino has dedicated a detailed study on Altiero Spinelli [Luciano Angelino: "Le forme dell'Europa - Spinelli o della federazione". Preface by Tommaso Padoa-Scioppa. Editor: "Il melangolo"] and that some of the press had established a link between this book and the IGC that will soon begin, is significant.
Mr Padoa-Schioppa's analysis. While awaiting a broader discussion of this essay (in our European weekly library pages), I would like to quote an element from the preface written by Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Member of the Board of Governors at the European Central Bank, who analyses and explains the current attitude of the Italian government on Europe. He indicates two essential factors of behaviour of the Italian government on Europe, which are sometimes ambiguous or contradictory. This first is its heterogeneous character. In this cohabitation are some of the "inheritors who are aware of the great European Christian democratic tradition, such as Mr Casini and Mr Follini, movements such as the National Alliance, which has recently moderated its positions and an unstable and xenophobic emulsion and federalism represented by the "Lega" (which has defined the European Union as "Soviet"), with in addition, "personalities from the business and professional world, with weak knowledge and memories without any guidance". The only common element in this disparate ensemble is the will to "change course together", in relation to the past. The second facto determining the current cacophony is according to Mr Padoa-Schioppa, "slowness in learning about European affairs: Europe is united and a big and simple idea but the EU is an extremely complex machine. Time is needed to understand how its works, to learn its vocabulary, systems, procedures in order to decide on the moment and place for forming decisions and how to exercise an influence in this context…The fact that for over 50 years Italy has developed a significant policy in Europe is not well known. The advantages that it has drawn from it is also not well known. This lack of knowledge has led to the belief that there is no other way to get heard in Europe other than by raising one's voice and demanding the national interest. Thus, the continuation of its work today, is uncertain at the moment Europe and Italy is in need of it".
A difficult apprenticeship. The different elements recalled by the Italian member of the ECB's Board of Governors have determined the strange nature (from a European point of view) of the Italian government. As a constant adversary of Community Europe, Antonio Martino, who as Minister of Defence is extending the policy that he has always followed since his time as the ephemeral Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he opposed Italian participation in the single currency. Mr Martino shares the British vision according to which the EU should represent a "single pole" with the USA on the world chess board. The anti-European prejudices hared by other members of the government derives essentially from an abysmal ignorance about the European situation, to which we can add the absurd behaviour of the Under Secretary for Tourism when he insulted German tourists and who accounted for the main source of income for the national tourism sector. Gianfranco Fini declared "an imbecile is an imbecile" and I have nothing to add to this scathing definition. At the same time, the pro-European Ministers or those who are gradually learning what Europe means, are more numerous than we thought, with at the head of them, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Franco Frattini. Mr Fini, who represented the government in the Convention, received an imprimatur from Valéry Giscard d'Estaing himself, praising his "impeccable approach" and his gradual mastering of the European situation, which signifies clearly that in sixteen months Gianfranco Fini has learnt and understood a lot, he is now in the European camp. His experience as a Convention Member we duly be called on in the IGC and its preparation, the fact that he has been appointed by the Italian Presidency to represent them in the debate at the European Parliament on the Convention on Wednesday in Strasbourg (see our bulletin on 30 August p 7) is encouraging.
The personal opinions of the Prime Minister. And what of Silvio Berlusconi? His two main ideas, the accession of Russia to the Union and the replacement of the European Commission by a European government consisting of Heads of government are evidence of a total lack of knowledge of the Community situation. These two developments would mean the end of the Community Europe in favour of an intergovernmental ensemble that is both tame and inefficient. The Italian Prime Minister did, however, agree that these two opinions were "personal" and that did not reflect any commitment of the Union Presidency. Is it again necessary that Mr Berlusconi is politically convinced of the need to prevent the negotiations at the Convention starting up again at the IGC and does he reject, therefore a priori the requests that aim to re-introduce the amendments already rejected by the Convention and the he uses all the competencies available to prepare some of the compromises that ate still available, as indicated in this section yesterday?
Are these expectations reasonable? For the moment, no-one wants to mention the risk of failure, which is understandable. But those that have possibly intend to question the acquis of the Convention at the IGC should be aware of what could happen afterwards: a group of ambitious Member States could then re-launch integration around a hard core open to those who want to participate in it. We are not yet there but it in some capital cities it is being thought about with the determination to act at the right moment if necessary.
(F.R.)