This time it is not the boy in the fairytale to show us with dramatic clarity that Europe is naked but the pre-war circumstances that reached their peak the last weekend in February when Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, visited Rome.
He first met Berlusconi, then the olive-press’ couple Rutelli-D’Alema [leaders of the Ulivo party], and lastly the Pope granted him audience.
At his ease with the ‘Knight’ and on bad terms with the centre-left wing’s ‘two-wheeled chariot’ (at the time of the ”International Ulivo” he tried the “third solution” with them), he was quite unaffected by His Holiness. He is far, very far from Framania, the French-German axis that has taken quite an opposite stand on the issue of war.
And what about United Europe, the one of the Convention that studies its Constitution, the one of the euro for many today and for all tomorrow, the one which in the globalization age gradually absorbs East European countries, the one of a more or less planetary NATO, the one dreamed by the one time pro-European lobby, by Altiero Spinelli, by Romano Prodi and so on? Nothing. Politicians, political scientists, economists, the Old Continent’s ruling class (not said in Rumsfeld’s manner but like a history textbook) simply made a mistake, they confused theories with desires - we were and still are very far from a Common Europe or from the United States of Europe. I notice this today, while I write, when we still do not know whether there will be a war or not. However what appears quite obvious to everyone is the fragmentary (and not crushed, considering that only something compact can be crushed) idea of Europe that emerges to judge by the many political choices when faced with something serious such as the stand before the threats of war and far more serious than a “simple” common currency.
To think that all this was far from unpredictable, in other words what goes around comes around, as we all know… While browsing through issue No.5, 2001 of “Leadership” (little less than two years ago) I quote from my article called “Blair, Bush, D’Alema or Berlusconi and the poor earth” on the environmental risks run by the earth and subsequent policies: “…A short while ago, in an interview released to “Repubblica”, Tony Blair, the much praised and sympathized with British Prime Minister, (less praised now, but what about three, four years ago?), disapproved of the risks our children run, starting from his own, on a sick planet. I thought “hypocrite” and said it over the radio. And, in fact, days later the president of the United States, the son of a lesser Bush, exposed the international Kyoto agreements to cut down gas emissions, meaning “let’s think about business, the environment will come later”, quite the opposite of what flippant Blair maintained.
Following this circumstance did he thunder, did he make any decisions, did he tell the readers of that fearful invective “What a rascal that Bush is!”? Not on your life! And to think that the issue’s deadly importance… and Bush’s great refusal highlighted by the press… could have gauged Blair’s calibre! Instead he was much “softer” than Chirac and Schroeder”…. And now we dispersedly face the possibility of a war… Could this gigantic political bluff disguised as Europe (which is on the other hand naked...) have turned out otherwise? P.S. And concerning the war, I, the author, think as follows in brief, direct points.

1) I am against Saddam, who is however a “creature” of those who want to fight him today, because he has been a famous political criminal and a tout court criminal for a long time. Hence I am highly in favour of his removal. I also specify that this is not why Bush wants to do away with him. Otherwise Bush should plan a war campaign against many other dictators in this planet today.

2) I am against “this” war, because even the most careless onlooker will find the methods of intervention foolish and extremely risky, as the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the aftermath are a terrible planetary sword of Damocles (see North Korean arms, the rise of Islam, unseen terrorism since it has been seriously if not definitely crushed down etc.).

3) I am theoretically and utterly against war but I consider this cliché commonplace, unhistorical wishful thinking. It is right for the Pope to state it. I, a tiny citizen of the world, say that besides reasons of self-defence I consider war, all wars (there are over 70 under way, the famous “forgotten wars”), the worst disaster. But to defend myself, well… I would be forced to choose it as a last resort.

4) The United States were attacked on September 11 and the West along with them. True. We both reacted with a questionable war (result-wise) in Afghanistan. Bush’s war today has been long defined preventive. If at all, as Franco Cardini, the medievalist the media consider a member of the right wing, states, it is a “planned” war. And it is illegitimate, as the UN, which is not exactly a pro-Islamic congregation, tells us, with the easily imaginable consequences for the Iraqis as a population and the consequences for the rest of the planet, which are harder to theorize.

5) I am not an anti-American, quite the opposite, I am consistently an “American”, just as the entire West is both culturally and economically under a light American influence; I am an “American” as I am, in the same manner as those who support Bush, Americans who are against war, against “this” war. I also believe that Bush’s show of strength through war, which translated into a metaphor means “I am proving that I alone can drive the planet’s bus” is just the opposite of what I hope for the world’s future - and not just ideologically but practically.
To keep up the metaphor, I do not believe that Bush “has the right driving license”, that he knows to drive the bus. Let him at least have his eyes examined and consult specialists! If the bus knocks Saddam down, causes other dead and then falls into the ravine while on board they are congratulating themselves for having done away with Saddam-Hitler, are we sure we shall be thrilled about it?

Translated by interpres sas