Great Europe

Without indulging in overestimations of Italy, witnessing the positive results of its European commitment is a reason for collective pride. I want to stress two aspects of that.
While the Union is setting out to expand almost to the size of the whole continent, one asks of the six countries that in 1957 constituted the first core of the Community a conjoint recapture of the original spirit. To complain about special Franco-German agreements – actual or feared - is irrelevant and can give rise to negative consequences. The spirit of Messina (let us remember Gaetano Martino and his efforts) excluded any preferential axis; nor was against other countries, starting with Great Britain which at that moment gave no sign of possible adherence. The remedy to the historic clash between Paris and Berlin lay in solidarity between the two countries, joined by Italy and the three Benelux countries with their characteristics of northern European link. The Community of coal and steel had been the great premise of this profoundly new policy.
In forty-six years there has been development beyond the most sanguine forecasts, never endangered by the not infrequent appearance of so-called Euro-skepticism. The current moment is of enormous appointment as a chance to give the expanded range a global content that goes beyond the statutory norms and the protocols of aggregation.
It has been stressed even abroad that the six-month periods of Italian presidency have never been mere business as usual. And three successes are particularly worth recalling: the unblocking of the inclusion of Spain and Portugal; the launching of the historic decision in Luxemburg; and finally the Council of Rome that shaped the decisions of Maastricht.
But there is a further memory to underline. Anticipating history, Italy set up a referendum to give constituent powers to the imminent legislature of the European Parliament. Because Italy was alone the initiative did not become legally operational (only Belgium adopted it, but without seeing it through). But it did represent the culturally also,the launching of a homologisation that belied all the myths about the impossibility of getting beyond the Europe of the Nations, of the Gaullist sort and of British tradition. People went on repeating that the differences between the internal arrangements of the individual countries made the idea of unified constitutional discipline unfeasible. But that by now is European archeology.
It is now up to Italy to steer the intergovernmental Conference that must give operational concreteness to the intelligent work of the Convention chaired with ability and passion by its president Giscard d’Estaing, who received valid Italian cooperation.
To hope that the document Giscard solemnly delivered to President Ciampi is approved without changes is not a choice motivated by the sacredness of the norms laid out. Even if I don’t share the definition of politics once given by Luigi Luzzatti («equitable distribution of dissatisfaction»), in this case the agreed model is not to the entire satisfaction of any country but it doesn’t contain norms that would justify the intransigent reaction of one or more countries.
I have never myself in the past shared abhorrence of unanimous voting; and in fact a workable agreement has always been found at the right moment. But I do believe the time is ripe and that it is necessary to go beyond the right of veto, as wisely stipulated in Giscard’s document.
By opening – more quickly than even the most optimistic hoped – to the old nations and former political enemies of Eastern Europe, the Union achieves a new equilibrium and reinforces the ways of harmony and peace. It will be a complex effort and not without its difficult moments, but the path is marked out.
In parallel the widening of Nato is ongoing, a modus vivendi having been found in discussion with the Russian Federation and in setting up an operational relationship with Moscow. I leave aside here the need to work out the norms for updating the Treaty in a legally valid fashion; and also the definition of the basic objective since it is impossible to conceive of a defensive military alliance without identifying what it is one needs to beware of. It is right to label as the specter of terrorism, but more clarity and precision are necessary to avoid facile attributions of villainy right and left.
I also don’t want to neglect a parallel international body, so to speak, that had its origins in Helsinki in 1975 (the European Organization) and that was solemnly consecrated in the Treaty of Paris in 1990. Among other things it is a working model of the link between Europe and the United States of America and Canada. How useful this link is doesn’t need to be stressed at a time when the so-called inter-Atlantic relations have all but foundered.
And I can’t indeed fail to mention here the disagreements that have arisen about the mention of the Christian origins of European sodality.
It seems to me, however, that leaving aside any difference in views and inspirations, the text we have before us carries a date in its front: 2003, year of the Lord. It’s not everything, but let us start by giving importance to this fundamental point of reference to Jesus.