Lorenzo Strik Lievers is a member of the European federalist group and environmentalist of the Senate of the Italian Republic, as well as member of the federal Council of the Radical Party.

All the traditional and currently used patterns have failed. If - with all the huge differences - there is a historical moment comparable to the one we are presently passing through, this is the period in which we were coming out of the second world war, when the European political patterns were still to be created, when nothing was defined: when, therefore, the federalist utopia of the "Manifesto of Ventotene" of Altiero Spinelli and Ernesto Rossi had all the credibility of a true and concrete revolutionary political project. At that time as at present, or rather more than at the time, Europe - given that it is not buried by ruins, and that is not occupied by victorious armies and is not at their mercy - is faced with its history, and with the responsibility of tracing, in one direction or the other, its future.

It is in this situation that Italy assumes the presidency of the European Community, for one which will be a crucial semester: the semester in which the conference for the political union will be laid down, together with that for the economic and monetary unity.

It will be during the six months of Italian presidency therefore, that the fundamental choices will be taken: whether to go in the direction of a confederate type of Europe (an organ of coordination between states that maintain their full national sovereignty), or to take the path that progressively leads to a true European federation, with a sovereignty and legitimacy much superior to the national ones, complete with supra-national laws and democratic institutions.

It is this which is once again at stake. For a long period, it had not been so. For a long period, the federalist hopes seemed doomed to fail. Very few, in fact, were the possibilities of a reprise of the federalist theme, even at a moment in which, in June 1889, the Italians expressed their opinion with the referendum on the constituent powers to the European Parliament: outside of Italy the effects of that initiative were very scarce or nil. There seemed to be no consistent forces willing to operate to give a turning point to the process started with the 1985 Single Act (not by chance, the latter coincided with the rejection of the Spinelli project adopted by the European Parliament): to the process, in other words, that on the one hand meant a progress for the European construction, on the other hand a rigorous exclusion of the political dimension.

The change in direction was brought about by the extraordinary events of Central and Eastern Europe. The fall of the wall between the two Europes and the explosion of the process of unification of Germany have brought the issue of a political dimension of the European construction to the forefront: hence - and not from a "natural" development of the process of the Single Act, as the Italian foreign minister, De Michelis, claims, in contrast with the federalists - the letter of Kohl and Mitterrand which brought about the decision of summoning an inter-governmental conference on the political union.

Let's look at reality. The question of a political Europe has been raised because on the one hand the French government wants to somehow curb, limit and condition in a European context the new, unrestrained power of the united Germany, on the other hand Germany, to ease the concern of its neighbours, is eager to give all Europeanist guarantees; while all more or less feel the need for a political coordination which is essential in the new situation of the relations with the East. But there is a big difference between this and being willing to give up portions of national sovereignty in favour of a federal European power: and the most probable result is that of a confederate type of solution. And yet, much is still to be decided. Powerful reasons, today far more than yesterday, could influence a decision in favour of a federal choice, toward the constitution of the United States of Europe.

Reasons, for one thing, which are internal to the West European balances. If the goal is really that of turning the German unification into something more than a German fact, not the foundation of a Fourth Reich, but a European fact, a moment of the European unification; if, in other words, we want to have guarantees as regards an excessive and uncontrolled German power, these will not be obtained in the course of an inter-governmental conference, following a confederate pattern, in which the importance of the German government will in any case be preponderating. Only a centre of European democratic power, the direct propagation of the European people - a Parliament with effective supra-national powers, a leadership that corresponds to it - will be capable of representing this element of common guarantee. And on the German part, on the part of at least a portion, albeit consistent, of the Germans, there is at present not only the will to accept a solution of this kind, but rather the urging request to achiev

e it: the spectres of its history weigh first of all on Germany itself, and also to guarantee ourselves against them, a large part of Germany yearns to be united not as a new national power, but as the central axis of a democratic Europe.

Of a much greater importance are the reasons that refer to the relations with post-communist Europe. It is clear to everyone that the process of democratic renewal is directly threatened, in the main part of the European East, by the explosion of ethnic and national conflicts, by the reprise of the idea - which has cost already many deaths to Europe - that to assert the right to national identity it is necessary to conquer an independent and sovereign national state, and that priority must be given to the national principle, to "national" values and interests (to ethnos rather than to ethos). The strongest antidote against this danger can be the assertion of a federalist democratic principle, which can trace a different path for the mutual safeguard of all the various national identities, and precisely that of the cohabitation guarantied by supra-national democratic institutions. If this is true, how is it possible not to see the crucial importance that the creation of a first form of United States of Europe

from the present European Community, open - with the necessary gradualness, in consideration of the different economic situations, but truly open - to the attention of each European democratic country? How is it possible not to see that this would offer a point of reference and of orientation which is decisive for the developments of the entire East? Without this thrust and this pillar, the entire European architecture which is being planned in the context of the "Helsinki process" would remain void of a centre, exposed to all kinds of destructive impulses.

Strong reasons, therefore, "inscribed in things". And many forces today, in Europe, are willing to take that path. In the German Parliament as in the Belgian or Spanish Parliament, and especially in the European Parliament, which continually suggests this perspective, first of all reprise the method and the goal of the legislative powers and of the constituent mandate to the European Parliament itself. They are the goals and the method for which the Italian population has decided with the referendum, giving the government the solemn mandate of supporting them.

What crucial importance - what a unique historical occasion - the Italian presidency of the E.C. assumes precisely in this semester, is all too evident. Italy now has the right, but above all the duty, to give the decisive impulse, necessary to take the direction of a federal Europe, instead of a confederate Europe. It is the Italian presidency's task, today, to act as an ally of the European Parliament and as an element of stimulus and coordination of all the federal impulses, to overcome the resistance and the reluctance, which are very strong.

Should we rejoice, therefore, for the fortunate coincidence which assigns the presidency to the country that more than others has gone ahead and formally committed itself in the direction of a federalist principle? In actual fact, it is necessary to express serious concern. It is true that the Prime Minister Andreotti on more than one occasion confirmed Italy's faithfulness to the federalist orientation of its tradition. But the Foreign Minister, De Michelis - whose task it should be to assume decisive responsibilities in the conduction of the negotiations with the other governments - has more than once expressed extremely different opinions. As far as the assignment to the European Parliament of the mandate to prepare the text of a new treaty is concerned, during the "institutional pre-conference" of 17 May (a confrontation between governments and European Parliament), De Michelis, arbitrarily assuming the right to ignore the punctual and unquestionable mandate of the referendum vote, of repeated parliament

ary votes and of the same programmatic declarations of the government he is part of, expressed his contrary position! And in more than one occasion, lastly an interview granted to "Il Sole-24 Ore" of the 28th of June, expressed his preference for an obscure intermediate solution between the federal and the confederate formula (what on earth does he mean?) as regards the federal one, which he defined - it not clear why - "eighteenth century style".

That an immediate and complete triumph of the federalist idea of the United States of Europe is not available to all is something clear. The solution that comes will obviously be the result of a confrontation between different points of view. But, of course, if it is with this sort of attitude that the government that more than any other should support federalist principles and the battle of the European Parliament enters the negotiation, then we can well imagine what the final compromise will be...

It is necessary for the Italian government to give up its ambiguity; and it is necessary for it to do so in the full respect of the population and the Parliament. Parliament and Senate, thanks to the initiative of the members of parliament of the federalist group, among which the elected radicals are particularly active, and thanks to the mobilization of the European Federalist Movement, have voted, at the beginning of July, a motion that solemnly recalls the value of the referendum and commits the government to pursue the federal solution. The government has accepted this vote. Respect of the constitution, or even of decency, requests the Foreign Minister to conform, without reservations, to these indications, or leave his position to others. The occasion and the responsibilities are too decisive for the federalist parliamentary majority - which gather such a wide spectrum of forces of the government majority, of the opposition

and of course of the Socialist Party - to accept something less than that.