Maria Grazia Bruzzone

ABSTRACT: Emma Bonino dissents with the pacifists and namely with their "Anti-Americanism" relatively to the intervention in Somalia decided by the U.N. "If the U.S. behaves like the world's policeman it's because the others shun their responsibilities"

(LA STAMPA, December 8th, 1992)

Rome. At the time of the Gulf War Emma Bonino, a radical and a long-standing advocate of non-violence, did not take sides with the pacifists, nor will she today that the U.S. is intervening in Somalia. The statements delivered by Chiara Ingrao, former secretary of the Association for Peace have in fact literally infuriated her.

Q: Why?

A: Because now that the separation of the world into blocs is over, I can no longer put up with their anti-Americanism on principle. If the culture of active non-violence is not accepted, then a military intervention to safeguard human rights is the second best thing, and if the state that propose this intervention is the U.S. I have nothing to object. In fact, I get very angry and I wonder why the EC or Italy didn't suggest it in the first place. If the U.S. behaves like a globocop it's because others shun their responsibilities. The usual slogan, "Yankees go home", is totally misplaced.

Q: This isn't the first time you dissent with Chiara Ingrao and with the Association for Peace...

A: No. Everyone says the cold war is over, the terror is over. Yet no one takes the initiative of establishing a new order except for Bush. I care little about Chiara Ingrao and the pacifists. What really worries me is when pacifists and neutralists become the States or even Europe.

Q: You support non-violence. Why do neutralism and pacifism worry you?

A. There is a difference between pacifists and followers of non-violence. We have always preached the duty to interfere in order to safeguard human rights, which cannot be closed within the borders of a state. At the time of the campaign on world hunger we asked the President of the Court of The Hague to urge an intervention of the Security Council.

Q: What have the pacifists done instead?

A: The pacifists have always affirmed an obsolete principle, i.e. the self-determination of the peoples, and therefore national sovereignty by all means. According to this principle, if Siad Barre slaughters his people no one should intervene. Clearly we are not all-out militarists. Pure military intervention always takes place a posteriori, and entails high economic costs and a dreadful death toll. The advocates of non-violence instead urge a preventive, pre-military intervention.

Q: Is it true that you actually came to blows on the question of Iraq?

A: Almost. We had a fight in Parliament. I voted to endorse the intervention of the U.S., the UN's armed force. I preferred to support the U.N., incomplete as it may be, rather let each State free to do as it wishes: Iraq to invade Kuwait, for instance, just as Serbia invaded Bosnia. Also, I strongly opposed the initiatives of the 'women for the peace', the so-called "women in black". I have always regarded women-only resolutions as absurd and ridiculous. Then came the question of the Bosnians to be taken in by Italy.

Q: In other words?

A:I received a letter from the Association for Peace, whereby a number of parliamentarians asked to accept 100,000 Bosnians in Italians' holiday homes. That really did it. Just when a U.N. resolution requests safe areas to place the refugees and lays down their right to remain in their homes! As if they were priests!

Q: Are you also against charity?

A: I support humanitarian aid but only if it is part of a political project...Their position - the position of the pacifists - is that the war in ex-Yugoslavia is a civil war where all parts are evil to the same extent.

Q: The pacifists as a charitable organization...

A: If they kept to that it would be fine. The fact is that they are not in time with the needs of the 21st century. They completely neglect the political problem of building an international law.