There are subjects one does not like to comment on, because they have a disagreeable element. I can cite the opinion poll on Israel as a threat to peace and the statements by the President of the European Council on Moscow's policy in Chechnya.
Mr Berlusconi spoke personally. On Chechnya, I feel that Silvio Berlusconi should have personally indicated, during his press conference following the EU-Russia summit that he spoke personally, in order to end all speculation. The position he expressed does not correspond with that taken by the three 'political' institutions of the EU: equally the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council had on several occasions expressed their strong concerns towards Russian policy and the development of the situation. Before the Rome summit, the position to be taken by the EU had been discussed at length and the conclusion had been that concerns remain. Before Mr Putin, the High Representatives for the EU could at best remain silent, certainly not express unflinching support, as was publicly done by Mr Berlusconi. Thus, he did not express the EU's position, and, even if he did not say so himself, the Commission President could not, in my opinion, avoid doing so.
New pro-Europeans. The incident cited above brings me to confirm an impression already expressed in this section (on 3 September), concerning the growing difference between the official texts of the Italian Presidency (written documents or institutional speeches) and the improvised positions of the Prime Minister or a few members of his government. The first are inline with traditional Italian position favouring the European building process, the second are sometimes in a completely different direction. I attempt to interpret this dichotomy as positive: in my opinion it proves the durability in Italy of a solid pro-European foundation in diplomacy and in other state departments (as well as, elsewhere, in public opinion), and certain positions that disagree are to be seen as a passing phenomenon. I note that the new political class that came to power following the last elections, who, to a larger extent, had no European knowledge or traditions, is beginning to express a hard centre-right pro-European core beyond that of the older Christian Democrat tradition. It would suffice to cite the Minister for Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini (who strongly defended the Convention's draft constitution during ministerial sessions of the IGC) and the deputy Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini (who, in my opinion, is definitely a supporter of the European cause).
Too many mistakes. As for the Israeli affair, in my opinion, everybody made mistakes: the Commission services when drafting their questions on the threats to peace, the organisation responsible for the poll, the civil servant that interpreted the results and the wide swathes of the press that presented these results as if the citizens questioned had answered that Israel is in their opinion the most serious threaten to peace. Citizens were never asked to express themselves on this point! By citing Israel, they simply included this country among the threats, possibly, according to some, among the least dangerous after other countries (cited or not). I note a remark already made: it is easy to interpret the question as inviting one to note the dangerous situations, the 'hot spots', without a scale of responsibility compared to other actors on the ground (terrorists were not mentioned in the questionnaire).
A heritage to be shared. My third remark of the day concerns the battle that could be qualified as Homeric, which preceded the final proposal from the European Commission on the initiative for growth (see Bulletin of 13 November, pp. 7/8). These battles mainly cncern the choice of priority transport infrastructure projects: the Council Presidency and a certain number of governments fought hard to gain the inclusion of various projects in the list. However, in fact, the Commission did not have power of decision in the matter: it simply made proposals. Though, the member states are aware of the importance of the Commission's verdict as well as the impact of its 'European label.' The European Investment bank (EIB, which actively participated in all phases of the works) will award its grants to projects approved in Brussels, and private investors will receive preference. The ability to define the European interest gives immense weight to the Commission's deliberation; it is a precious heritage created by the 'Community method' and by the confidence that the Commission has acquired over the years. To what extent are the governments aware, within the IGC, of the importance of retaining and guaranteeing this heritage? Do they understand that certain institutional projects under discussion risk compromising seriously this? (.F.R.)