Valentina Pasquali

Washington D.C. – In anticipation of the G20 meeting that will take place in London on April 2^nd and of the EU-US Summit that will be held in Prague on April 5^th, Alexander Vondra, the Czech Republic Deputy Prime Minister, visited Washington and outlined key items on the agenda of the Czechs, who currently hold the rotating presidency of the European Union. Emphasizing the fundamental role of the historic alliance between the United States and European countries, Vondra stressed the desire to strengthen cooperation, in particular in areas that the Czech Republic deems as priorities, namely security, climate change and energy, and the global economic crisis. These remarks were given just a day prior to the vote of no-confidence that caused the Czech government to fall on Wednesday. The country’s Prime Minister said he would resign. It is unclear how this unexpected development will affect the Czech agenda for the EU presidency.

“The November 4 elections provided space for the rejuvenation of EU-US relations,” said Vondra speaking at Johns Hopkins University. This opportunity to refresh bilateral relations should not be missed for any reason because, in the end, “the US and the EU are stronger together, especially in times of crisis,” Vondra said. The Czech Republic views the transatlantic relationship as a priority, he promised, reminding the audience that his country has been “one of the staunchest allies of the United States for the last twenty years.”

In the field of security, the EU-US alliance must be viewed as the relevant tool for addressing threats to international peace, primarily Afghanistan and Iran. “I have no illusion on Afghanistan, it is a very difficult challenge,” Vondra admitted. He explained that the EU is focused on approaching the issue with “dedication and realism” and with the goal of getting the Afghans ready to govern themselves. U.S. President Barack Obama took a first step by promising a ‘surge’ of troops to be deployed in Afghanistan and Vondra acknowledged that it is now the Europeans’ turn to act. It is thought that member countries will deploy more police force with the aim of training their Afghan counterpart, rather than increasing the number of soldiers on the ground. According to Vondra, Europeans are also determined to focus more on the development side of things, working to strengthen the military-civilian partnership initiated with the establishment of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Overall, he argued that it will be important to “try to agree on a comprehensive EU-US strategy for the next three-to-five years.” According to Vondra, this comprehensive strategy will need to include a regional component and to include Pakistan as a key part of the equation.

Iran is, in Vondra’s opinion, the other outstanding challenge the international community is currently facing. “Obama decided to engage Iran. It is a commendable effort and we hope it will bring change,” Vondra said. The fact remains, he continued, that Iran is developing nuclear and ballistic programs, and the whole of Europe could be within reach of its missiles. Hence, the EU and the US will need to coordinate and find common ways to change Iran’s more suspicious behaviors.

Energy security also became a particularly hot issue in Europe recently, when Russia cut gas supplies traveling via Ukraine, Vondra recalled. Certain countries, especially Slovakia and Bulgaria, were harshly hit. Others, shielded from more immediate consequences, continued to view the problem as an intellectually challenging geopolitical issue. For this reason, Vondra regretted that EU members failed to reach quickly a coordinated policy, while the dispute between Moscow and Kiev went on earlier this year. But things have changed and the 27 member countries have come closer together on the issue, establishing, for example, a 5 billion Euros fund for energy that was just appropriated. Programs that will receive funding are in the fields of energy efficiency, alternative energy and planning for improved EU-wide mechanisms to respond to energy crisis. The biggest challenges, according to Vondra, remain the diversification of suppliers and supply routes.

Alexander Vondra also stated that the Czech Republic’s Presidency of the EU values a proactive agenda on climate change, in preparation for the Copenhagen Summit that will be held at the end of the year. “It will be difficult to set ambitious goals in a time of crisis,” Vondra acknowledged, “but it is key that the US joins the EU on this issue,” he argued, lamenting that the openings coming from the new US administration have been significant and yet not sufficiently substantive.

Last, but certainly not least, Vondra tackled the economic crisis sweeping through Europe and the rest of the world. He insisted that “any kind of protectionism should be avoided.” Admittedly, the EU Council just survived a hard-fought battle to come to such agreement, even just internally. But finally, Vondra noted, it succeeded. “Now we should strive to impose the same principle globally, and particularly in the realm of EU-US relationships.” Responding to President Obama’s calls to the EU — Obama pressed member countries to approve additional fiscal stimulus measures — Vondra noted that the EU already spent 3% of its GDP, approximately 400 billion Euros, to help the recovery. “Additional stimuli are unlikely at this point,” he declared. The finance ministries of EU member countries, Vondra explained, are tied to stricter limits on spending than the U.S. Treasury. In particular, the EU Central Bank’s focus is on monetary stability and on avoiding inflation, while the U.S. Federal Reserve prioritizes growth. Furthermore, in Vondra’s opinion fiscal stimuli only work in conjunction with programs meant to unblock the credit markets. For those member countries that are plagued with bad assets, Vondra asserted that “a clean-up operation is the priority.” In this sense, he welcomed the announcement made the day before by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the proposed Public-Private Investment Program that should help free troubled banks of their most toxic assets. Vondra added that the international community will have to upgrade regulations, especially with regard to rating agencies and hedge funds.

In the Q&A session, Vondra quickly touched upon a few other contentious issues, but rather superficially. He confessed to being disappointed about the current lack of focus on human rights and democracy of the EU, while insisting that human rights in particular remain the basis of the EU policy on enlargement to the east, especially in the case of Belarus. Vondra also admitted to a certain “enlargement fatigue in Europe,” but said that EU officials are doing their best to keep the process moving, albeit far more slowly than it was five or six years ago. Asked about whether or not the EU had formulated a new policy on the practice of rendition – transferring foreign suspects to third countries with looser regulations on torture so that they can be interrogated or detained more easily – Vondra said that the EU is awaiting the comprehensive review being conducted by officials of the Obama Administration. “It is important to have this issue on the agenda, but discussions are only at the initial stage,” Vondra said.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

On February 23rd, Italy’s Foreign Minister Franco Frattini publicly stated that his government is considering the possibility of inviting Iran to a Group of Eight’s (G8) ministerial conference scheduled for June in Trieste. The meeting, which falls under Italy’s G8 presidency, will focus on the stabilization of Afghanistan and Central Asia. Washington Prism talked with Maurizio Massari, head of the policy-planning unit at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, about this Italian overture toward Iran.

Washington Prism: Italy’s invitation to Iran was driven by what considerations in particular? What does Italy believe can be achieved in the relations with Iran?

Maurizio Massari (MM): I wouldn’t call it so much an invitation, but rather a hypothesis for collaborative work. Our goal is the stabilization of Afghanistan and the region. We want to see whether Iran can, and is willing to, contribute to this goal. It has nothing to do with the nuclear issue, on which the standards put forward thus far still stand.

WP: Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has maintained a hard line on Iran up until now. How shall we understand this initiative of the Italian Foreign Ministry? Is this a signal that the Italian Government is ready to change approach?

MM: The hard line on the nuclear issue and international sanctions stands and it remains the approach of our government.

WP: Have there been consultations between the Italian Government and the U.S. Government, or those of the other members of the European Union, before the invitation to Trieste was officially extended to Iran?

MM: As far as Iran’s potential involvement in the stabilization process in Afghanistan and the region we are consulting with our American, European and Arab allies. It is not a unilateral initiative, rather we are trying to gather overall consensus on it.

WP: What is the Italian Government’s position as far as economic sanctions on Iran? What will Italy’s approach be over the course of the next few months?

MM: Italy will act in accordance to the decisions made between the EU and the U.S. If, within the framework of ‘bigger sticks, bigger carrots’, new sanctions will be imposed, we will also adopt them.

WP: Beyond Afghanistan, do you see other areas in which Italy thinks a positive dialogue and collaboration with Iran can be created?

MM: I think the Persian Gulf and Iraq, after U.S. troops withdraw, can become areas where we can test Iranian behavior and intentions.

Originally written and reported for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – The Bush Administration announced on Wednesday that it will send Ambassador William Burns, Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs and the White House specialist on Iran, as an observer to the talks that will take place between Iranian officials and the representatives of the P5 plus 1 (the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 19^th. Moreover, on Thursday, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that the US Government plans to return its diplomats to Iran for the first time since the Islamic Revolution and that it might staff a US interest section at the Swiss Embassy in Tehran beginning next month.

In order to continue promoting dialogue, the Stimson Center in Washington D.C. hosted Wednesday an event organized by the Stanley Foundation, bringing to the US capital two European experts, Riccardo Redaelli of Italy and Anoush Ehteshami of Great Britain. They outlined the European argument in favor of engagement with Iran and advocated the need for Washington to open up a diplomatic channel with Teheran.

Director of the Middle East program at the Landau Network – Istituto Volta, a think tank based outside of Milan, Mr. Redaelli emphasized the complexities of the Iranian constitutional, political and cultural systems, and argued the need for an elaborate policy in dealing with Teheran. Although the Iranian political elite appears to be fragmented and as having contradictory goals, especially as it tries to integrate an agenda for the promotion of a pan-Islamist ideal, while protecting its own identity as a Shiite Persian state and trying to secure its strategic national interest, it certainly doesn’t have “suicidal tendencies.” The main goal of the leadership in Teheran is, Redaelli said, “to guarantee the survival of the regime and as such it should be viewed as quite rational.”

A Western tendency toward the demonization of Iran is, according to the Italian researcher, at the roots of dangerous misinterpretations of the Islamic Republic. Western observers often over-simplify the Iranian political system and lack a real understanding of the delicate dynamics at play between the elected and un-elected institutions in Teheran. Furthermore, Mr. Redaelli believes that the labels normally used to explain the politics of Iran, such as the reformists, the pragmatists, the conservatives, fail to grasp the true essence of the regime and instead “they are very useful only not to understand Iran,” Mr. Redaelli said on Wednesday.

As a result of these misunderstandings, those in Iran who have always opposed engagement with the West are succeeding in what Redaelli called “the securization of all aspects of Iran’s foreign policy.” Teheran’s paranoia with its own isolation has become an important driver of its decision-making process. President Ahmadinejad has risen and held on to power, despite a fairly poor performance, thanks to the people’s fears. “He is able to exploit the atmosphere of isolation we have created,” highlighted Professor Anoush Ehteshami, Director of the Department of Political Sciences and International Affairs at the University of Durham in the United Kingdom.

“This is the time to speak to Iran,” Riccardo Redaelli advocated at the Stimson Center. It is precisely in a time of troubles that diplomacy becomes the most useful tool. After all, the other various policy alternatives have been already tried out at some point, echoed Mr. Ehteshami; “Washington first decided to ignore Iran, but that didn’t work, then it tried containment but in the long run containment ended up turning against Washington,” he continued. “Confrontation has been in the mix for a while,” he added, noting that preparing for a conflict would be too long and too costly for both Iran and the United States. “Overtime the policy options have been reduced to no-policy at all,” Mr. Ehteshami pointed out, concluding that engagement is the only alternative left.

Despite an apparent willingness on all sides to try talking to one another, deep mistrust remains and the moment where a “grand bargain” could be discussed hasn’t yet been reached. The parties should focus on developing a minimal agenda of a limited set of issues with the goal of building mutual trust, a plan which Mr. Redaelli called “selective engagement.” Among the areas that could be approached, he suggested the fight against drug smuggling from Central Asia, on which Teheran has already proved willing to cooperate, and the opening of a US consulate in Iran to ease and quicken the processing of visa applications. Finally, it is important that an agenda of regime change is taken off the table by Washington; otherwise the Iranians will never agree to talk. “If you want to engage them, they might be interested, but if you want to keep them in a corner until their current political system crumbles, they won’t accept that,” Mr. Redaelli warned.

Despite the opening on the part of the US Administration and the EU continued support for negotiations, Congress maintains an aggressive posture, focusing on an agenda of punitive measures. On July 15^th, Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Shelby (R-AL) announced that they will introduce a bipartisan proposal for the expansion of the Iran Sanctions Act, entitled the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008. Simultaneously Congress is considering the draft of a resolution that would empower the Administration to enforce sanctions at all costs, a measure that many believe could lead to war with Iran. H. Con. Res. 362 e S. Res. 580, respectively at the House and the Senate, grant the Executive the authority to pursue the isolation of Iran via a naval blockade, which in military terms is considered an act of war.

“Not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis did President Kennedy order a naval blockade against the Soviets. Instead he called it ‘naval quarantine’ to try avoiding war,” Doctor Lawrence Korb told Washington Prism in a phone interview on Wednesday. Dr. Korb is former Assistant Secretary of Defense, now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and one of the three co-signatories of a letter urging lawmakers to abandon the resolution. Dr. Korb, with retired Navy Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan and retired Army Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Nuclear Nonproliferation, wrote that the resolution “clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran.”

Dr. Korb believes that the resolution is a way for Congress to protect itself from potential criticisms of being too soft on Iran, in case anything tragic happens. “It’s their way of saying to the Executive: ‘we gave you all the authority you need so, from here on, Iran is your responsibility.” Despite the noise that H. Con. Res. 362 and its sister Senate draft S. Res. 580 have created, it is unlikely that the resolution will clear the floor any time soon, “unless its language is significantly changed,” Dr. Korb told Washington Prism.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism – Persian Edition

Cristian Vaccari is a researcher at the University of Bologna where he works on political communication, campaign strategies and information technology in Italy and abroad. He is an expert on the Italian and the American campaigning traditions. In 2004 he was a scholar-in-residence at American University where he observed that year’s Presidential Campaign with the purpose of analyzing the work of campaign strategists. He has been studying similar issues for almost a decade. Valentina Pasquali interviewed Cristian last week, with regard to the Italian elections and the campaigns that preceded the vote of April 13^th and 14th, which saw the victory of media mogul and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Valentina Pasquali: What do you think are the major differences between campaigns in Italy and the United States?

Cristian Vaccari: Campaigns in the US are mostly centered on the candidates, while those in Italy, from an organizational standpoint, are still directly linked to the parties, like it is in the rest of Europe. In the end, the activities that are carried out for campaigning purposes are similar, but in Italy field operations are still managed directly by the parties, and it’s party members who design communication strategies, media relations, and the creation of websites.

In Italy there has always been a strong tradition of bottom-up mobilization, but starting in 1994, TV has come to play an increasingly central role and as a result parties have partially let go of their field operations. Nevertheless, research show that interpersonal communication still has a significant impact on voting decisions. Anyone who underestimates the power of face-to-face interaction does so at his/her own risk.

Another difference, between US and Italian campaigns is that in Italy TV ads cannot be used, whereas the represent one of the most important tools of American campaigns (a law named “par condicio” theoretically requires similar exposure for all parties on the ballot and is meant to prevent any single one from “buying” the vote by airing more ads than the opponents. However, there are many ways in which the “par condicio” is circumvented). Nevertheless, because political journalism in Italy is far less challenging of power than that American journalism, despite straight-out ads being forbidden, many candidates end up talking endlessly to the cameras when they are interviewed by journalists.

Finally, in Italy, we still haven’t witnessed the emergence of serious innovations in the field of information technology: candidates’ websites exist, but they haven’t yet become an important piece political information and of political participation by the masses.

VP: How does campaign financing in Italy work? Who pays for what?

CV: Despite a referendum in 1993 abolished public financing, money still comes to parties from the State, (especially in the form of reimbursements for running campaigns). Parties such as the Democratici di Sinistra (the Left-wing Democrats that have now integrated into the Democratic Party) and Rifondazione Comunista (one of the political formations that were created from the ashes of the Communist Party and that has now become part ofSinistra Arcobaleno or Left-wing Rainbow) still raise funds via membership. The same goes for Alleanza Nazionale (Berlusconi’s ally National Alliance). As far as Forza Italia is concerned, they mostly use the leader’s private wealth.

In Italy there are no particularly strict limits to private financing of parties, and as a result companies and interest groups can donate even large sums of money.

Finally the transparency of the financing system is far inferior to that in the United States.

VP: What is your opinion on the political activism and inclination to volunteering of the Italian people? Who mobilizes and for what causes?

CV: The number of people that actively does campaign work is relatively limited and normally these are the same people that are already a member of a party or of non-profit organizations and civic associations. Italians are not a particularly active people, especially since the time when mass parties and their field operations began weakening. The culture of civic participation in Italy has never been strong. However, there exit groups of militants or sympathizers that might mobilize on a part-time basis, and only following special events or causes, not only the general elections, but also for example the primaries, an experiment that has just been launched and that since its inception has had a notable success. Nevertheless, this current campaign doesn’t seem to have been particularly active, like it happened in 2006. This is probably the result of the fact that most of campaign communication now excessively relies on TV.

VP: Do you think campaign strategies have changed in Italy in the last 10-20 years? If so, how?

CV: It’s changed in the sense that TV has come to play an increasingly central role, it has become unavoidable and it has substituted more traditional networks of communication, which used to be directly managed by parties and unions.

Things haven’t changed much as far as the attention that campaigns pay to the citizens. Politics seems to remain unaware of the need to keep communication with voters going even in non-electoral times and of the importance of listening and understanding the needs of the public and not of simply “selling” voters a pre-packaged product.

Moreover, the overwhelming role of Television in politics has come to create a need for a renewed effort towards direct and active participation of the citizenry in politics and of a dialogue between politicians and voters. Unfortunately there are no signs of developments in this direction, certainly a cause of the legitimacy crisis of parties and institutions.

VP: What do you think have been the main engines of change and whom do you believe Italian political strategists have looked to for inspiration?

CV: Berlusconi’s first victory in 1994 taught everyone that it is fundamental to turn to tools such as news management, polls, focus groups, and image-building strategies, ideas taken, somewhat uncritically from the United States. However, political communication abroad does not solely rely on Television, there have been newer innovations; first among them the Internet. In Italy we have remained attached to patterns that in the US and in the UK were popular in the 1980s, at the time of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: this was a model based on a communication heavily centered on TV, on general broadcasting, on advertisements. Instead, both politics and enterprises, starting in the 1990’s have begun re-thinking this idea, but not Italian politics.

VP: Do you think Berlusconi has impacted campaign strategies in Italy? How?

CV: Apart from what I already said above, it is important to note that, the Italian left wing has an obsessive belief that Berlusconi’s success is solely due to the use of communication strategies and the media. They refuse to understand how his popularity is also a result of the appeal, for large sectors of the electorate, of his political agenda and personality. Some continue hoping that all copying Berlusconi’s techniques will suffice to win the next round of elections, or alternatively they are convinced that, if he keeps on winning, it’s only because he knows how to manage his presence on the media.

VP: What kind of an influence does American politics have on Italian campaigns?

CV: It is certainly viewed as a model to follow, partly because of a fascination for anything that’s foreign typical of the Italians. It’s a love-hate relation, where instances of admiration for the US alternate with warnings and cries that “this is not America!”. In general, people here ignore almost everything that would be important to know about the US political and media systems, as well as we have enormous difficulties in trying understanding the complexities of American society.

VP: In the end, Berlusconi won again the vote of April 13 and 14; what is, in your opinion, the secret of his success, as far as campaign strategy but also political project and personality?

CV: Honestly, I think this campaign has not shown, on the part of Berlusconi, any innovation worth noticing. I believe that the more reasonable interpretation of the results is not so much that “Italians want Berlusconi,” but that – in a system with two major parties and two prominent leaders, one of which representing the incumbent government and an approval rating of 20-30% – Italians more simply chose change, even though change meant Berlusconi and not something newer. It seems to me like your typical vote of protest: people decide to punish the last government and to go for the opposition.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – Amidst challenges posed by the process of enlargement, the ongoing ratification of a new reform treaty, and the desire to play a bigger role on the international stage, the Ambassadors of Germany, Portugal, and Slovenia to the United States gathered on Tuesday to discuss the past, present, and future of the European Union at a forum organized by the Elliott School of International Affairs of the George Washington University in Washington D.C.

The three countries have held successive presidencies of the Union starting with Germany in 2006. Germany, Portugal, and Slovenia are also the first member-states to agree on a joint 18-months long program that they outlined together at the beginning of Germany’s six-month term. “The coordination among successive presidencies,” Portuguese Ambassador Joao de Vallera explained, “is now officially included in the new reform treaty that is up for ratification. Our joint program,” he continued “was a voluntary and preliminary exercise to test such mechanism.” Dr. Klaus Sharioth, the German Ambassador, expressed full satisfaction with the process, which is now entering its third and final semester headed by the Slovenians. “This is a very successful experiment,” he told the audience, “and I’m sure that others will follow.”

Under the leadership of Portugal the European Council agreed in December 2007 on the text of a new reform treaty, known as the Lisbon Treaty, meant to be the successor of the Constitutional Treaty that was turned down by the member-states in 2005. Slovenia enters its presidency as the Treaty begins the journey that may lead to its ratification. If the process is successful the Lisbon Treaty may take full effect by January 2009.

Following the Forum at George Washington University, His Excellency Samuel Zbogar, the Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia to the United States, agreed to sit down with Washington Prism for an interview, outlining the Slovenian agenda for the presidency and addressing matters such as the treaty, further enlargement rounds, Turkey’s bid to accession, the status of Kosovo, and the European position vis à vis Iran.

“The difference between the old Constitutional and the new Lisbon treaty is that the latter has been softened in tones,” Ambassador Zbogar explained to us. “The Constitution part has been taken out so as to not imply that the European Union integrated into one country under one constitution. But other than this the two texts are similar,” he said.

Slovenia plans on focusing its presidency on the strengthening and development of the European Union on several levels. Internally, it promises to push forward the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. “The role of Slovenia as the chair of the EU now will be that of monitoring the ratification process as the treaty travels across the Union and of pushing it forward,” the Ambassador told us. As the head of the EU, Slovenia will also be tasked with overseeing the streamlining of the technical details that need to be sorted out to guarantee a smooth transition to the new system if the Treaty was to be ratified. “For example, the new treaty talks about the institution of a European foreign service,” Ambassador Zbogar explained. “But it doesn’t specify the ways in which this should take form. It is our role now to work out all of these details by the end of the year.”

The first new member-state to hold the Presidency of the European Union, Slovenia – which gained full membership status only in 2004 – is an adamant advocate for enlargement and has made it one of its top priorities. “Two dates, I think, are symbolic of Slovenia’s recent history. First is June 1991,” the Ambassador recalled speaking at the Forum. At the time Slovenia unilaterally declared independence from former Yugoslavia. The foreign ministers of the EU had to meet hastily to discuss the country’s future and the unsettling consequences that such event could potentially have on the rest of the continent. “Fast forward 17 years,” Samuel Zbogar continued, “and here we are holding the Presidency. This is why we are very passionate about the EU, because we recognize what big part it played in making Slovenia in what it is today.” It is because of its faith in the European dream that Slovenia intends, in the next six months, “not only to preserve but also to strengthen and further develop the EU.”

Because of its geographical, political and historical ties to the Balkan region, Slovenia looks eastward when searching for potential new members. Negotiations with Croatia are well underway, Ambassador Zbogar reported. Another group of countries is also eager to start accession talks, such as Macedonia, Bosnia, and Serbia. The case of Serbia is particularly important to the Slovenians and is among the priorities for the next six months. “We feel that the Serbians have suffered so much during these last fifteen years, with the war, the sanctions and the isolation,” Ambassador Zbogar told Washington Prism on Tuesday. Slovenia and Serbia maintain very close relationships, he explained, both economically and politically. Granted that Serbia will have to hand over former military chief Ratko Mladic to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Slovenia believes that talks with Belgrade should begin.

The question of Serbia brings up that equally delicate of Kosovo. A referendum is scheduled to take place in this southeast province to give the people the opportunity to decide whether they want independence. In all likelihood this is the choice that will be made and it will be up to the individual member-states of the EU to recognize the newly born country. “Our feeling is that most countries will go along with it,” Ambassador Zbogar says. “We Slovenians have a very close relationship with Kosovo, as well as with Serbia, and we’ve been hoping not to have to choose one or the other, but that they would come together finding a compromise that could suit both.” Unfortunately so far such solution hasn’t been found and Serbia does not look favorably to Kosovo’s upcoming referendum.

Although he did not say it explicitly, in talking to us the Slovenian Ambassador hinted at the fact that, if Serbia was promised a track of negotiations that could lead it into the European Union in the foreseeable future, and if simultaneously Kosovo subscribed to the European standards for human rights and pledged to provide minority rights within its border (minority meaning in this case the Serbians who reside within Kosovo), then a path to a peaceful solution could be found.

One of the thorniest issues of the enlargement process remains Turkey and its longstanding accession bid. “Slovenia believes that Turkey is an important bridge between Europe and the Muslim world,” Ambassador Samuel Zbogar told Washington Prism on Tuesday. “However one must be realistic,” he admitted. In fact, although there is an agreement among member-states that accession talks with Ankara should continue, public opinion in several European countries is still very opposed to granting membership to Turkey. “The European Union is an exclusive club and countries must fulfill certain requirements in order to join,” the Ambassador said. Specifically Turkey must prove willing to undertake profound reforms in the realms of the economy, democratic governance and human rights. Turkey must also come to accept and recognize Cyprus as a legitimate member of the European Union and end its blockade to Cypriote ships, which are now barred from docking into Turkish ports.

Slovenian Ambassador Samuel Zbogar concluded with a brief comment on the European position on Iran and the controversy surrounding the country’s uranium enrichment program. “The European Union is involved in negotiations with Iran,” Ambassador Zbogar noted. “However the EU is also supportive of the new wave of sanctions approved by the United Nations Security Council because it didn’t receive from Teheran the response to UN demands that it had hoped for.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism – Persian Edition

Washington D.C. – In April 2005 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from Germany became the new Pope of the Catholic Church with the name of Benedict XVI. Prior to his election Ratzinger had been a well-known Catholic theologian and he had often been viewed as a defender of traditional Catholic doctrine. Reaffirming these beliefs, a few decisions made recently under his papacy have some observers wondering if the Vatican has chosen to turn the clock back in time.

On July 7th official steps were taken towards re-adjusting the Church’s liturgy so as to accommodate the requests of traditionalist Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI decided to welcome the long-standing demands of the most conservative wing of devotes and eased the restrictions on the use of an older rite in Latin as the source of the Mass – restrictions which had been in place for forty years.

The prohibition to local priests to celebrate the traditional Mass in Latin unless specifically authorized to do so by their bishop came as one of the results of the Second Vatican Council, a round of reforms that was launched in 1962 under the papacy of Pope John XXIII and that marked a decade of transformations within the Catholic Church aimed at modernizing the internal hierarchies and the liturgy, but also the relationships that the Vatican entertained with other faiths.

Among the changes implemented, the Vatican II (another name for the Second Vatican Council) decided then to start promoting the incorporation of vernaculars (local languages) in the celebration of the Mass. This move was intended to encourage more participation on the part of the local communities and was aimed at reaching out to a larger number of people that did not understand Latin and might have been put off by its use.

The use of the Tridentine Rite – as the traditional Mass is known – was increasingly restricted in the following years and came to be an available option only in the case that the locals demanded it and after the bishop had granted official permission.

The changes sealed by the Vatican at the beginning of this past July reverse some of the changes implemented forty years ago and allow priests to celebrate the Mass in Latin once again without needing authorization.

The Vatican defends this decision as simply dealing with liturgical matters internal to the Catholic Church. Dr. Joseph Komonchak, Professor of Religious Studies at Catholic University of America in Washington DC, told Washington Prism; “I honestly believe that this decision only has value within the Catholic Church.” He said in a phone interview; “It is a step that was taken to reconcile with the Church those Catholics that have wondered off nostalgic of the older rite.”

“I doubt that the celebration of the Latin Liturgy will have any effect in the United States,” Mike Goggin of the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington says. “People here are not asking for it and most priests were educated after its introduction and are not really familiar with it,” the Assistant Director of the Washington DC-based organization tells Washington Prism in a phone interview. “Overall, if this decision by the Vatican brings more people back to church in places like Europe, as a Roman Catholic I think that this is all for the better,” Goggin continues.

However, this move by Pope Benedict XVI might bear significance that goes beyond the private theological workings of the Vatican. In fact, despite the efforts by the Church to reassure that no major change is underway, many constituencies are worried that the document signed by Benedict XVI on July 7th sends worrisome signals.

In particular the Jewish community was very critical of the adjustment of the liturgy.

Eric J. Greenberg, Director of Interfaith Policy at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), told Washington Prism: “ADL and the Jewish community are not concerned specifically with the Latin Mass. What concern us, instead, are the references made to the Jews that are part of the Latin liturgy.”

The most prominent problem is a verse about the conversion of the Jews that is present in the Good Friday prayer.

In a phone interview Greenberg said: “For the Jewish community this decision was eye-opening and upsetting. We had come to believe that the Vatican had finally dismissed the idea of converting the Jews, a mission that has created so much suffering and so many deaths for our people throughout the last 2000 years. To hear it again was traumatic.”

“I think the decision by the Pope was received in the worst possible light,” Dr. Komonchack replied. “The problem with the Jewish community can be easily dealt with by changing the texts of those specific prayers and I do believe that the Vatican is willing to take the right steps toward a solution.”

However many within the Jewish community do not seem convinced of the good intentions of the Vatican. Greenberg of ADL recalls in our phone conversation: “I personally was on the phone with colleagues of the Catholic Church since March and April, as the first news came out about the eventuality that this document would be released. It was no surprise to the Vatican, or to the Pope, that the prayer in question would have represented a problem. The surprise was that it was in the Pope’s power to delete the reference from the liturgy but he did not. This was a shock.”

The question that is at stake now is whether or not this decision must be interpreted as a signal that Benedict XVI is aiming at taking the Catholic Church down a new and more conservative path, disregarding the consequences that such choice could have on interfaith relations.

“I see no signs that this pope wants to go back on Vatican II. I do not believe that he is more conservative than his predecessor John Paul II,” Joseph Komonchack told us. “I simply feel that this issue has been exaggerated by all sides.”

However even among Roman Catholics there are some worries. Mike Goggin’s admits; “Personally I have some concerns. Although this is not a huge surprise since we have known the profile of this Pope for a long while before he became the Pope.”

In fact, Benedict XVI’s track record might suggest at least some caution.

In 2000, for example, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger authored a controversial document on inter-faith dialogue known as Dominus Iesus in which he made the argument that salvation can only come through the Catholic Church.

Following the July 7th decision Benedict XVI took another few controversial steps.

On July 10th he issued a statement from his vacation retreat in the Italian Alps saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church, and that the Protestant Churches are not. “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” said the document. The others “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they lack apostolic succession, meaning they cannot trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

Finally this past week the Pope met with Reverend Tadeusz Rydzyk, head of the Polish Radio Maryja that has become known for using its broadcasts as a way to express feelings considered anti-Semitic. Following the meeting, the Vatican immediately released a statement trying to distance itself from the actions of Reverend Rydzyk saying that the fact should not “imply any change in the well known position of the Holy See and the relations between Catholics and Jews.”

The intervention of the Vatican apparently did not come quickly enough to prevent reactions from representatives of other faiths. “These incidents together certainly create concerns within the Jewish Community and when they happen one after the other they certainly raise questions about what is going on, about how the Pope truly feels about Jewish and about where the Catholic Church his heading under his papacy,” Greenberg told Washington Prism.

Representatives of the Muslim community in Washington DC have been less vocal during this recent turmoil. “As far as the use of Latin I would bet that no Muslim would have a problem with it,” Mohamed Nimer, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – a leading advocacy organization in Washington DC-, said in a phone interview. “I think that they would feel like they really have no saying in such a matter.”

Nevertheless Benedict XVI has aroused Islamic discontent not too long ago. Specifically, a heated controversy was spurred by a lecture that the Pope gave in January 2006 at the University of Regensburg in Germany. Many were offended by the use of a quote by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in 1391 saying; “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

“After the incident in 2006 there have been conciliatory moves on the part of the Pope and this has quieted things down,” Nimer, Director of Research at CAIR, told Washington Prism. “However some questions remain as far as where this Pope stands on Vatican II, especially as far as the recognition that was officially given then to Islam and to other faiths.”

“Has the progress, the openness of the previous Pope been lost? Quite possibly so” Mike Goggin says on the phone, “especially as far as ecumenism.”

On the topic of Catholic-Muslim relations, CAIR will host a panel next Tuesday to discuss the current status of things. Two eminent guest speakers will attend to represent the two faiths. Father Francis Tiso, Associate Director for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America and former President of the Islamic Society of North America, will offer their views at an event that is part of the ongoing effort “to keep improving Catholic-Muslim relations in the US,” as Nimer told us.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – As Germany readies itself to assume the dual presidencies of the European Union and the G-8 on January 1, 2007, German officials have stressed increased multilateralism as the way forward in both roles.

Discussing Germany’s approved agenda for both groups at the German Embassy, officials with the German Foreign Ministry addressed the need to engage neighboring countries as well as those in Central Asia and the Middle East. Close to home, Berlin would like improved incentives for reform to be offered to neighboring countries that at present day have no short-term chance of gaining membership: Ukraine, Belarus and countries in Northern Africa. At the same time it is important to start giving countries in the Balkans some degree of hope on future admission to the EU, as a means to help preserve peace in the region.

Germany includes increasing a concerted international effort in Afghanistan on its agenda for both the EU and G8. Although not a major focus on the agenda, Central Asia will also have to be talked about. Acknowledging the progress made at the NATO conference that was held in Riga in November, where NATO Heads of State reiterated their commitment to the Afghanistan mission and also called for broader international engagement, the officials at the German Embassy in Washington D.C. expressed Berlin’s desire to bring the international community together to pursue further improvements.

Their plan follows the 2001 Petersburg Agreement which aimed at organizing an effort in the region with the joint participation of all players within the country and among its neighbors.
An official with the German Embassy said military action alone will not suffice. As such, Germany has supported interaction between military and civilian personnel in an effort based on reconstruction. This principle has already changed the concept of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) that were transformed from being purely security-focused to now combine this with attention towards development, mostly through the work of international and local NGOs.

German Embassy officials also stressed Berlin’s belief that Afghanistan has to be treated as a model case in the war against terrorism that the international community cannot afford to loose. If it fails to convince the Afghans that they are better off now that they were than under the Taliban then it will be very difficult out to carry out successfully the battle in other areas of the world.

While not a top EU priority, Germany also sees Central Asia as an area that is becoming increasingly important for the stability of the world; the greatest concern being the export of Islamic extremism from Saudi Arabia. But as the only EU country to have established embassies in all of the five countries in the region, Germany is showing commitment.
As Germany appeared eager to continue with its involvement in Afghanistan, officials at the Embassy made clear that Berlin’s view on Iraq is different. Germany was always opposed to military action and remains so to this day. Germany is willing to invest in the training of local personnel to aid the structural advancement of the country but it will not deploy any troops.

Stabilizing the Middle East remains among the top priorities of the German Presidency to the EU.  German officials emphasized the necessity recognizing the connectivity of the different conflicts across the region; from Israel-Palestine to Lebanon. Germany also supports the idea to return to the path laid out by the Road Map for peace and urges the international community to find a comprehensive strategy for the region. The Germans are not entirely pessimistic as they see both Hamas and Israel as ready to engage in negotiations. Their goal now will be a strong push for unified action by the EU and the United States.

Other multilateral goals include coordination of Germany’s EU agenda with the next two EU presidents, Portugal and Slovenia, to push forward with the idea of a more powerful team presidency and to work at a program that can cover 18 months instead of just six. Thomas Mirow, Germany’s Deputy Finance Minister, speaking to the press during his official visit to Washington D.C. in early December, called this “a milestone.” He said, “It is the first time that such an agreement is reached, with the three countries that will follow the Finland’s Presidency finding common denominators.”

On the table for future discussion is the 2005 failed Constitutional Treaty, future EU additions, and agreements with countries outside the EU. Though the negotiations over Turkey’s admission have stalled, the EU’s future assessments of Turkey’s progress will also be important to the German presidency.

The European Union Commission decided to slow talks with the country after its refusal to open its ports to Cypriots as required by customs treaty obligation. Germany is also determined to re-negotiate the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Russia. The idea of launching negotiations to review the current agreement regulating trade and other relations between the EU and Russia was recently discussed in Helsinki at the EU-Russia summit.

The two sides were prepared to begin talks about a wide-ranging deal to replace the decade-old PCA, but Poland’s vetoed the plan. The current plan, to expire next year, is set to be renewed automatically unless a new plan is signed. In the next six months Germany also plans to renew emphasis on issues of innovation and on an increased spending in Research and Development to improve a European economy that has been experiencing slow-growth.

Germans officials at the Embassy in Washington DC said that in the G8, as well as the EU, they will focus on the issues of energy and climate. Mirow said that the German G8 agenda includes a re-assessment of fiscal policy “as an instrument to promote energy efficiency and renewables.”

Germany will also seek the renewed cooperation of all major nations with a particular attention at re-engaging the United States after Kyoto. It is important to start thinking about the next plan and this time the international community cannot afford not to have an agreement. The German presidency will be pushing for a new accord, trying to cash in the growing environmental consciousness among the citizens of many countries. Although it is hard to predict how far it will be possible to go, the Germans seem determined, pursuing the only approach they deem feasible, that of increased multilateralism.

Economically, Berlin plans to use its presidency to address issues of global imbalances in trade and finance, such as the growing trade deficit of the EU, combined with slowed growth, and China’s excessive amount of foreign reserve. In order to give the European economy a fresh start, Germany also wants to put the emphasis on innovation, and not protectionism, as the means to save jobs and improve performances.

At the talk at the German Embassy, attention was dedicated to the idea of pushing for establishing stronger Rule of Law across the world. Through the institution of independent judiciaries and a guarantee of justice, the Germans believe, it is possible to facilitate the spread of democracy.

It is an approach that will find the interest and cooperation of Muslim countries as well, since the Koran puts great emphasis on the ideal of justice. An approach to international politics and democratization based on the Rule of Law, instead of on the establishment of elections, is viewed by Germany as a much wiser strategy.

For two reasons; first of all in a country that does not have rule of law, it is hard for democracy to emerge strongly and be long-lasting. Secondly, setting up elections that are usually meant to directly overturn the current leadership will not be welcomed by the local elites. With this, Angela Merkel’s Germany is making clear that on the topic of democratization it holds quite an opposing view to that of the United States under the Bush administration.

Finally, in response to the questions by journalists, officials at the German Embassy addressed the issues of nuclear energy and nuclear proliferation as it relates to the case of Iran. The Iranian Government, they said, has lost the confidence of the world. Now the widespread expectation is that Teheran will indeed go after the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium in an effort to develop its own nuclear weapons program. Germany believes that every country has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program but is convinced that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) represents one of the greatest problems of the future.

As a non-nuclear power by choice, Germany feels even more concerned. If Iran was to successfully pursue a nuclear weapon program, Syria might follow, Saudi Arabia, and many other after them.

Engagement and diplomacy remains, in the opinion of the Germans, the most effective approaches. Negotiations have worked in the past, but they can only succeed if the international community comes together.

If it is only the United States and the United Kingdom pushing for the halting of Iran’s nuclear pursuit, it is easy for Ahmadinejad to play the role of the anti-West and as such to gain strength. His position was quite weak, but he has already been able to strengthen it by simply standing up to the US.

The only possibility that exists to successfully address the crisis is to re-engage Russia and China. The problem with Russia, the Germans admit, is that there seem to be two factions within the country. A group is as concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons as Europe and the United States are. However, there exists also a strong energy constituency, one that is eager to do business with Teheran.

Up until now, the international community has found a responsive interlocutor in Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Although the relation of Europe with Russia is maybe not as good as it used to be, German officials say, this is the path that needs to be followed.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation appears to be very high on the German agenda for 2007, despite recognition that it is becoming an increasingly complicated issue and as such it is hard to predict where things will go in the future.

Overall, the emphasis of the programs for the dual Presidency of the European Union and the G8 that Germany will inaugurate on January 1st 2007 is one of renewed and strengthened multilateralism in all areas of international politics, international economy and international security, in what has been recently a widely shared approach throughout Europe.
Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – The European Union Commission released a report on the status of Turkey’s effort to become a member state on November 8th. The report was intended to evaluate the country’s progress in those areas, such as freedom of expression, where the EU demands reform. The assessment that emerged is not positive. Concerns remain on the persistence of torture, on the lack of freedom of religion, on the weakness of women’s and trade union rights, on civilian control over the military, and on the rights of the Kurdish population remain.
Another contentious issue is that surrounding Cyprus. The division of the island into two separate Greek and Turkish communities is one of the most controversial problems in the sixth enlargement round involving Turkey.

Ankara started its path towards EU accession in December 1999, officially becoming a candidate country at the Helsinki European Council. In December 2002, at the Copenhagen European Council, the process was taken one step further. It was then determined that ‘if the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the EU will open negotiations without delay’. Finally, on October 3rd 2005, the EU and Turkey officially entered accession negotiations.

The start of the talks built some hope that Turkey’s bid to become a member of the EU would force Ankara to find a solution for the Cyprus stalemate. The relationship, always controversial, turned increasingly sour in 2004 when, in a referendum, Greek Cypriots voted against a UN-sponsored plan to reunited the island while Turkish Cypriots accepted the so called Annan Plan. The dispute has remained deadlocked ever since.

Since then, the EU has failed to fulfill its pledge to restore trade links with Northern Cyprus and Turkey has been retaliating by denying access to Greek Cypriot ships into its ports. However, by doing so, Ankara is in violation of the agreement underlying the negotiations, which requires Turkey to ratify the protocol for the extension of the customs union. This entails that Turkey must open its ports and airports to all ships and planes registered in Cyprus.

There is a risk that the Greek Cypriot administration could veto Turkish membership and this would undermine any possibility for a reunification of Cyprus, even in the long-term.
Thus far Greece and Greek Cyprus have already offered resistance to the progress of the negotiations by blocking the opening of talks in new policy areas, such as enterprise and industry. Greek Cypriot spokesperson Christodoulos Pashiardis stated on October 12th that their aim was “not to accept the opening of any of the remaining 34 chapters concerning Turkey’s accession until the 8 of November 2006, when Turkey’s progress report is issued.”   Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister George Lillikas added “Cyprus cannot act as if nothing is happening in EU-Turkey relations at a time when Ankara refuses to meet its obligations towards the EU.”
Turkish Cyprus on its part demands the unconditional lifting of its isolation and specifically asks for the establishment of direct flights from and to the Turkish Cypriot airport of Ercan and the opening of the Famagusta port.  Turkish Cypriot Mehmet Ali Talat, speaking in Istanbul after wrapping up a visit to EU headquarters in Brussels, said that “an illegal state like the Republic of Cyprus” should not be allowed to poison Turkey-EU relations.
The Finnish presidency is currently working at a compromise that can unlock the standoff. It laid out a plan to ease trade between Cyprus and Turkey, as well as between the northern Turkish part of the island and the rest of the EU. Finnish President Tuomioja said that leaders from all sides had welcomed the new initiative.  “That is a good prospect, because I think it is in no one’s interest, not in any member state of the EU, or in Turkey’s interest, that we fail,” he stated.

Cyprus Ambassador to Washington Euripides Evriviades also agrees. He told Washington Prism in an interview; “all parties involved in the Cyprus question should have an interest in solving it because the continued division of the island breeds insecurity and instability. The reunification of Cypriot society and the Cypriot economy will benefit all Cypriots in their joint future as EU members.”

According to Reginald Dale, Senior Fellow on the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C., this is not entirely true. There are interests, both in Turkey and abroad, that are indeed opposed to the accession process. Many European citizens are concerned about Turkey’s size (it is estimated that by 2015 Turkey will overtake Germany as the most populous member), economic underdevelopment and identity as a Muslim country. These ever-present sentiments are growing stronger, due to the so called “enlargement fatigue”. Several member states feel that enlargement rounds have already gone too far and that the EU now needs time to solidify its new expanded borders.
On the Turkish side, opinion polls show that domestic support to the country’s accession to the Union has decreased significantly since the opening of the negotiations last year and it is now as low as 30%. “The closer Ankara gets to admission, the more people realize how difficult it will be for Turkey to implement EU rules.” Reginald Dale told Washington Prism in phone interview. Ankara entered the talks convinced that the Union too would have to compromise. “Instead the only compromise is how fast Turkey can meet EU demands and with what exceptions.”
As far as Cyprus is concerned, Ambassador Evriviades, despite expressing hopes that the contention can be solved successfully, makes the Cypriots’ position clear; “Unfortunately, Turkey continues to hold Cyprus as a hostage and relentlessly pursues a longstanding political objective of recognition of the secessionist entity by the international community and legitimizing the results of invasion and occupation.”
An unresolved Cyprus stalemate offers a spoiler that can play to the advantage of those in both parties opposed to a successful outcome of the negotiations. In fact, the EU Commission has talked of a possible “train wreck” in Turkey-EU relations over the Cyprus stalemate if no compromise is found.
The report of November 8th criticized the slowdown in the reform process and the failure by Turkey to meet treaty obligation.

Ambassador Evriviades in his interview with Washington Prism said; “The annual report of the European Commission on Turkey, clearly and in an objective manner, notes that Turkey has so far not implemented many of the European obligations it has agreed to undertake. A number of these involve Cyprus.”

He continues stating; “It is simply incompatible with the values of the European Union for Turkey to maintain an occupying force on territory of another member state and be responsible for human rights violations.”
The Commission has given Turkey a deadline to open its port to Cypriot ships. Unless Ankara does so by mid-December, it will face serious consequences. “Failure to implement its obligations in full will affect the overall progress in the negotiations,” the report says. “The Commission will make relevant recommendations ahead of the December European Council if Turkey has not fulfilled its obligations.”
Back in October, the President of the EU Commission José Manuel Barroso gave a very pessimistic outlook on the progress of negotiations with Ankara. He told the BBC: “We are concerned about Turkey because the pace of reforms is rather slow from our point of view. I believe it would be great to have Turkey if Turkey respects all the economic and political criteria. This is not yet the case. It is a country that comes from a different tradition. There are efforts in the right direction but nowadays there is news that is not encouraging in terms of them coming closer to us.”
“The prospects of Turkey becoming a member of the EU are much worse than they were a year ago when negotiations opened,” Reginald Dale told us.  The Cyprus issue is at the core of the deadlock. “I do not see a solution to the Cyprus issue in the immediate future,” the CSIS Fellow continued.
According to Dale, we should not only blame Turkey. The EU has its own responsibilities.  “Personally, I believe that the EU should have never admitted Cyprus before the Cyprus issue had been solved. By doing so, it lost its leverage with the Greek Cypriots.”
This does not mean the end of all hopes. “If you suspend the negotiations, at least for a while, it is not a fatal blow,” Reginald Dale believes. However, “the fact that the first problem that arises halts the whole process certainly does not set a very positive precedent.”

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – As you prepare for your next trip to Italy remember to put in your suitcase, along with roadmaps and book guides, Beppe Severgnini’s latest book – La Bella Figura, a Field Guide to the Italian Mind. Maps can help you find your way through the Italian winding roads and survive the country’s geography but they will not get you through the national psychology. This book will.

Beppe Severgnini is a columnist for Italy’s best known daily newspaper – Il Corriere della Sera. Since 1998, he has authored a daily column titled “Italians”. The column has since then grown into a forum and is among the most popular Italian websites, regularly featuring emails from Italians scattered all around the world. Severgnini is also a big soccer fan and a sportswriter for La Gazzetta dello Sport, Italy’s daily sports publication. In 1998 Beppe Severgnini spent one year in Washington DC, at the end of which he wrote a very successful book on his experience as an Italian in America. The book was translated into English with the title of Ciao America five years later and was welcomed by critics and public here as warmly as it had been in Italy, making the journalist well-known across the United States.

Ciao America was thought for Italians who wanted to have a taste, and possibly a good laugh, of what is like to be a foreigner in America. This newest work instead is all for the Americans, a look inside the hearts and minds of the Italians. It is a field guide for the lost tourist that does not understand why a red light in Italy is always so disputable or remains astounded by the looks he receives when ordering a cappuccino mid-afternoon. “After ten o’clock in the morning, it is unethical, and possibly even unlawful, to order one” Severgnini explains.

La Bella Figura has been an immediate success in the United States, judging by how it came to be ranked number 8 on the non-fiction bestseller list on the New York Times or by the number of cheerful people who attended the event that the Italian Institute of Culture organized at the Italian Embassy in Washington DC, in occasion of the writer’s American tour.

“Italy is not a nation”, Severgnini told an amused audience; “It is a collection”. Italians are 58 millions special cases, or so they feel. They all want to be treated as such, convinced that they have a hotline to the boss and the right to individually assess whether or not a law applies to them on a case by case basis. This explains why it is so difficult to be a politician in Italy. “Our leaders are like shepherds”, the author joked with the exhilarated crowd, “but they do not have sheep to take care of, they have cats instead”.  It also explains the disorganization that characterizes every aspect of Italian life, one that often scares foreigners on their first visit. But it is a controlled chaos that Italians seem to enjoy: “Controllers and controlled have an unspoken agreement,” Severgnini writes in his book; “You don’t change, we don’t change, and Italy doesn’t change, but we all complain that we can’t go on like this.”

Despite the confusion, Severgnini’s advice on Italy is a simple one; do not let yourself be frightened by the apparent state of anarchy.  In the midst of the chaos, Italians possess qualities that you would not expect and that you will certainly come to appreciate. They are the six Gs; Gusto (which means taste), Guts, Generosity, Gentleness, joy (which in Italian is spelt Gioia, with a G), and Genius. The Italian genius for enjoyment and pleasant living especially will certainly help make your visit to Italy unforgettable.

Originally reported and written for Washington Prism

Washington D.C. – Last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) held their annual meeting in Singapore, a gathering that witnessed a first step towards the reform of the governance structure of the IMF.

The 184 participating members approved a proposal to increase the quota shares of the four most under-represented countries on the organization’s Board of Directors: China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey. Quota shares, in IMF jargon, translates into increased voting power, as well as wider opportunities to borrow money from the Fund.

The week prior to the summit, IMF’s Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato, speaking at the Brookings Institution, a research center in Washington DC, said that the proposed reforms will “rectify the most extreme distortions in the representation”.

The plan for change was strongly backed by President George Bush. The reforms, however, have met with the suspicion of two sets of members.
European countries are concerned that the rebalancing of quota shares within the Board of Directors will benefit the four under-represented countries at their expenses. Germany and the Netherlands put forward an alternative formula for reform that would distribute voting rights based more on the openness of the states’ economy rather than on mere economic power.

German finance minister Peer Steinbruck said in an interview to Bloomberg news service, “The one-sided position of the US that a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should play the predominant role is not in line with our views”.

At the same time a host of developing nations also voiced doubts, although in the end chose to endorse the vote. The group of 24 countries – including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Peru, India, Venezuela, South Africa and Nigeria – issued a communiqué in Singapore saying that they welcomed the increases of quota shares for the four countries but that the package did not address “the fundamental issue of the under-representation of developing and low-income countries as groups.”

Such concerns are expected to be tackled in a second round of broader reforms of the IMF structure in a way that would recognize the growing weight of emerging nations. The G24 worries that this second phase is by no means guaranteed, as Brazil, India, Argentina and Egypt pointed out in a joint statement issued during the summit.
India, for its part, seems committed to try to take the two year reform plan on a more equitable path. Prior to the September 18th vote, New Delhi mobilized political dissent to try to stop the implementation of the reform as it was.

Now, after the vote has passed, it still intends to pursue a different strategy for further reform. India’s Finance Minister P. Chidambaram told in an interview to The Hindu that he was now “looking forward to all countries, including the G-7, agreeing to construct a formula based on relevant criteria and reflecting the economic strength of countries in the 21st Century.”
Johannes F. Linn, Director of the Wolfensohn Center at the Brookings Institution, and Colin I. Bradford, a Fellow at the think tank’s Global Economy and Development Program, recently co-authored an analysis of the reform plan in the Washington Post.
In their opinion, although the vote can be deemed as a first step towards making the IMF a more representative and legitimate body, “to truly repair what has become an ailing global financial institution, the members of the IMF should move forward quickly with the managing director’s longer term agenda and even go beyond it”.

The two analysts suggest an action program that would comprise of five steps. First the IMF should increase the “basic” quota allocations for all countries – independent of economic weight – in order to give the smallest and poorest members a greater share in voting and better access to finance. Second, criteria for the allocation of “shares” should truly consider the reality of changing economic and financial weights of countries.
A third important step would be to reduce the total number of IMF Board “chairs” from the current 24 to 20. This could be done by consolidating the European seats on the Board into one representing the European Union as a whole.

The idea is already under consideration in Europe and it has the backing of the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet as well as the chairman of Euro-zone finance ministers, Luxemburg leader Jean-Claude Juncker. However Germany, the largest European member to the IMF, remains opposed to the plan.

Fourth, the Brookings scholars believe that the selection of the IMF’s Managing Director should become independent of nationality, merit-based and more transparent. In practical terms, this would basically require that the Europeans give up their traditional claim to electing the Managing Director.

Finally, the United States needs to step in, and lead the European Union – the most affected by all of these changes – into accepting the reform of the IMF structure.
This could be done by not claiming, for example, the American increase in shares that would likely follow most revised quota allocation formulas. It could also translate in the US renouncing its claim to select the World Bank’s President. And Washington could also give up the veto power that it exclusively enjoys at the IMF and WB boards.

“The US”, Linn and Bradford write, “has broadly supported the steps suggested above, but it has failed so far to offer up any serious contribution of its own. It is time for the US to show its readiness to take an effective lead in global governance reform and allow the IMF, to more accurately reflect today’s global economy”.

“Unfortunately,” Johannes Linn told Washington Prism in a phone interview, “the current US administration is showing little interest in taking any serious action that would shake the political balance within the IMF Board of Directors.”

Mr. Linn continued, “Certainly Washington is very busy dealing with other issues. At the same time the Bush administration does not appear too interested in strengthening the role of International Institutions.”
Although this might not be the moment for a real opening, “there could be a new momentum in a couple of years, with a new administration that would not necessarily have to be Democrat, but just simply more multilateral in its approach”, Linn said.

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on the PBS show Foreign Exchange, Zanny Minton-Beddoes, Washington bureau editor for the Economist Magazine also expressed reservations on the willingness of the US to waive some of its influence; “the US is basically prepared to give up something but it’s not prepared to lose its veto power.”
Because of how the planned reform will negatively impact the Europeans and because the US administration seems unwilling to take those steps that could convince the EU to go along, the preoccupation of the G-24 that the second round of reform will not go through seems to be justified. “If pushed too hard,” Johannes Linn told Washington Prism, “the Europeans might walk away.”

The consequences of an eventual EU retreat from the Fund could be felt not only within the IMF itself but could also impact the World Bank; for example if the Europeans decided to retaliate, they could do so by lowering their contributions to the Bank’s programs, Linn pointed out in our interview.

A return to a less multilateral approach towards more significant regionalism is not necessarily a problem, depending on where one stands on the issue. “To me personally,” Linn said, “it would be very unfortunate though”.