ABSTRACT: There is no need to attribute absence of conviction and lack of sincerity to the policy of the Government and of the Foreign Minister Andreotti in particular, to declare it pernicious. The weapon of food, of economy, of technology, of information as the basis for the destabilization of totalitarian regimes are the true instrument of the war which is historically under way, albeit under the name and the forms of peace. These weapons are not used against dictators; on the contrary, the West provides them to its enemies, first of all to the lords of the empire - Moscow. A policy which is even worse than that of the thirties. The Westerners are degrading themselves more and more with the ignominies of Turkey and Chile, not to mention others. It is a topical statement, which applies also to the so-called struggle against world hunger: in these very days, a major attack policy in favour of life risks becoming subjected to other and very different calculations, to the umpteenth operation without soul and

force.

(TRIBUNA POLITICA E PARLAMENTARE, 27 April 1984)

The parliamentary records should speak clearly: ever since the beginning of the legislature, the radicals - completely isolated - have grasped some of the characteristics of the foreign policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and therefore of the Government, which they judged dangerous and opposite to that which the polemic on the missiles and on Lebanon offset by the Communist Party seemed to offer.

Frankly speaking, some of the polemics against Andreotti (1) of these days embarrass us rather than comfort us in terms of quality and manifest instrumental objectives. We have no need to ascribe less than honourable reasons and absence of conviction or sincerity to the foreign minister's policy. On the contrary, we are convinced that there is no need for contingent calculations of for him to carry on with great personal sacrifice and commitment, the pernicious foreign policy which is today at the centre of polemics and wholehearted defences. After the trip to Moscow, on the other hand, we have lost one of these embarrassing companies. The business world is triumphant, it applauds and supports. Compared to the "stuff", that West which deserves missiles and shameful vassalages with the State traffickers of terrorism and weapons, of wars and oil, is no longer worth much. If "development" - as they claim - is the new name for peace, profit at all costs and at all crimes is the new name for freedom.

Anyone talking about these things knows, deep down, that the food weapon, the economic weapon, the technological weapon and the weapon of propaganda and information as the basis for the destabilization of totalitarian regimes and warmongers represent the true instrument of the war which is historically under way, albeit under the name and the forms of peace.

Not only these weapons are not used against criminals like Gaddafi and Khomeini, Assad and company; they are even supplied, and supplied first of all to the lords of the empire and of the system - Moscow. This is even worse than the suicidal and foolish policy of Münich in the thirties: Reagan, who doubles the supply of food weapons to the U.S.S.R., raising it to thirty million tons of cereals, in order to enable it to send one hundred thousand tons to Ethiopia or one thousand tons to Burkina Faso, in the face of Poland and Afghanistan, the Middle East or Cambodia; exactly as it did then in the face of Poland (already!) and of the Sudeten, after the Ruhr or Austria.

In such conditions, the "Maginot line" of these years, the one of the missile "umbrella" (under the protection of which Enrico Berlinguer had officially placed the future of "Eurocommunism") in Comiso (3) or elsewhere, becomes a pernicious more than useless instrument of falsehood, of demobilization of alibis for a "West" which arms itself only to the extent in which the profit of its military-industrial complex calls for it, simultaneously arming the "enemy" - in the same context - in the real and current theatres of war and conflict.

The "Western" alliance, irretrievably degraded to sheer military alliance under U.S. protectorate, is therefore more and more void of politics, of ideal and practical force. The Reagan-Berlinguer (2) "umbrella" evokes another famous emblem of surrender and incapacity: the good umbrella of the good Neville Chamberlain, at the time of Münich.

In such way peace - and not just war - is entrusted entirely to the conduction of those "generals" of whom Clemenceau - among others - used to say that the seriousness of war could not even tolerate their operative direction.

Thus, we "Westerners" are degrading ourselves more and more with the Turkish and Chilean ignominies, not to mention the others.

It is in this context, therefore, that the foreign policy of our Government and the homogeneity and appropriateness of the foreign policy "texts" increasingly supplied by Giulio Andreotti should be judged in terms of seriousness and honesty.

The Foreign Minister's culture and politics is known to all. It is not Machiavellian, as it might appear to be, but casuistical and relativistic; it is the expression of a Roman-temporal subculture typical of a certain type of Catholicism according to which it is deceptive to found the government of this earth on the quest for the affirmation of major values.

But the detainee of the responsibilities of the foreign policy is the entire Government and - constitutionally speaking - the Prime Minister. We are more and more concerned about this foreign policy, which is by far worse than the one illustrated in Parliament last August. We advocate unilateral disarmament, we are radically nonviolent, the statute of our Party contains a right-duty to conscientious objection against every military service. We are kept in minority as a result of the usurpation of every true democratic rule on the part of party power. We cannot but acknowledge it. At the same time we have the right to demand that the Government of the country rule according to commitments, that it rule according to a responsible political line, that it have some coherence with respect to the ideals which we often both profess, at the cost of its inefficiency or worse.

The serious and impending risk today is that the world of business and that of political-party dirty business determine our politics (which is one, not "foreign" or "interior" if not by convention) more and more.

This applies also to the so-called struggle against world hunger; unfortunately, precisely in these days, a major humanitarian policy in favour of life (but truly, and immediately) and peace risk becoming instrumental to the umpteenth operation without soul and without political and practical force.

Translator's notes

(1) Giulio Andreotti (1919): Italian politician. Christian Democrat, minister of the Interior (1954), of Finance (1955-58), of Treasury (1958-59), of Defence (1959-66; 1974), of Industry (1966-68), of Budget (1974-76). Prime Minister from 1972 to 1973 and from 1976 to 1979. Currently Prime Minister.

(2) Enrico Berlinguer (1922-1984): Italian politician. Secretary of the Communist Youth Federation (1949-56), member of Parliament since 1968, secretary general of the Communist Party from 1979 to 1984.

(3) Comiso: place in Southern Italy seat of a NATO military base.