We got the chance to read, here, that RP should take this or that position on the basis of a COLD view to some or some other experiences.

We, I mean the Radical Party, have been firmly standing in favour of the entrance of Yugoslavia into the EEC. We, in the same time, have been firmly standing on the side of human rights, which were quite sistematically violated, there.

Moreover, we have not been fighting so much against every violations of human rights, just because we have not had the chance to be more than a few hundreds people - if not a few dozens - and we have sistematically preferred to avoid human rights engagements which do not mean anything but taking part to seminars, or spreading words.

I do believe that the main characteristic of the "Radical" approach to politics has always been its not being an ideological one. Some of us, strongly, absolutely, firmly anti-militarist decided to wear an uniform, even an uniform of an army engaged in a war. Simply because, I do believe, an ideological approach to politics does not belong to our emphiric and secular way of operating.

Saying that we must not operate in favour of the entrance of Turkey into EU, in this way, is an ideological approach, and I do not think it could lead us to an effective action.

The same can be said giving a look to the past: having said that Gorbachev coould not, in any case, have been a counterpart for democrats was a mistake, and it is quite clear, now.

Maybe, not everybody agree about what I've just said about Gorbachev, in terms of opportunity of our actual political position; it would be more difficult not to agree on the fact that in that occasion we have been sometimes expressed a policy slightly ideology-based - sometimes, thanksagod quite never, or never, in official RP's texts.

What does it mean affirming that there cannot be any efforts in order to have Turkey inside EU until that country will have not reached an acceptable level of democracy, respect of human lives, and so on?

I'm afraid it couldn't mean nothing but two consequences (just to discuss easily among us):

1. Democracy and human rights in Turkey have to be managed by turkish authorities, except for pressions and appeals cryed-out by some goodwill people and organizations.

2. Politics does not have any chance to be effective in determinating the destiny of human beings. In fact, either EU decides to block any trade with Turkey, or in the current situation in which Turkey is not politically integrated in the EU, the links between Turkey and other countries will be continuing to be based just on economic and trade factors, which are, as it is known, not fully sensitive to democratic feelings.

Let's give a look to China - mutatis mutandis, of course - and let's continue making easy political analisys; and let's propose a question:

will the problem of democracy in China be solved opening the chinese market, while getting some small reform, or having free some political prisoner for each western company which will open a new industry?

Isn't the problem of democrats facing the Chinese issue the lack of a superior authority able to regulate the mere invasion of China by western enterpreneuters?

To be more clear, and facing the real and concrete existing factors: China is opening its market, and for the sake of Chinese leadership (or the winning leadership...), and for the sake of western enterprises China will allow some changes, some small and marginal changes, not to have so many troubles in running on its path. A way towards democracy is something else; and the interests of the Chinese leadership and those of western enterprises will walk together. We know that just a strong presence of the world, institutionally organized, can avoid a political stagnation, there, or an enormous tragedy. Such a power, such a political power, there is not, nowadays. And what is managing the situation is everything but political-institutional factors. The focus is just in it, as we know. Having Turkey inside EU we shall have a frame, an at least potential political frame, a room in which there will be the chance to operate.

Well, The chance to have Turkey "in the hands" of EU cannot be lost, given the relatively low economical strenght of Turkey, and the fact that just trough the enlargement of the EU to countries in which the level of democracy is lower can force the EU to strenghten its political structure, turning its priority from an economic to a political one.

(From this viewpoint, moreover, the urgence of the Danube campaign, i.e., in my opinion, the campaign for the enlargement of EU to former socialist countries is nothing but a must for western countries, more than for others.)

Well, there is no way: we have just to face concrete and historically-placed situations and conditions. Without any ideologic lent.

Those lents could bring us to cry out while speaking of Turkey - which is important and useful - while keeping silent on what it's happening in Greece, for instance, against persons belonging to minorities.

Greece is an EU member, and the EU doesn't give a shit about it. I do think that it is because EU is still far away from being a political institution, and it can be helped to turn itself into a political institution, a state institution, just when it will decide to include countries with different level of development, both economic and democratic. Starting from Turkey, and I'd say from Central and Eastern European ones, immediately.

Until that moment EU will continue not caring what a country member of EU will do against minorities, and several people will go on crying out in favour of human rights.

Everybody together in being a world-wide human rights trade-union.

Which is not the answer.

Paolo Pietrosanti