United for the Future

Vincenzo Giardina interviews Romano Prodi on Misna site front page; 9 June 2011

“We must cultivate the utopia of inter-African integration,” said former Italian prime minister and president of the EU Commission, Romano Prodi, in relation to his recently published study on behalf of the UN and the African Union (AU) on the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions south of the Sahara.

Next week in Washington, his Foundation for the Collaboration among Peoples is organizing a conference entitled “Africa 53 States – A Union. The new Challenges”. It is the second stage of a process that concludes next year in Addis Abeba, where the AU has its headquarters. From the war in Libya and the division of Sudan, says Prodi, the road is more difficult…

President, the idea of African integration as the sole road to development shall be discussed on June 15 and 16; meanwhile, the continent continues to divide…

“It’s true the continent is dividing. But it’s best to separate the problems. South Sudan’s independence from Khartoum is the conclusion of a very long process and it should not surprise us. At the same time, it is the sign of a continent where, rather than the search for unity, but even just the matter of closer inter-country collaboration is absolutely difficult. In Libya’s case, there are tensions and protests fueled by an authoritarian regime and the deep divisions between Tripolitania e Cyrenaica, which were separate provinces during the Italian colonial period. Moreover, for bad or for good, Muammar Khadafy has been a prolific material contributor to the African Union, which has been left with few means poor despite this help. In the future, the scarcity of financial resources shall create very serious problems for the AU. I have to concede, moreover, that many African states are diffident toward a string Union and they link their contribution to the transparency of accounts or political choices. Such factors make the goal of reaching continental integration focused in the AU and its weak regional organizations, more difficult”.

What Are the ‘New Challenges’ for the Continent?

“We see the difficulties, but let’s not lose faith in the plan to promote cooperation among African countries. It’s the only alternative to a continent from becoming the battlefield between opposing clans and the great powers. Either there is a dialogue that engages Europe, the USA, China and the AU or Beijing’s growing influence will clash with France’s resistance in francophone countries, with the UK in Anglophone countries and in the USA in the countries friendly with the countries of the Gulf of Guinea. Africans shall be so weak that they will only rely on external support, or worse, suffer penetration from the outside. Africa is the largest tank of energies and natural resources of the world soon to reach a population of nine billion inhabitants. Or we oblige the great powers to dialogue among themselves or we shall see an already played out scenario in the XXI century”.

Is there a risk for economic integration exclusive of political collaboration south of the Sahara?

“Economic integration implies political integration. To build regional infrastructure or to create a common market inter-governmental collaboration is necessary. African states remaining separate will be unable to confront the EU, China, or America. Should the former colonial powers adopt divide and rule policies there is no hope for Africa”.

From Ivory Coast to Libya, has the Au failed in its task to ensure peace?

“Of course it has failed! It’s like when we take power away from the UN and then complain that it doesn’t intervene. How can the AU not show its weakness? My suggestions about the transfer of resources for the AU peacekeeping missions were vetoed by France and the UK. We cannot cut an athlete’s legs and complain he doesn’t run. In Africa, when a conflict erupts, we typically use troops from various countries, often badly organized and uncoordinated; financing structures are lacking for the training of peacekeeping contingents”.

How do you evaluate Italy’s policy in the Libyan war? From the Friendship Treaty with Khadafy, we have moved to the promises of “huge sums of momney” to the insurgents in Benghazi.

“I will limit myself to two observations. Before the start of the NATO military intervention the opportunities for a non-conflict solution were not fully explored. Every day, then, I see continuous rolls: fierce faces promptly turn into indecisions or demonstrations of an opening. These contradictory aspects make me anxious”.

There have been rumors that you might play a role as an EU mediator for Libya. Is that a possibility?

“So far nobody has contacted me, not even in an exploratory phase. Then if the ministries of foreign affairs are offering such suggestions…”

While NATO aircraft bomb Tripoli, emerging powers like China, India and Brazil do business.

“India and China chase each other. New Delhi would like to resume the initiative for historic reasons, I think of the heavy presence of Indian migrants south of the Sahara. However, China’s quantitative dimension of activity is far superior as of today. Beijing has no doubt contributed to Africa’s macroeconomic development but not to the redistribution of income, that is to say justice. How much this is because of China or African governments is something to think about”.

And human rights?

“The promotion of human rights must be the fundamental factor of European policy. But when people die from hunger we must understand that there are dramatic needs which we must confront. As president of the EU Commission, I found myself often having to choose whether to cooperate with non-democratic governments. I chose to cooperate; boycotts that often hit those who are tyrannized are not a good policy”.

Prodi e altri 25 ex leader europei chiedono sanzioni contro Israele che non ferma gli insediamenti

Articolo di Maria Grazia Bruzzone su La Stampa del 11 dicembre 2010

In una lettera inviata a Governi e Istituzioni Ue criticano la politica israeliana e premono perché la Ue riconosca lo Stato di Palestina nei confini del 1967. Un aiuto a Obama.
La notizia rimbalza dal giornale israeliano (ma non filo-governativo) Ha’aretz al sito ufficiale iraniano Press.tv.ir ( le info per una volta coincidono).
Ce la conferma la portavoce del Professore, on. Sandra Zampa. Annunciando che nelle prossime ore la lettera dovrebbe figurare anche sul sito RomanoProdi.it, insieme al testo del documento inviato, ben più corposo.

Tra i firmatari, oltre a Prodi e Amato, 10 ex ministri e 2 ex commissari Ue fra cui l’alto rappresentante per la politica Estera comune Solana, l’ex cancelliere Schmidt, l’ex primo ministro spagnolo Gonzales e l’ex premier norvegese Stoltenberg l’ex presidente della Repubblica Federale tedesca von Weizsacker, l’ex presidente irlandese Robinson.

I firmatari chiedono misure forti contro Israele in risposta alla sua politica di insediamenti nei territori occupati e del suo rifiuto a sottostare alle leggi internazionali, racconta Ha’aretz

Il gruppo formula una serie di raccomandazioni, anche in vista dell’incontro di Londra nella prossima settimana.

Unendosi alla recente decisione dei governi di Brasile e Argentina di riconoscere uno Stato Palestinese libero e indipendente entro i confini del 1967.
Documento e lettera giungono mentre l’amministrazione Usa annuncia il fallimento dei negoziati con Israele sul congelamento degli insediamenti. Secondo Ha’aretz sarebbero personaggi chiave americani ad aver suggerito ai firmatari che la strada migliore per aiutare il presidente Obama nei suoi sforzi per promuovere la pace è far sì che politiche che contraddicono le posizioni Usa abbiano un costo per Israele (di qui la richiesta di sanzioni economiche).

I leader europei sostengono gli sforzi dei palestinesi di cercare un sostegno internazionale per il riconoscimento dello Stato Palestinese in alternativa a negoziati arrivati a una impasse. Osservano che i Palestinesi non possono essere in grado di arrivare ad avere uno Stato indipendente senza un aiuto internazionale, politico ed economico.
Il gruppo chiede dunque che la Ue (finora incerta) giochi un ruolo più efficace e attivo nei confronti degli Stati Uniti, Israele e altri Stati. E chiarisce che una decisione della Ue di approfondire i rapporti con Israele, così come altri accordi bilaterali saranno congelati fino a che Israele non sospende gli insediamenti in Cisdordania e a Gerusalemme Est.

Propongono inoltre che la Ue annunci che non accetterà modifiche ai confini del 1967 che Israele ha allargato in violazione a leggi internazionali e che lo Stato Palestinese dovrebbe coprire un’area della stessa estensione. E dovrebbe anche comprendere Gerusalemme Est come capitale.

Suggeriscono che la Ue sostenga solo eventuali modifiche minori, sulle quail siano d’accordo le due parti.

Foreword by Romano Prodi to the book ‘African miracle‘ by Riccardo Barlaam and Massimo di Nola  edited by Il Sole 24 Ore

Sorry, the foreword of this book is available in Italian only.

A big step towards fiscal federalism in Europe

By Romano Prodi published on Financial Times of May 20 2010

When the euro was born everyone knew that sooner or later a crisis would occur. It was inevitable that, for a such a bold and unprecedented project, in some countries (even the most virtuous ones), mistakes would be made and unforeseeable events occur. It was also clear that the stability and growth pact was – as I have said before – “stupid”, not because it was mistaken in its objectives, but because it was founded on purely mathematical parameters without any discretionary powers or political instruments to enforce it. Germany and France were the first countries to violate it, although not in a destabilising way: their finance ministers decided to ignore the objections of the European Commission (possibly because they were “too big to fail”).

Due to political difficulties it was not possible to protect the euro. I was warning years ago that, through no one’s fault in particular, extraordinary events could occur that would force joint co-ordination of fiscal policies. Then the Greek crisis arrived – serious in terms of the sins that caused it but easily solvable, considering the modest size of the country’s economy.

Yet swift action was lacking, which made it impossible to reach a quick agreement on fiscal discipline. Elections in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia delayed the realisation that the Greek crisis presented an opportunity to take the inevitable steps towards economic governance that were not possible when the euro was created. This implies new institutions or bodies to monitor the budgets of member states, enforce fiscal discipline and impose punishments for repeat offenders of budget discipline rules.

Many countries, however, are still not willing to entertain such a radical change to economic sovereignty, even though a possible crisis (not necessarily the Greek one) has been the subject of recurrent discussions in political and academic circles.

We are therefore at a crossroads. The only alternative to greater co-ordination of economic policies is dissolution of the euro. This would be a cataclysmic blow to the European project and, for Germany, particularly devastating. Despite the restructuring of the past decade, German economic competitiveness would be greatly reduced by currency devaluations in peripheral eurozone countries. As a consequence, its trade surplus would quickly dry up.

I pushed hard to get Italy into the eurozone to give my country the discipline it needed to end the string of currency devaluations that had left its economy fragile and undermined its public finances, despite the existence of a strong manufacturing sector.

I therefore consider the recent decisions made in Brussels as a very important step towards the gradual creation of a European fiscal federalism. Combining the resources of the eurozone countries and the Commission with those of the European Central Bank is a step beyond the stability and growth pact. In fact, creating bodies capable of preventative action and successful intervention would imply that the pact has been replaced by a more muscular co-ordination.

The biggest part of the new European stabilisation mechanism fund, worth €440bn ($540bn, £380bn), consists of national funds from the 16 eurozone countries, and is limited to three years. But we all know how difficult it is to withdraw from such an obligation.

Even though political divisions and delays in decision-making have profoundly weakened the euro and triggered market turmoil, the decision to underpin the euro with mutual financial co-operation is a big step forward.

Uncertainty will continue because many operational aspects of implementing the decisions are quite broad in outline. However, the ECB, the Commission and most eurozone countries have been given stronger powers and more far-reaching tasks and responsibilities than in the past, and markets will take this into account.

Questions remain about how these powers will be put into effect, as countries face political turbulence, and in some cases civil unrest, in the face of austerity measures. Yet, even though this rescue came very late, at an extremely high cost, and with damage to Europe’s image, the ship of the European Union is now sailing in the right direction. The Brussels agreement has shown there is no viable alternative to the euro.

The writer is former Italian prime minister and was president of the European Commission, 1999-2004

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.

An UN peacekeeper in Darfur

Africa  at UN .

Sept 23rd 2009.

The African Problem will be at center stage when today, September 23rd, the UN Security Council, chaired by President Barack Obama, will meet with the ten major contributors of human resources to the UN peace keeping operations, to discuss the issue of peace keeping in the world.

African wars in fact take up over 70% of all the resources dedicated by the United Nations to Peace Keeping operations and there has been no peace for decades in many parts of  the continent. From the Horn to the Great Lakes to West Africa conflict is endemic. The cost is staggering. Millions of people have been killed  billions of dollars that have been spent. Associated problems such as poor infrastructure, environmental threats, displacement, diseases, mean that the aftermath of conflict is more damaging and long lasting than the conflict itself. Though military capability may be part of any potential solution, peace on the African continent cannot be achieved only through the deployment of military forces. Measures such as early warning, conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction should be part of Peacekeeping Capacity.

The UN Security Council surely has full responsibility for keeping peace and security, and UN peacekeeping has undergone an exponential increase since the early 1990s.

However it is becoming more and more clear that these crucial objectives cannot be achieved without a much deeper involvement of African Institutions, such as the African Union and the Regional Organisations which can take care of wars spreading beyond national borders which have been drawn with no care for tribal, ethnical or religious realities.

A significant amount of synergy to be achieved by drawing on the respective capacities of these organisations, but  the African Union has recognised the need to develop its own capacity to respond to crises on the continent.

I believe it is extremely important to create the conditions for increasing the participation of the AU in the decision making process and execution of peace operations on the African continent and to bolster through financing it a ‘peacekeeping capacity’ so to  transfer, eventually ,  responsibility and ownership of the operations to AU.

But, up to now, important countries such as France and UK have opposed  the empowerment of the African Union to take care of African Peace. 

The assumption is that the Africans have not the capacity to do it and, throwing money to the problem, would not help to solve it. 

This is right , in principle, but does not consider that without doing something concrete, visible and with a long term perspective, we end up in the ‘chicken or egg syndrome’ and nothing will ever change.

But something new is coming.

The panel I chaired on Peace Keeping in Africa proposed, among other recommendations, a ‘Long Term Multidonor Trust Fund’, specifically designed for  African Union Capacity Building.

The report of the United Nations Secretary General to be released the 23rd  emphasizes the relevance of a strong strategic partnership between AU and UN.

It is very likely that President Obama will support these steps and as he said in his recent speeches on Africa, he will be strongly against policies which might even bring to memory some colonial culture. Policies which not only are very dangerous  for peace in Africa, but have effect going well beyond the issue of peace keeping . 

The same who oppose the idea of a strong AU are those who privilege bilateral relations with those African countries where old ties exist. This bilateralism is preventing the creation of markets large enough to foster a significant economic growth. The internal trade in Africa is very low and projects for infrastructures at the continental level for transportation, energy and communication are totally insufficient. Also China, which is present in Africa all over, following a well visible continental policy, deals with the African Countries one by one and does not help their integration in a larger reality.

Rather then blaming the Chinese for their ‘exploitation’ of natural resources we should try to find with them a common policy toward the continent, aiming to a strengthening of the role and of the power of the African Union and to define long term strategies at the continental level, respectful of all the local ethnical, religious and tribal realities.

Economic support and assistance to those who are more in need are surely very important, but from peace keeping to diffusion of democracy and economic development a new integrated African Policy is badly and urgently needed.

Romano Prodi

Chairman of the UN-AU Panel for Peacekeeping in Africa

Former President of the European Commission and Italian Prime Minister

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.

[lang_en]

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafshanjani

Friday’  speech of Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has paved the way to a new hope for real democracy in Iran.

‘All of us, the establishment, the security forces, police, parliament, and even protesters, should move within the framework of law’ he said. ‘We should open the doors to debate. We should not keep so many people in prison. We should free them to take care of their families’…’All Iranians need to restore public confidence , because it was badly damaged..’

As President of a Foundation which pursues continuos and robust dialogue as the only tool to solve social conflicts, I fully support this position.

In Iran the Media should be allowed to criticize the establishment.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of press are pillars of democracy, and with no criticism there is no room for dialogue, and hence for peace.

Romano Prodi[/lang_en]