THE POPE IS OUT. LONG LIVE THE POPE

Published by "Open Democracy" on February 22, 2013 

The imminent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was announced on February 11, and the choice of dates, as always in matters concerning the Vatican was  certainly not coincidental. February 11 is, in fact, the anniversary of the  1929 Lateran Pacts, which put an end to almost sixty years of the Holy See’s virtual and  largely self imposed diplomatic isolation which had followed the irrevocable 1870 declaration of Rome as the Capital of the  newly emerged Kingdom of Italy.  Any pretense to real temporal power had been lost for ever, but  February 11, 1929 signified the Holy See’s return as a fully recognized actor on the International scene,  deprived though it may have been of some of the more visible  indications of temporal power such as a national territory and a military defense force.

The flurry of comments  following the historic announcement,  include a number of interesting and thoughtful  assessments of Pope Benedict’s Pontificate, and the general evaluation has been preponderantly, in some cases even scathingly, negative, or, at best, critical. The most noticeable in this negative evaluation has been the German press, which, at the time of his nomination had been rather optimistic, at times even lyrically enthusiastic..

At this stage, however, such assessments could well be premature, influenced, as they inevitably are, by the contrast in style, although  much less in substance, between Benedict and his predecessor.

 There are, nonetheless, some fundamental aspects  that need to be examined, considering the historical impact of the decision, an extremely rare event in the history of the Papacy.

It would appear particularly relevant objectively to analyse the  veritable reasons  which induced the Pope to  announce this decision, which, it is said, took even some of his closest aides by surprise. Those who have had the opportunity to meet Benedict in recent weeks have been unanimous in their assessment that he indeed appeared  ailing, weakened and, above all, fatigued,  so that the  motivation given for the decision is certainly to be accepted, also in consideration of the fact that Benedict himself had been  considerably shocked by John Paul’s insistence  of continuing in the fulfillment of his mandate until the very end, in spite of severe health problems. 

It has to be stressed, however that age and ill health, though certainly relevant,  were  not the only factors to induce the Pope’s resignation.

Pope Benedict XVI presented himself, from the outset, as an extremely committed conservative theologian, but never  showed those  leadership traits which are essential in the governance of such an immense and complex empire as the Roman Catholic Church. Although the Pope's powers appear to be absolute – he is perhaps the only remaining absolute monarch in the world – his actions are  strongly limited by the political complexity of the governing body itself, in which  Cardinals of different  nationalities and schools of thought vie in a centuries old ruthless struggle for supremacy and need a strong hand to keep their actions under control. When Benedict took over the Papacy – and this was a  carefully planned election which took no one by surprise - the  evidently growing weakness of his predecessor’s  reign had already given  rise to a strong accentuation of the powers of the Curia. And the new Pope, since the very beginning,  was unable to exercise the  authority required to bring all these factions under control.

Much stress has been put by commentators on the scandals which supposedly weakened Benedict’s Pontificate  ultimately causing it to be considered a failure. It has to be remembered that  scandals,  whether of a financial nature or otherwise,  have riddled the Vatican for many years, and  also the  sex abuse scandals  in reality predate Benedict’s accession to power: it could even be said that he had the courage publicly to admit their existence  and  thus depart from the preceding  policy of  simply sidestepping the issue by  appointing the guilty to  different posts. Scandals alone were certainly not the sole cause  of  the Pope’s apparent  failure, but rather a weakness in leadership and an inability to  appoint  appropriate  people to delicate posts and, above all, to remove others  from positions  of power which they used unabashedly  for their own political agenda.

On the other hand, however, in dramatic contrast to these considerations, it has to be recalled that Pope Benedict found no opposition within the curia in  his determined drive to distance the Church from the Ecumenical  “liberal” directions taken half a century ago by John XXIII on the occasion of the Vatican II Council. This is a difficult task because, according to the doctrine of papal infallibility, (a rather recent addition to Roman Catholic Dogma, proclaimed by Pius IX at the Vatican I Council in the eighteen sixties), a Pope cannot be  accused of having erred, and corrections to directions taken by a Pontiff  can take many decades. The very short Pontificate of John Paul I – slightly over a month long – was the last to be held by a Pope publicly committed to the respect of the dictates of the Vatican II Council, and the Church, since the election of John Paul II, has been constantly distancing itself from Vatican II. The idea, of course, is to lay the blame not on Pope John XXIII, by definition blameless, but on those, both within and outside the Catholic world who have constantly, often willfully  misinterpreted the meaning of the event which needs to be shown as a moment  consecrated to continuity rather than  rupture.

There is an understandable tendency to concentrate attention on statements made by public figures on  important, formal occasions, but Vaticanists know that  Popes sometimes use more obscure or modest instances to enunciate  important principles. In a homily recently delivered to  an audience of humble Parish Priests, the Pope  very firmly reiterated  his belief that  the “misinterpretations” of  the Vatican II results  have to be corrected, and it is safe to  say that this will be the more probable direction taken by the future pontificate.

Speculation abounds on the possibility that, for the first time in its history, the Conclave will elect a non European – even an African or an Asian – Pope. This is actually a matter of very relative importance and, should the Conclave so decide, it would be more  with a view of showing the  “universality” of the Church, and  also of  giving vicarious pleasure and pride to  a particular nationality or ethnicity rather than in the  effort to  impart a new direction to the Vatican’s policies. All the Cardinals deemed  possible papal candidates, be they African, Asian or from the Americas, have spent enough time in the Curia to be thoroughly trained, some would say “Italianised” and  the vast majority of the  present day Cardinals,  no matter what their geographic or ethnic origins, have been chosen by  extremely conservative Popes, precisely with a view of preventing “dangerous” deviations, of the type experienced in 1978.

With the voting  hotly contested as it probably will be there is also the possibility of an outsider, a maverick  unexpected  candidate obtaining the required majority, and thus upsetting the  plans of the mainly Italian led conservative  faction of the Curia. This is, of course, possible, but extremely unlikely,  and the winner will most probably be if not Italian, at least a man of the Curia, well versed in what his duties will be expected to be.

Carlo Ungaro 

PAPAL RESIGNATIONS: GREGORY XII IN 1415

This was a resignation which was  motivated by the need to end the Western Schism by  agreeing to the joint resignation of the Pope and the Anti Pope. The agreement  was the object of much negotiation, and finally  Gregory's resignation did put an end to the schism.Those were tempestuous years for the Papacy

THE FIRST PAPAL RESIGNATION SINCE 1294

News is just out that  the incumbent Pope, Benedict XVI, intends to resign at the end of this month.
There had been some talk about this over the past  months, but always  denied by Vatican sources.
Papal resignations have been very few in the institution's centuries long history.
Pope Benedict  IX resigned in 1045 but became Pope again two years later after the resignation of his successor, Clement II who had actually forced Benedict out of the Papacy.
The most important resignation, which was at the beginning of a long crisis in Papal history, was that of Celestine V, in 1294.
There have been no Papal resignations since.

ITALY'S POLITICAL QUAGMIRE: IS BERLUSCONI ON THE COMEBACK TRAIL?

Article Published by OPED NEWS on January 14 2013

Rome, January 13, 2013

The unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Mario Monti,  a few weeks before the natural, constitutionally appointed end of the Legislature, has thrown  Italy’s political life into a state of turmoil and confusion reminiscent of former times.

The fact that Monti himself,  as he announced in the course of his end of year  press conference, has become an active participant to the electoral race, although in a rather unique and indirect way, has certainly not simplified matters. He, in fact is playing a rather audacious role, trying to appear as a modern-day Cincinnatus,  (or, for that matter, de Gaulle) waiting to be called to the helm of the Republic.

One of the many paradoxes in Italy’s present political setup is given by the remarkable influence still being wielded by Professor  Monti, a figure who has never run for office before and who, until  now, had been totally absent from the country’s political life.

This confusing situation has been considered a Godsend by the  more stalwart followers of  former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who, in spite of appearances to the contrary, and notwithstanding his  self-contradicting remarks, cannot be considered a spent force in the  political spectrum. He has, in fact,  launched a massive campaign in the attempt to stage one of those “come-backs” for which he is famous. As  his opponents  grudgingly admit,  Berlusconi has proven to be totally ineffectual as a leader, but he is an incredibly efficient campaigner, aided in this by the control he wields on six of the seven major television networks. The question that is being asked by perplexed observers in Italy (and abroad) is whether  Berlusconi’s unrivalled showmanship will  convince the Italian voters next February, or whether, after a year of political sobriety and harsh austerity measures, they will tend to focus more on concrete issues.

 There are signs of  unusual cohesion in the Centre-Left Democratic Party, which, according to current polls, could emerge as the winner in the next elections,  remaining short, however, of the overall majority in both Houses of Parliament which would allow it to govern efficiently.

The Prime Minister himself has openly faulted the  majority Centre-Right party, Mr. Berlusconi’s “People of Liberty”,  for its lack of support, accusing  it of having caused a premature and needless  Government crisis and reserving some  elegant but venomously caustic remarks for Mr. Berlusconi himself. He has also confirmed his hope to witness the formation of a credible “centrist” coalition whose platform would be a political  agenda issued by Monti, available on line, and which will participate in the elections bearing Monti’s name..

Berlusconi's party still has a majority in Parliament, but  its popular support,  according to reliable polls, has fallen dramatically to all-time low levels (between 15 and 18%). Since the inception of an aggressive Television campaign, it appears, however, to be on the upswing again.

In this complex, and in many ways typically Italian, game,  the newly formed Centrist party, led by Monti, which at the moment has limited popular appeal could end up  influential enough to become a decisive element in Italy’s future political setup. Not only is it  totally committed to Professor Monti, but it also has the explicit backing of the Roman Catholic Church. There are renewed signs, just as in the summer of 2011, that  many Catholic oriented political figures from the right and the left have converged upon this grouping, thus recreating, “de facto” the Christian Democratic Party which dominated the Italian political scene from the late forties until well into the nineties.

The other players, at the moment, have only minor roles to fulfil, although It would be a mistake to underestimate the negotiating strength of the separatist, anti-European, xenophobic and sometimes racist “Northern League”, which played a vital role in the former government and could again become an important player with its newly forged – albeit fragile -  alliance with Berlusconi, particularly in the Northern regions, which, thanks to Italy’s extremely complex electoral system could allow its members an important numerical presence in the Upper House of Parliament..

In this game, one can say that “The Joker is Wild”, and  it is therefore essential to keep an eye on the maverick, populist “Five Stars” movement, founded and run by comedian Beppe Grillo, which, at the moment  has significant popular support. The question is whether it can keep the momentum it has gained or whether it is destined to shrink to its former size or perhaps disappear from the political scene altogether.

Shrewd politicians have also got their  eye on the  record number of declared non-voters (over 30%, a record in Italian politics), but the feeling is that as political activity  gains momentum this number is bound to shrink.

The occult  aim of a number leading political figures appears to be the creation of a  hung Parliament, given the apparent impossibility of any one of the players to  form a significant majority in both Houses.  The President, Giorgio Napolitano, could thus move to renew the Monti experience, this time, however,  giving the Government a more political character. As an alternative, a mixed Parliament could hold together just long enough to elect Monti as President of the Republic (Napolitano’s mandate expires in April), and then proceed to new, even more uncertain elections.

The pattern is neither unexpected nor accidental and appeared with some clarity as early as the Spring of 2011, when the Italian Bishops’ Conference, acting in harmony with the Holy See,  withdrew its support from Berlusconi’s party, thus openly encouraging the formation of a Catholic oriented  political grouping in Parliament.

If Berlusconi should succeed in his  come-back attempt – which, at the moment, appears unlikely – he could upset this  delicate balance and  provoke a return to the disastrous policies of the past.

In all probability, however, no matter which of the other contestants should obtain a majority  in next February’s elections, the real winner will be the Roman Catholic Church, and this, of course, will have a strong influence on Italy’s internal politics, although it should not modify the country’s basically pro-European stance.

Italy. Berlusconi’s downfall. The end of “Videocracy?

 Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, a pivotal presence in Italian politics for the past two decades,  formally announced his retirement from political activity, and a day later, after being sentenced  to a prison term for tax fraud, announced, instead, his return. The announcements were greeted with  relief ,  incredulity and derision, and are an invitation  to analyze both his  brutally  uninhibited use of  the Media – especially Television - to enhance his presence and appearance, as well as his rapid fall, to the point of becoming an almost pathetic figure..

The term “Videocracy”,  coined  by Italian film-maker Erik Gandini, was the title of a controversial 2009  documentary which described and explained the  ruthless use made by  Berlusconi of the many TV  outlets he either directly or indirectly controlled.

The subtitle of the film, however,  “basta apparire” (“It is enough to appear”) is  even more noteworthy and illustrates  the growing need for constant visibility, not only in public life.

An appearance  on  a TV programme – any programme, no matter how insignificant, vulgar or unintelligent – had become essential to satisfy career ambitions and, in particular, was seen as a very likely  introduction to positions of responsibility, especially in the glitzy political  world  characteristic of the Berlusconi years.

Significantly, a considerable number of teen-age girls, when interviewed about their  ambitions for the future, put, as a first (and  sometimes only) choice, participation and victory in a beauty contest, any beauty contest, as long as it was televised. Indeed, many Italian  female parliamentarians, and a number of particularly glamorous and inefficient cabinet ministers in Italy’s self-styled “second Republic” began their careers either as beauty queens or in similar pursuits.

“Videocracy”, therefore, was alive and well, and the need to “appear” was universally felt.

 Clever and apt though the term may be, and however accurate the interpretations given, three  immediate  considerations come to mind, especially when it is applied to political leadership..

The first of these, historical in nature,  has nothing to do with television, but essentially with the subtitle, that is, the need for a leader (or an aspiring leader) to be visible, and this has always been  true  both in democratic societies and in others. In military campaigns, for example,  a successful commander, to gain the loyalty and  affection of his troops,   had to be  seen leading his men, taking the same risks, and showing himself to the enemy. Julius Caesar was a master at this type of visibility, and through  able and  credible  spin doctors, made sure that  news of his  courage and military prowess  was spread with great speed  among the people of the Republic which he was serving, and which he is, somewhat unfairly and superficially, accused of having destroyed.

 The Emperor, the King, the Dictator and other leaders have always had to show themselves to the people in order to encourage and maintain their affection and support, and this truth has been well known  throughout the ages. Image and reality have always had to merge, and this takes  a considerable amount of manipulation.

Of course, since the twentieth century,  through the miracles of  cinema newsreels, of radio and, finally, of television, there has been an exponential growth in the  visibility of leaders. As a result, today, it is very difficult – not only in “personality cult” dictatorships, but also in democratic societies – to avoid being constantly exposed to their voice and image.

This  leads directly to the second of the critical considerations,  i.e. the danger of over-exposure, which could, in the long run, threaten to alienate the very people who are supposed to be attracted and fascinated,

There are  credible indications that this could well be the case, at least in some societies, such as Italy itself.  “Videocracy”,   brought to an unprecedented level by Berlusconi, seems to have peaked, with the apparent effect of  turning public opinion away from politics  and creating an aura of indifference and contempt. This is indicated, primarily, by the incredible and growing percentage (over 30%) of people who, according to reliable polls, do not intend to vote in the next elections, and this in a country in which a voter turnout below 85% was usually considered disappointing. In the latest regional elections in Sicily, once a Berlusconi stronghold,  the voter turnout was  under 50%, an unprecedented event in Italy, and  Berlusconi’s  “Liberty” party  lost heavily. Other indications are the catastrophic fall in the former Prime Minister’s personal popularity and the unpredicted growth of a totally populist “anti-political” movement led by an erstwhile comedian, Beppe Grillo who now leads what could possibly be the second largest political party in the country.

A third, and very significant question arises from these considerations, and  people are  asking themselves if “Videocracy’s” ultimate effect will be the end of  the democratic process as it has been known until now with, perhaps, a return to a quasi-Grecian  model based essentially on local politics, and with the internet substituting the Agora. This is not a vain or otiose question, but a consideration which deserves  attention and careful reflection.

Afghanistan’s Civil Society faces a perilous future

(Article published by "Oped News" on November 21, 2012

The resignation of General David Petraeus certainly brings to mind his role in the Afghanistan conflict and ought to stimulate us to focus  attention on  that country, which, beyond occasional reports of violence against civilians or NATO forces, nowadays tends to be ignored  by international commentators.

Ever since its  inception  the unfortunate Afghan venture appeared haunted by the risk  of a  hurried departure of the invading forces with no real, valid or credible “exit strategy”  having been planned. This  prospect  has recently emerged with particular vigour, and there is indeed a growing fear that Afghanistan, if left to its own devices, will be unable to avoid civil war and  virtual collapse.

As a consequence,  in the future memory of the Afghan people, the present invasion may well be  seen as  even more damaging than the   Soviet occupation of the 1980’s, which caused  extremely critical and hostile reactions in the West, to the point of the United States displaying its “moral outrage” by boycotting the Moscow Olympics of 1980.

Stripping  political rhetoric from all the statements and justifications put forth first from one side (The Soviet Union), then the other (NATO allies), the political and strategic “rasonnieren” behind the two invasions  have  much more in common than what could be normally suspected.

The initial phase of the Soviet invasion – ostensibly on the “request” of the Afghan government – appeared  particularly violent and brutal,  with the very Government which had allegedly  formulated the “request” being mowed down by firing squads, as a prelude to the formation of an adequately “obedient” regime.

NATO’s opening moves seemed more acceptable to the International Community, also because,  to a certain extent, the  “niceties” of international intercourse were respected: a formal, although obviously unacceptable ultimatum was issued,  and the invasion took place with a double asserted  purpose. One of these, the  elimination of the Al Qaeda headquarters,  had, at least, an aura of legitimacy. The  other motivation  was to bring about a “regime change” and install an obedient and docile government  in the place of the Taleban.

This goal was  not  all that different from the one pursued a couple of decades earlier by the Soviet Union, and is quite probably destined to a similar, ignominious  fate..

The two invasions were therefore both of dubious legality, with the  Soviet venture being very strongly stigmatized in the West and causing a major Cold War crisis with  long term effects far graver than the boycotting of the Moscow Olympics, such as a long and violent civil war and the creation of the Taleban, imagined then as a useful anti-Communist tool.  By contrast, in the general climate of  understandable indignation caused by the  September 11 attacks, the NATO invasion received little criticism, and was generally seen to be justified by the need to eliminate the  Al Qaeda power structure.

The apparently excessive brutality exercised against  civilian populations soon, however, attracted some  guarded criticism which, with the passage of time, grew into a mounting opposition  in the public opinion within the participating NATO countries. The governments of the  NATO powers involved, however, felt tied to an international commitment which, in their view,   had to be respected. Acceptance – sometimes wholehearted and enthusiastic – of NATO operations was encouraged by a vigorous press and propaganda campaign launched by ISAF, which  had the practical result of  creating a “de facto” complicity between the International Mainstream Media and NATO.

 On the occasion of its withdrawal,  the Soviet Union, until it lasted, remained essentially  supportive of the puppet government it had left behind, but this  served  only to delay and could not prevent the civil war which broke out almost immediately after its collapse.

Legitimate doubts arise on whether it will it be possible for NATO, upon its departure,  to avoid  the total disintegration of the fragile  socio-political structure left behind after  over a decade of  occupation. The signs point  to the inevitability of a chaotic outcome.

Many diverse  political scenarios  could arise as a consequence of this ill-fated military mission,  and in the little time left  greater attention should be focussed on the fate of the Afghan civilian population, victim of a present-day particularly cynical version of the “Great Game”.  Recent “disclosures” on the presence of  mineral wealth in Afghanistan’s soil will not help the situation, and, in reality, are a complicating factor.

For all its undeniable brutality, the Soviet occupation furthered the development of an already rather dynamic civil society, and growing numbers of children and young adults, particularly women,  continued to have access to educational and training facilities both at home and abroad, being thus moved away from the more extreme forms of religious fundamentalism. The hiatus caused first by the  civil war, and then by the years of  Taleban led regime was certainly a setback,  but  some ground was regained, though in a less systematic fashion, in the course of  the  present occupation. In spite of  all these decades of foreign occupation and internal conflict, and  notwithstanding  all the negative images we receive of the country, Afghan civil society continues to be a potential asset, indeed, perhaps the only real hope for  that country’s future development.

A critical analysis of the errors committed in these past years which have  handicapped  the full emergence of this civil society would be relatively easy, but  quite useless at this stage, while attempts to  foresee and to curtail the  damage that the NATO military withdrawal  will  cause  to the Afghan civilian population – particularly, but not exclusively the women – is certainly of much greater  urgency and interest.

It seems quite fair to state that the military situation in Afghanistan has not met its ill-defined goals, and is destined to a disappointing end. This, however lends even greater poignancy to the  basic question of whether  a way can be found of avoiding the tragic sequel which seems inevitable, and which will further damage a civilian population which certainly deserves a  better fate.

Although it is probably too late, efforts ought to be directed not so much in the strengthening of a corrupt and inept central government, but in the enhancement of  local autonomies, in which populations  flourish which have  little or no sympathy for Taleban inspired extremism, both for ideological reasons and for  ancient, deep-rooted tribal and ethnic differences. The risks are notable, especially in some regions in which the old “warlords” still wield influence, but attempts should be made to  concentrate the  future Taleban authority’s power and influence in areas  more sympathetic to their ideology and  ethnically closer to them.

If this approach had been adopted  some years ago, as suggested by some observers since early 2005, the Afghan problem would perhaps be more manageable today. Late as it is, some hope  could be held  for  a less disastrous outcome should it be adopted now.

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