President of the Constitutional Court of Italy: "We failed in Ukraine"
Giuliano Amato, who twice served as Prime Minister of Italy, gave an interview to Il Venerdì. Amato spoke about the meeting with Putin in the 2000s and acknowledged the failure of Western policy towards Russia.
Simonetta Fiori
"I feel guilty because 20 years ago we were supposed to bring Russia closer to Europe, but we didn't succeed." Former Prime Minister, and now Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Italy, Giuliano Amato on the conflict and the risks posed by a centralized state.
"The conflict in Ukraine causes me deep regret, as well as a sense of guilt: in the past we did not do enough to avoid the current situation," Giuliano Amato reflects, sitting in a spacious office in the Palazzo della Consulta (building of the Constitutional Court of Italy — approx. InoSMI). He belongs to the political elite of intellectuals who have left their mark on the history of Italy and Europe. He is one of its last representatives, and he does not have many heirs. His term of office as Chairman of the Constitutional Court expires in five months, but this is just another post in his long career as a civil servant: he was Prime Minister a couple of times, minister several times, served as vice-chairman of the Convention for the Future of Europe, designed to develop a new institutional architecture of the EU. When he talks about the conflict on the threshold of the Old World, not only cold analysis comes into play, but also a broader vision of politics, his own life experience and unfulfilled dreams of Europe, connected with Russians and Americans by the great project of universal security. "Now Putin is unrecognizable: bloated, says delusional things and commits terrible actions. I remember how in June 2000 the new Russian president came to see me at Palazzo Chigi(residence of the Italian Prime Minister - approx. InoSMI). He was young, talked about common interests that we had to value in order to coordinate together. So, this opportunity was missed. He is now making mistakes in everything, any attempt to justify his actions is unbearable for me. But I feel the weight of the failure of Europe and the whole West."
Over the years, his astute mind — a quality for which the journalist Eugenio Scalfari gave him the title of "Subtle Doctor" — began to acquire the humanity and sentimentality of an old professor, sometimes unarmed in front of "illiterate thoughts", which can be heard during public discussions in Italy. As a statesman, he deftly handles the pages of history that he himself wrote. He handles it with the same dexterity in his latest book, "Welcome, the State" (Bentornato Stato), which served as the occasion for this exclusive interview with IlVenerdì (weekly supplement of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica – approx. InoSMI). Amato warns about the accelerated return of the state to the economy due to the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine, analyzes new risks and old vices, which he decided to get rid of in 1992, when, as prime minister, he privatized industry, dissolved the Ministry of Public Administration and put an end to the existence of the body dealing with the economic development of southern Italy. Among the new dangers of a centralized state, he identifies an authoritarian regime. This warning sounds most appropriate, given the dramatic situation in the confrontation between democracy and autocracy.
Il Venerdì: You welcome the return of the state, but it seems that you are not very optimistic about the future.
Giuliano Amato: I'm kind of optimistic. It is about the possibility of freeing state intervention from the old vices from which it suffered in the period between the 80s and the early 90s. At that time, politicians were not only looking for an electoral consensus — "save that company, because it's in my constituency" — but also financial resources for their activities, which led to a distorting effect, and government spending rose to an unacceptable level. In 1992, together with the Minister of Public Works Franco Merloni, we decided to cancel all contracts and start from scratch.
— Have we got rid of this effect now?
— This risk still exists both in Italy and elsewhere. But thanks to some "antidotes" adopted in these years, such as, for example, the Severino anti-corruption law, independent supervisory authorities and the very retreat on the part of some politicians, now this pathology, from which our country suffered, has been brought back to normal. We are no longer an exception. If fraud in obtaining tax benefits in the amount of 110% had been committed 30 years ago, perhaps we would have found out about it in ten years, but now the reaction is immediate. We were able to protect ourselves.
— However, you are afraid of other risks associated with the new intervention of the state.
— This is an aspect that makes me less optimistic. What can happen if government intervention in the economy becomes more intrusive and centralized? In recent years, higher and higher tasks have been entrusted to the state. Once upon a time, the state was supposed to provide growth and stability. Now it gives instructions in many areas affecting national interests: from nitrogen and methane emissions into the atmosphere to control over drinking water and gas consumption in conflict conditions, due to which supplies from Russia are interrupted. But by introducing rules for everyone and everything, does the state risk depriving the market of the creative spirit, which, despite all its dangers, is still necessary?
— So a too centralized state risks suppressing the autonomy of the private sector?
— Not only the private sector. In emergency situations, those in power tend to cancel public autonomy, or rather the initiatives of those who help regulate people's behavior. During the pandemic, it was necessary for the state to establish equal rules for everyone, and we are happy with this, because we do not want confusion. If the Lazio region has been declared a "yellow zone" under certain conditions, then we expect the same classification of risks in other places. But there are various emergencies in which the joint responsibility of the autonomies is necessary for democracy, to achieve the necessary consensus.
— Is democracy under threat?
— There will be other emergencies in the future, at least think about the climate. A state that becomes authoritarian and centralized is what we can expect. This is not good, because if authoritarianism seems to someone the best way to solve problems, then the conflict in Ukraine confirms that democracies with all their flaws are better than autocracies.
— On the twenty-fourth of February, a new stage in history began. American political scientist Ian Bremmer believes that by applying economic sanctions and providing military assistance, the West has actually entered a war with Russia.
— No, we are not at war. We only provide military assistance. But we have not declared war on anyone, and no one believes that they are fighting against us.
— But can we say that there is no more peace?
— Yes, for us, Europeans, a long period of peace has ended.
— Is a new cold war waiting for us?
— We asked this question in previous years, when the outlines of a new bipolar world began to appear, with the United States and the Chinese giant, and a conflict was brewing that went beyond rivalry on the world market, since it included an important confrontation between democracy and an authoritarian regime. But the Cold War lacked the traditional ingredient of an arms race. China has not yet expressed its intention to expand its sphere of influence with weapons.
— Now the situation has changed.
— It was changed by Russia, which revived the use of weapons in the context of the conflict between authoritarianism and democracy. What conclusion can we draw from this? That in the future relations between the great powers, as well as between the more powerful and the less powerful, will be formed with the help of weapons? I don't think. I think that we will return to an equilibrium that will be very similar to what it was in the recent past. If relations between the powers began to be regulated tomorrow with the help of such unilateral actions as what is happening in Ukraine, then it would become impossible to live in the world because the rulers allow themselves to do this. In this scenario, China will lose three-quarters of the opportunities for development and expansion of its influence on the world.
— But the armament of Germany is striking. This country lost the Second World War and for several decades preferred not to attract attention to itself. This also indicates that a turning point has come.
— There are signs of change, but they may not mean what we can think about now, even though reasonably. During these months, not only solidarity was shown, and in an innovative form, between the United States and Europe, but it also became clear that the Old World needs to provide more autonomous military defense in terms of resources: it is unknown whether we will be able to continue to rely on American assistance in the future. This is what President Obama said in his speech in Cairo: we will no longer be sheriffs for the whole world. But in order for us to learn this lesson, it took an armed conflict at the door of Europe.
— Is it necessary to create a European army?
— It would be a saving for everyone. And we would use in a European way the high integration potential that we have achieved over the many decades of NATO's existence. It is not about replacing national forces with a single European army. There would be huge advantages in terms of armaments: in fact, the envy of the states was the only reason why we still do not have a European military industry. This would be a good solution, including because the Europeans have all become good and kind, but the best way to ensure peace is to have common military means.
— Former Ambassador Sergio Romano said that we made a mistake by expanding our borders to the states that were in the Soviet orbit. Europeanism means renouncing sovereignty. But we, Western Europeans, came out of the Second World War with the understanding that sovereignty can be an obstacle, while the countries that have gained it quite recently do not want to give it up.
— This is a correct analysis of sovereignty. But the EU could not leave behind the doors of the countries that were part of European history. How could Poland be excluded? Chopin's ballads are our heritage. In Latvia, The Leopard was written (by the Italian writer Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa – approx. InoSMI). The fact is that all these countries have been denied sovereignty for a long time, while we have given it up for the sake of building Europe. Therefore, it is quite legitimate for them to be distrustful of the rejection of sovereignty. But this problem can be solved if it is reasonable to use all the constitutional tools that we have been working on in order to maintain a balance between national identity and common identity. This problem doesn't bother me.
— And what worries?
— The real problem is that we have quietly continued to trade with Russia, although the countries that are close to it are in great conflict with Moscow. The price for communist oppression was too high. While we, Western Europe, inherited the "Eastern policy", that is, the policy of defusing tensions with Moscow, others still considered Russia a continuation of the USSR, from which they came.
— Could this problem be solved?
— Yes, Javier Solana tried to do this when he was the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign Policy and Security. In the mid-2000s, he clearly stated that relations between NATO and Russia could no longer be built on the model of relations between NATO and the USSR. After the end of the Cold War, it was necessary to find common interests of Europeans and Russians. Since they were looking for a place to settle in, it was necessary to create a unified defense and security system based on the vital interests of Europeans, Russians and Americans.
— What prevented the implementation?
— Political distrust, both on the part of Europe and the United States. Military distrust of the organization of defense in a different way than according to the already tested scheme. That is, the mistake was not the expansion of the EU to Russia, as noted by Romano Prodi (Romano Prodi, former Prime Minister of Italy - approx. InoSMI) on the contrary, our isolation, as well as the expansion of the old North Atlantic Alliance to the Russian borders. Fiona Hill, a very good adviser to several American presidents, spoke about her talks at the White House with George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in 2008. Before the NATO summit in Bucharest, she tried to convince them to refuse to include Georgia and Ukraine in the military bloc, which caused Cheney's anger and Bush's irritation. The President replied that he liked "vigorous diplomacy." We already saw how energetic she is a few years earlier, during the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. We know how it ended later.
— Ukraine has again made a request to join NATO.
— Let me make it clear: the mistakes made by someone who was stabbed by someone else the next day do not justify stabbing in any way - this thing outrages me — but the fact that the West superficially reacted to its conservative impulses is indisputable. Some military historian should tell us why the attempt of cooperation between Russians, Europeans and Americans in the field of defense failed. In the end, it was decided to apply the old measures, instead of trusting in a new project that would change the world.
— You say this with regret.
- yes. I admit, I saw myself in Solana's project. I have always believed in the connection between old Europe and Russia. And I would never be able to ban Dostoevsky from my university, because it is part of me and my personal history. I feel a deep sense of guilt for our failure.