ABSTRACT: "Survival 1982" campaign: the Radical party is mobilized to urge the governments of the E.C. member States to fully implement the noble and firm positions of the European parliament in support of the objectives enounced against world hunger by Nobel Prize winners and pre-eminent civil and religious authorities in Europe and in the world. The European Parliament, while capable of clear-cut positions of principle, is nonetheless less adequate in exerting concrete pressure on the executives. In the accounts that appear on the press regarding the debates in Strasbourg, the reporters tend to give credit to the thesis of the impracticability of the Radical proposals rather than highlighting the difficulty in creating coalitions effectively capable of pursuing the objectives outlined by the solemn positions of that same assembly, with respect to the predominant force of the governmental bureaucracies expressed by the members of the E.C.'s executive committee and particularly by Commissioner Pisani. Such o

peration, if successful, would deflate the mobilization in the single countries and, at that moment, in Italy, to obtain precise commitments on the part of at least one government for the concrete survival of millions of people.

(LA STAMPA, 26 June 1982)

The Radical exponent Marco Pannella carries on a controversy on the account of the debate in Strasbourg on the problem of world hunger, published on "La Stampa" of 23 June and signed by Paolo Patruno. Pannella among other things says "it is a patent, violent and total falsehood, in every part.

"a") In Strasbourg I submitted no project of any kind. Therefore it would have been difficult to "reject" it. Not only I have not been "defeated" in the request, but the document passed, that is, a report of the development committee submitted by the Belgian Christian Democrat Michel, denounces the fact that:

"The resolutions and the requests of the European Parliament have not been complied with, and the achievements fail to meet the established objectives". Moreover, Michel formally declared he agreed completely with my objectives, and requested a new debate as soon as possible on the matter, as the current session was relative to other matters. Commissioner Pisani could not have possibly rebuked me for the hypothesis of an operation which would have triggered a sudden rise in the price of agricultural products for the very simple reason that, having done so last December, in January Pisani presented his public apologies, acknowledging that my position touches on the increase of food aid only very marginally.

"b") On the contrary it is true that a project of an emergency resolution has been submitted in Strasbourg without my signature, without my support and without a single address of mine, by Bruno Ferrero, former spokesman on world hunger (with a report which we radicals alone failed to vote), communist, Guido Fanti, president of the communist group, Pietro Lezzi and Carlo Ripa di Meana, socialists, Jas Gawronski, republican, Altiero Spinelli, independent Left, Emma Bonino, radical, which was later endorsed also by Simone Veil, Michel Poniatowski and the Christian Democrat Maria Luisa Cassamagnano. Such resolution urged the European Council of 27 June to reconsider an appeal signed by Willy Brandt and by 150 other members of the European Parliament in support of the immediate implementation of the European Parliament's decision. With a coup de main it was decided to refuse the urgency of the vote on such document, in consideration of the fact that the above mentioned European Parliament resolution remained and

remains juridically and politically in force also for the Council. The fact that Commissioner Pisani, who bears almost the entire responsibility of the sabotage of the committee to the deliberations of the European Parliament, was among those who used pressure to achieve this coup de main, proves that there was the certainty that in the event of a vote, it would have once again been in favour of the supporters of the thesis which "La Stampa" insists in defining defeated".

Following is Paolo Patruno's reply to Pannella:

"With a coup de main, as Mr Pannella maintains, or with a regular debate, the European Parliament has rejected a project of urgent resolution on world hunger signed by the radical Bonino, which referred to the theses previously supported by Pannella. The Parliament passed the resolution of the Christian Democrat Michel with 112 favourable votes, 2 unfavorable votes, 33 abstentions including the one of the radical leader. According to the account of the session divulged by the European Parliament's department for information and public relations, french version, page 14, Michel stated that "there are no differences between him and Pannella on the objective to achieve, but there are differences on the means". Pannella, according to this same document, intervened personally on the debate (page 13 of the account) and in the subsequent declaration of vote (page 14). The only inaccuracy he committed regards the paternity of the rejected resolution, which was signed by Pannella's party fellow, radical Emma Bonino".