CAN THE “EUROPEAN DREAM” SURVIVE?

(Article published by Oped News in October 2012)

The reality  of “the American Dream” is a frequent debating point.  Some  deny it ever existed except as a slogan, while others instead assert that  the concept, which had an indispensable formative function  over several generations,  has been surpassed by  more concrete realities. A sizeable section of American Public opinion is, as yet,  firmly convinced that the American Dream has always existed, continues to exist today and has bright  prospects for the future.

Has a “European Dream” ever existed, and if so,  is it still redeemable, or is it lapsing into the old  European Nationalist nightmare?

Learned historians have explained why, after the fall of Rome,  the succeeding imperial ventures in Europe had  a divisive, and not a unifying effect, and how, from an essential, if fragile unity,  Nation States came to be formed and  thrived on  rivalries and wars. Over a millennium,  many  Emperors,  from Charlemagne to Napoleon,  ended up enhancing, sometimes even creating,   nationalist attitudes which reached their most ruinous effect in the World Wars  of the twentieth century.

And yet for Europeans of my generation,  a “European Dream” did begin to take shape, inspired by  a handful of  ageing statesmen (Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schumann, Monnet, Spaak and others) who really appeared to interpret the profoundest wishes of the people they represented and to work towards the  weakening of  those nationalist impulses which had led to such disasters. When the  Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957 among the six founding  members of what was then called the “European Common Market” (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg), many of us really felt that we were witnessing the dawn of a new era.

Even some years later, when the “Six” became “Nine”, with the addition of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, and  later still, when the almost mystic number of twelve was reached, the meetings among the member states, either in Brussels or in the presiding country’s capital, had an air of serious, meaningful informality about them, with officials, often on first name terms, meeting  around a table and openly discussing the principal problems.

By contrast, the  gigantic workings of today’s “European Union” seem to have lost the original spirit and principles  and  at times come  close  to rekindling  those very nationalist feelings  which we so  purposefully,  at times, perhaps, a bit naively struggled to weaken and ultimately eliminate.

Three essential questions remain on the table. Firstly, has the fundamental vision of the founders been betrayed? If so what went wrong, and when did things begin to unravel? And, thirdly, is there a way back, or is Europe destined to  become ever more quarrelsome and disunited?

The term “betrayed” appears perhaps too strong, and  unfair to those leaders who, in the past years, have attempted to bring forward  the ideals which were at the base of the Union. Their essence, however, has been lost in a bureaucratic quagmire, complicated by the current world-wide economic crisis. Entire generations of  Europeans, by now, have lived in the awareness that a growing number of increasingly important decisions concerning their  destiny and even their day-to-day existence are being taken, in a political no-mans-land, by unelected officials.

As to the second query, it has to be said that  a rapidly shrinking minority will still insist that, in reality, nothing ever “went wrong”, and that the E.U. is bravely and efficiently coping with a world economic crisis the origins of which lie outside the Union itself. Public opinion, however, even in the most traditionally “Europhile” countries (e.g. the Netherlands or Italy) appears to disagree and has developed  feelings of antipathy  towards the  “faceless bureaucrats” who seem to be in charge of the collective destinies of  European citizens. .

Even among those ready to accept the concept that, indeed, things  have been  going wrong,  the  moment and the motive for the apparent unravelling of a well-fashioned skein remain objects of acute controversy. Some  blame  the apparently abnormal growth of bureaucratic  regulations, while others decry the creation of a common currency without the guarantees normally associated with monetary policy.

On the basis of  nearly half a century of professional involvement in the workings of the E.U., my own view – controversial but by no means unique – lays the blame for the present crisis on the hurried, poorly planned post Cold War expansion of the Union, to its present, virtually uncontrollable size of 27 member States..

Solutions will have to be found – and the elimination of the “Euro” is not one of them – but there appear few and tenuous  possibilities of the European Union returning to its original sense of purpose and efficiency. All efforts will have to be concentrated in coping with the present situation in order to restore credibility to a wounded giant which instead of instilling hope and confidence in its citizens, appears to be a source of increasing irritation, suspicion and apprehension.

Carlo Ungaro

As the Romans Do?

(Article published by Oped News on October 2, 2012)

Rome,  September 26, 2012

The  Regional  Government of the  Lazio Region – which has Rome as its capital -  has been rocked by  one of the many squalid scandals which periodically emerge on the Italian political scene. This would normally have gone almost unnoticed, save for the   customary, obligatory, and totally insincere expressions of indignation  and disbelief on the part of the  country’s political leadership. A stage has  been reached, however, in which even Italians appear shocked and appalled by  the snowballing spate of  such grubby events which seem to pervade all  sectors of public life from the  deep South (stereotyped as  fundamentally corrupt, unreliable and scandal-prone) to the “puritan” North,  with its quasi-Protestant attitudes and ostentatiously  Manichean or neo-Albigensian views on the distinction  between “Good” and “Evil”.

A detailed explanation of  the latest  episode of Roman  squalor would be of scarce interest to the general public. Suffice it to say that the  regional administration has spent about  one million Euros of public money  in  luxury holidays, sumptuous meals,  lavish parties, and even, more unassumingly, grocery shopping for the “Nomenklatura”. The statuesque Governor of the region, Renata Polverini, a real “Pasionaria” of the Catholic right  - of course, one of former Prime Minister Berlusconi’s protégées -  has vehemently proclaimed her innocence, and, very much less credibly, her  ignorance of any wrongdoing in her administration. She therefore  adamantly refused to resign until forced to do so under pressure from various sources, including the Roman Catholic Church. It is interesting that in the culture that created the principle of “culpa in vigilando” (i.e. guilt in vigilance), whenever there is evidence of malfeasance or thievery in public affairs,  the men and women at the top   always affirm their innocence and usually find a convenient scapegoat, among the lower officials,  whose resignation is then reluctantly accepted.

There are some arresting aspects to this case, however, which deserve notice, and which could have  a deep influence on Italy’s political future.

At the time of her  election, Ms. Polverini had  the   total support of the Italian Episcopal Conference, to a point then  judged  excessive even considering the less than limpid record of  Roman Catholic Church  intrusion in Italian political life. It is therefore  extremely interesting to notice the  unusual firmness of the same Episcopal Conference’s    reaction and condemnation of the event, a fact made all the more wounding by its immediacy on the part  of an organization which has always taken its time to react, but which never reacts without careful reflection.

All this gains further relevance because  it  is taking place at a moment in which the Pope’s personal interference in Italian politics, after many months of virtual silence, has made itself  extremely evident and heavy-handed. The Holy Father, in fact, in the space of  a few days has  received both the Prime Minister, Professor Monti, and the rather equivocal leader of the “centrist” political party, Pier Ferdinando Casini, who has long been tagged as the future king-maker in the  approaching “post-Monti”  years. All this has stolen much of the thunder from Silvio Berlusconi’s carefully rehearsed  act in which he   tries to keep the public in suspense about his possible Parusia (even though, in his case, it would be a fifth and not a second coming,  dispensing with the uncomfortable need for  death and resurrection).

Political parties in Italy have been used to this  type of “Commedia dell’Arte”, which has been  tolerated  by the electorate. They are only now sensing, however, that  attitudes have changed, that Italians are no longer amused at  seeing  lavish dinners paid for  by public money, and that they no longer listen to the  empty, repetitious words  heard every evening on Television: this could be the triumph of what has been called the “anti-politica”, and has opened the way for  populist movements  which are gaining momentum in spite of  coming constantly under fire on Public and Private TV Channels and  by most of the  leading press.

The political parties which now support this “technical government” – which, it needs to be said, has  probably saved Italy from financial, economic and social disaster – are quite obviously terrified at the idea of general elections which, however, will have to be held at the latest next April.

It appears more than likely that  in the  real corridors of power,  arrangements are being made even at this early stage, with no need for electoral manipulation or fraud.

It does not matter who will win the next elections, which  will be held with the lowest voter turnout in Italian history, because there will be no alternative to a repletion of the present “unholy alliance” among formerly contrasting parties, this time in favour of a  Catholic-oriented centrist government    bolstered by a large and compact parliamentary majority.  There is even talk of confirming  Professor Monti as Prime Minster or of  offering him the more prestigious position of  President of the Republic at the expiration of Giorgio Napolitano’s mandate.

This would be the worst possible outcome for  the solution of the never-ending Italian crisis, with Parliament and Government  becoming fortified citadels in which the people who have brought about the  ruin of Italy will continue to lead privileged lives, feigning   non-existent rivalries, and leaving  an even greater  force of action to ever more dangerous forms of populism.

Carlo Ungaro

Rome, Italy

(The author of this submission, Ambassador Carlo Ungaro, is a former – now retired – senior Italian diplomatic officer)

Is Afghanistan doomed as a "Failed State"?

(Article published by Oped News on October 2, 2012)

Rome, Italy, October 1, 2012

The very term “failed state” evokes a sense of hopelessness and despair, and should therefore be used as sparingly as possible.

Some years ago, Liberia was considered the quintessential failed state, but it pulled itself back, thanks, in very great part, to the emergence of political figures with charisma determination and honesty, and also to the indispensable support of the International Community.

Between 2001 and 2004, I was closely involved with Somalia, then also considered a failed state. Some eight years on, however, it seems to have made little progress in emerging from that awkward limbo.

But what is the real meaning of the term, or, to put it differently, what precisely is needed for a Nation to qualify for that dubious title? Should Afghanistan be considered such? is the country that one remembers and has deeply loved irredeemably destined to disappear from the international scene, or  does Afghanistan, now nearing the end of another chapter in its tragic Odyssey still have the will, the strength and the capacity to return, as an equal partner, into the society of Nations?

I remember Afghanistan in the 1970’s as one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet it proudly and capably fulfilled its role as a neutral buffer between empires,  a role inherited from the days of the “Great Game” but still valid in those of the Cold War. Wise governance was bringing about a slow but steady improvement in the quality of life, particularly for women, and this was especially true during the short-lived  republican period that followed the bloodless coup which had overthrown the Monarchy in 1973.

Two lengthy and brutal foreign invasions, interrupted by years of particularly violent civil war would suffice to bring any human social structure to its knees, and would have succeeded to do so in Afghanistan if it weren't for the extraordinary pride, resilience and courage of the Afghan people (I refer to both men and women) and their refusal, over  the past centuries, to submit to outside domination, even in the presence of a foreign-imposed government. This happened in the days of Shah Shujah Durrani, during the 1840’s, it has repeated itself since, and could well determine events in that obscure future when the foreign troops now occupying Afghanistan will presumably have left.

The information, fragmentary as it is, that this land, once considered hopelessly condemned to perennial poverty  might actually possess considerable mineral wealth does not necessarily constitute a blessing. If true it would greatly complicate matters, as the already ruthless quest for power will receive support and backing from foreign sources the interests of which will, at best, coincide only with those of a very small minority of the power structure. All this risks being  presented in an old fashioned ideological form, a post-Cold War resurrection of Manichean dualism, in which the presumably libertarian forces of “free market” capitalism will attempt to wrest power from the more  “socialist” oriented ones, in the name of a questionable version of Democracy.

Recent history leaves little room for optimism, and the feeling prevails that any National Government structure left behind by the occupying forces  will give way to a repetition – or perhaps a resumption – of the preceding civil war, with ultimate results  that are impossible to foresee, considering the additional burden of a much wider overt or covert international involvement, precisely because of the riches presumably hidden in this inhospitable soil.

Time is really very short, and one does not read or hear of any intention, on the part of the NATO Allies, to review their negotiating stance in order to take these new factors into due account.

In my experience, Afghans are skilful negotiators, often a step ahead of their interlocutors. It would seem worthwhile testing the responses to ideas along the lines of sharing not only political but also economic power, in a type of regionally oriented framework which, by opening up new, entirely legitimate vistas, could also diminish the constant threat posed by the exportation of opium to the  outside world through neighbouring countries.

The people of Afghanistan have suffered great privations, through no fault of their own and surely deserve a better fate than to be left again at the mercy of “War Lords”, this time even more powerful because of possible international backing and support.

The ultimate answer to Afghanistan’s problems is, or at least should be, in the hands of the Afghans, and should not be imposed by outside forces. The Country certainly possesses the required human resources, and its people have the ability and the will to reach solutions on their own, but are in need of benevolent, intelligent, non violent guidance and support from the International Community.

Those who love Afghanistan can only hope, and continue hoping until hope creates.

Carlo Ungaro

(The author of this submission, Ambassador Carlo Ungaro, is a retired Italian senior Diplomatic  officer, who has spent sixteen years of his life in Afghanistan, the last two as Political Adviser to the Italian-led ISAF contingent in Herat)