INTERVIEW WITH ALFREDO MANTICA
ITALIAN UNDERSECRETARY OF
STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

ITALIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

March 9, 2003

Q. Are the positions of the two fronts within the UN really irreconcilable?

A. It is of vital importance to give a time limit, a deadline to the activity of the inspectors, an issue with which the French are not in agreement. Furthermore, the German Minister of Internal Affairs on Friday stated the need to increase the number of inspectors, demonstrating that France, Germany and Russia are not correctly interpreting UN resolution 1441, nor the previous resolutions.

Q. In what way?

A.All of the resolutions state that it is Saddam Hussein who must demonstrate the destruction of the chemical and bacteriological weapons he had in 1991, not the contrary.

Q. Is it a worrying position?

A. Yes, because not only does it destroy the credibility of the UN, it also makes reaching a united European Union standpoint difficult.

Q. How can the current situation be seen in the broader European context?

A. The efforts required to reach the famous common document on 17 February, thanks in part to the endeavour of the Italian government, was all in vain following the new stance taken by France and Germany which once again undermined European unity. The agreement reached with Russia was neither communicated to, agreed with nor evaluated by the European allies.

Q. But it did not come as a complete surprise

A.It is a policy choice which I would define as “traditionally French. Already in the past France has withdrawn from NATO and made this one of its strengths. Furthermore, with its conduct France has often weakened the possibility of building a European army and of offering Europe the opportunity of having its own defence policy and its own military structure.

Q. What is the role of Italy today?

A. We continue to act in the hope of finding some middle ground, even though after the standpoints adopted on Friday the fear of the possible use of the right of veto has been strengthened. And that would mean the vertical division of the Security Council. A huge task is in front of us in the next few days in the attempt to reconstruct unity and find a solution.

Q. Could you define the current situation within the Security Council?

A. I think the most important question for both sides at the moment is to understand how the Council will vote. Five countries will vote no (France, Germany, China, Russia and Syria) and four yes (England, USA, Spain and Bulgaria). There is still uncertainty surrounding the three African countries (Angola, Cameroon and Guinea) as well as Chile, Pakistan and Mexico. Clearly the decisions of the undecided countries will be decisive for the entire future development of the crisis. It is one thing if the US intervenes with ten votes in favour and five against, quite another in the opposite situation.

Q. What is your opinion of the initiatives of the so-called dissenters which are taking place in Italy?

A. There is a strong peace movement which has a deep-rooted legitimacy. However, when the actions of dissenters take on an illegal nature, such as the blocking of trains, we move out of what is a civil and democratic protest. The movement of public opinion has a sense, whereas the conduct of the various don Vitalianos and Agnolettos represent folklore, let's call it that, which certainly doesn't contribute to bringing peace any closer and which above all doesn't explain the real and profound reasons for the political debate currently being carried out.

Q. And what are those reasons?

A. It must be understood that after this incident, however it finishes, a confrontation will undoubtedly take place regarding just what is the European Union and how does the UN function. We are at a turning point in history, and that is why don Vitaliano and friends are beyond the limits of logic and history.

Q. What is the next step?

A. To work towards better defining the tasks of the inspectors and to set reasonable deadlines, measured in weeks and not more. Above all, however, everybody needs to be reminded that it is Saddam Hussein who has the onus of proof, and not the inspectors who have to search for barrels of anthrax and nerve gas in the desert.