Mattarella praises NATO and hits Russia
Sergio Mattarella's speech at the conference for the 75th anniversary of NATO
I address a greeting to Cardinal Tscherrig, Apostolic Nuncio, to the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to the parliamentarians present, to the Chief of Defense Staff, to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Chiefs of Armed Forces present, particularly to the Commander General of the Carabinieri who are hosting us, thanking him for his welcome.
Naturally, a very cordial greeting to all present.
I would like to begin by expressing appreciation for SIOI's initiative to promote this Conference, which invites us to reflect – on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Treaty – on the value of the Atlantic choice, so full of consequences for our country.
The treaty of 4 April 1949 – as Ambassador Sessa, whom I thank, recalled earlier – would have contributed, in fact, to the political identity of the Republic as it still is today.
When a war ends and, moreover, with the bloody characteristics of the Second World War, the issue that arises is "making peace" and, immediately afterwards, creating an effective collective security system.
This was what happened in 1918 when, at the urging of the President of the United States, Wilson, and his 14 points, the League of Nations was created, with the aspiration of overcoming the principle according to which the expression of sovereignty abroad of a State expressed itself through the use of force in international relations. This led to the attempt of the "War Renunciation Treaty", sponsored by the United States Secretary of State, Frank Kellog and the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand, for a bilateral non-aggression agreement.
Established in 1928, sixty-three states joined it, among them, naturally alongside the United States and France, among others, Germany, Italy, Japan, countries which a few years later were at the origin of the Second World War.
In 1945 the concern, therefore, was how to ensure the security of peoples and countries that had been overwhelmed. So as not to repeat the events that followed the First World War.
Two sensitivities coexisted: one, aimed at the definition of an international forum between states, making reference to the Declaration of 1 January 1942, led to a path that would be linked, in particular, with the San Francisco Charter, approved – as we know well – on 25 April 1945, and imagined the creation of permanent instruments for settling conflicts.
The other, heir to the Europe of the great powers, imagined solving problems through “one-off” international conferences and looked backwards to bilateral self-defense agreements. This was the case with the Dunkerke Pact between France and the United Kingdom, on 4 March 1947, which was then extended, with the Treaty of Brussels, on 17 March 1948, to the Benelux countries.
The reason for this experience was the everlasting shadow of Germany. An issue that would soon be resolved.
At the center of the scene, however, was clearly the role that the United States was preparing to play in the conflict that was emerging with the Soviet Union and its satellites.
We speak of the Atlantic choice, of "Atlanticism" and, therefore, it is not useless to refer to its meaning.
We must then look at the contents of the meeting, in August 1941 off the island of Newfoundland, between President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill (as we know the USA had not yet entered the war), in which they were defined, in their joint declaration, certain principles.
Let's look at them briefly: no to territorial expansion at the expense of others; no to territorial changes that do not respect the votes freely expressed by the peoples concerned; right of all peoples to choose their own form of government and restoration of the sovereign rights and autonomy of those who have been forcibly deprived of them; equal access to the world's trade and raw materials; economic cooperation between all States to ensure better working conditions, economic progress and social security for all; destruction of Nazi tyranny and guarantee of peace for all peoples to live safely within borders and free from fear and want; free movement in seas and oceans; renounces the use of force.
It was the Atlantic Charter, to which, in the declaration that expressly referred to it, the 26 countries that signed it in Washington on 1 January 1942 (among them the Soviet Union) referred.
Here we can grasp the meaning of the choice that saw the newly born Italian Republic join the North Atlantic Treaty, which took up those themes and commitments.
Anyone wishing to compare those principles with our Constitutional Charter would have no difficulty in finding broad similarities.
To appreciate the value of that choice it is necessary to consider the condition in which Italy found itself at the end of the war.
The Paris Peace Conference – delayed in ancient practices guilty of having often determined reasons for subsequent resumption of hostilities – had excluded it from any international circuit.
It would not have been admitted to the Brussels Treaty, it was not a member of the United Nations.
We therefore understand well the meaning of the noble speech given by Alcide De Gasperi at the Peace Conference on 10 August 1946 and the incessant work carried out to raise awareness towards the Allies.
Participation in NATO was, therefore, first and foremost an adherence by the Republic to the values of freedom of the Atlantic Charter and, at the same time, an essential choice to re-enter international politics. This was accompanied by a pragmatic option that looked to the United States, due to the decline of Europe's global role, of which the decline of British and French influence was the signal.
After the signing of the Peace Treaty, Italy thus contributes to the definition of tools for a new international system, as part of a security architecture capable of guaranteeing its economic and social development in the context of Western nations and in connection with they.
It was the moment in which the expression "free world" took shape, to which Italy chose to belong.
It didn't come without debate. Ambassador Sessa recalled this earlier.
De Gasperi's adversaries were above all communism and nationalism.
Even in foreign policy there was a "constituent" moment for the new Italy.
The position of neutrality gathered supporters, in the bipolar articulation of a context in which the Soviet bloc manifested expansion ambitions.
The reality of the facts has shown the wisdom of the choices guided by De Gasperi and Sforza.
De Gasperi, in the parliamentary discussion relating to the Pact, said: “Either accession to the Atlantic Pact, which in any case exists outside of us, or neutrality. Armed neutrality is impossible due to our financial insufficiency." And he asked himself: “Who would ever help us if, faced with the invitation to access collective solidarity, we selfishly refused to reject any common risk?”
In the words of De Gasperi, NATO was born from the "need for security" and was based "on the integration of the national effort into the collective effort". The Trentino statesman thus clarified that that decision responded to the need to "defend a larger homeland" that was "visible, solid and alive."
That visible and politically alive homeland – which De Gasperi was thinking of and without which the construction of a system of military alliances would have had reduced scope and meaning – was the European project.
Our membership of the Atlantic Pact therefore immediately takes on an ambitious value and is linked to a supranational and ideal perspective, consistent with the inspiring principles contained in the Constitutional Charter.
It is an approach whose relevance is clearly demonstrated, where it establishes a foundational link, so to speak, between the Atlantic project and the political development of Europe.
The other characterizing fact that emerges from that first phase of birth and consolidation of NATO is its full, organic integration in a multilateral system of shared rules and principles which find their anchorage in the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, in that article 51 which establishes the intrinsic right of all States to self-defense.
The Alliance has never failed in this vocation, despite the Russian war rhetoric aimed at attributing to it non-existent aggressive and expansionist logic.
The deterrent function of the Atlantic Alliance has been an element of guarantee of peace in Europe and, to the women and men, civilian and military, of extraordinary professionalism and dedication, who, in these 75 years, have "been" NATO, presiding over its perimeter of freedom, a thought of appreciation and gratitude must be given to the Republic, as well as to the citizens of the countries that make up the Alliance.
Countries to which the dissolution of the regimes linked to the Warsaw Pact allowed free decisions have decided to join the coalition.
A process, framed within the results of the Helsinki Conference of 1975, which had allowed us to look with optimism at the possibility of creating an increasingly inclusive system of collective security, leaving the so-called "cold war" behind.
The Charter of Paris, adopted in 1990, within the CSCE, had suggested that humanity could enjoy a "peace dividend", capable of directing expenditure and investments towards international development and justice.
The war of aggression launched by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the condition of instability in the wider Mediterranean, unfortunately caused that season to decline.
Today, the allied countries in NATO are faced with the need to forcefully reiterate the unacceptability of "fait accompli" policies.
The value of the international order is to prevent the affirmation of power policies whereby governments of a stronger state can consider themselves authorized to annihilate less populated and less armed countries.
In the post-war period, Italy's path in the international community has always been oriented towards peace, working for the European cause starting from the EDC, operating in NATO, in the UN.
The Alliance Summit in Washington next July will be the opportunity to continue these efforts, with analyzes and strategies adapted to the new and increasingly sophisticated conditions.
Therefore solidarity. Italy participates in leading missions aimed at guarding the north-eastern flank, as part of NATO's renewed vitality and attractive force, also demonstrated by the recent membership of Finland and Sweden.
Furthermore, the need for an ability to read risks and threats – including hybrid and unconventional ones posed by international conditions – which is not filtered through a single prism of interpretation is required.
There can be no separation between the security of the northern flank and the security of the southern flank of the Alliance.
The deficit resulting from the progressive lack of attention to the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas must be filled: the current events are eloquent.
Alongside Ukraine, the ongoing war in Gaza, its repercussions in the Red Sea and throughout the Middle East – with the risks of enlargement -, Iran's missile aggression, the crisis in the Sahel, draw a broad arc of instability which finds its dramatic point of convergence in the Mediterranean, and calls on Italy to fulfill a role of stabilization and defense of the principles of international coexistence.
The tactical command of the Aspides mission in the Red Sea fits into this framework.
The threats mentioned, alongside the global ones, have a common objective: to compress the multilateral system based on international law, of which NATO is one of the cornerstones.
Ladies and gentlemen,
in a context characterized by threats of extraordinary intensity, the European Union is also called to raise the level of its commitment, and to do so urgently.
It is a reflection that today focuses on finally creating a common defense, after the unsuccessful attempts at the end of the last century.
In Helsinki, twenty-five years ago, it seemed that this goal was within reach. Its dissolution in recent years has repeatedly made the Union a mere spectator of events whose negative effects it was suffering.
Equipping the European Union with greater strategic autonomy will allow NATO to be stronger, precisely because of the complementarity between the two Organizations, with the strengthening of one of its pillars, which is currently more fragile.
More fragile because – as is known – the reduced state of coordination and integration produces limited capabilities despite large financial commitments. Removing this condition would benefit everyone in a world irreversibly marked by the role of large international players.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to conclude by quoting one of my predecessors, whose birth anniversary was a few days ago.
Referring to Europe, in 1954, President Einaudi recalled that the spectrum of decisions for the countries of the continent was reduced to "existing united or disappearing".
The experience of the Atlantic Alliance confirms the value of a history which, in 75 years, has never betrayed its commitment to guaranteeing the benefit of the 32 countries that are part of it: united in the defense of freedom and democracy.
A value that confirms the importance of multilateralism embraced by our Republic.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/sergio-mattarella-nato-discorso/ on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:01:52 +0000.