Latorre and Girone, nothing new under the sun

18/02/14

Today yet another postponement (February 24) of the Supreme Court hearing to decide which law to apply against Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone and which charges - still unofficial after 24 months.

A diligent foreign minister begins to agitate after the most absolute immobility, suddenly raises his voice, claims to be outraged and takes a series of initiatives perhaps to demonstrate the adequacy of the person in the role covered and remove the doubts that in this sense still many they have.

Among other things, he recalls Ambassador Mancini to Rome for consultations.

At today's hearing the attorney general GE Vahanvati who, it must be remembered, acts for the government and does not belong to the judiciary, has declared that he is reviewing the applicability of your Act and is awaiting a final opinion in this regard by the Ministry of Justice. The lawyer of the marines, Mukul Rohatgi, in response to the attorney general recalled that in the last year the government has changed position six times and that the story has been going on for two years without a wording of accusations.

The government envoy Staffan de Mistura, present in the courtroom, stood up to emphasize the presence of Italy and give strength to the passage with which Rohatgi reiterated that "Italy can not accept to be assimilated to a terrorist state" .

In this regard, I have some doubts about whether a representative of the Italian government should be present in an Indian courtroom where a trial is underway against two legal subjects, the two Fusiliers of Marina Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, and not the "Italian State".

The correspondent Staffan de Mistura sitting next to the defense lawyer, at least symbolically, could in fact give a negative signal to India: that the defendant is Italy. By now we have all learned how much Delhi is careful to welcome even "symbolic messages".

De Mistura begins to agitate, abandoning the initial repetitive and obsequious gestural language in respect of the local culture. Perhaps, finally, yes, he is convinced that in applying Machiavelli's pragmatism, the Indians are better and, on the contrary, the determined British action, which history has handed down to us, is more effective.

The special envoy of the government, at the end of the hearing, said that what is happening "is clearly a sign of the difficulty of the Indian government". He also addressed the local public with a message. Responding to an Indian journalist, in fact, he asked if by chance he had a relative in the army - "His father? Well, you are the right person to understand." What would you say if your father, serving in any body of the army , on a military mandate, was held and blocked for two years in a foreign country because of an accident, without even a charge? ".

Interesting question Dr. de Mistura, who perhaps had to ask himself and all those who decided to send the two Fusiliers back to India at the end of the 2013 electoral permit. A question that thousands of soldiers have been asking themselves every day since that fateful February 15 Italians around the world to guarantee peace and security and above all their families to whom the State, as facts show, does not guarantee the least protection.

Even 9 months ago we knew there were no charges. Since that time, Indian law has not changed. It was clear that when the investigations were entrusted to the Anti-Terrorism Investigation Agency, it was difficult to ignore the application of the SUA (anti-terrorism law, ed.). At that moment it was necessary to "beat your fists on the table" and demand an immediate start of international arbitration, putting aside any form of economic interest and "good neighborly relations". It had to be done with determination, not selling off the two boys for "thirty coins".

Caro de Mistura, first as undersecretary for foreign affairs, as vice-minister of foreign affairs together with premier Monti, then also foreign minister ad interim after the resignation of Ambassador Terzi - decision of high ethical content and great sense of state - could you in order to be coherent with the norms of international law, as also announced by the 11 March itself as a decision shared also by Prime Minister Monti.

Rules that allowed you not to send the two marines back to India, not for failure to respect their word, but because - as can be seen in documents well known to you - through a verbal note the willingness to reach an amicable acquittal and asked to start the consultations provided for by UNCLOS (international treaty that defines the rights and responsibilities of States in the use of seas and oceans). In summary, a retaliation against a Third State that did not respect the rules by not responding to a specific and protocol Italian request.

It does not seem, however, to remember that then and immediately after the return of the two Riflemen in Delhi the institutional vocation was felt from which we are now submerged.

There are no strong and peremptory positions taken towards India. Rather, timid and worrying words of trust in Indian justice and declarations of sharing rules of engagement formalized to Indians, as recalled by Deputy Minister Pistilli shortly after his inauguration at the Farnesina.

Italian hesitations that we are sure that the Indians have grasped and that "Machiavellically" are using to raise the stakes of their requests as a counterpart to the solution of the story. First of all to remove and delete the names of Singh and other Indian personalities from the process involving Finmeccanica.

Now asking the Indians that Massimiliano and Salvatore be sent back to Italy pending the decisions of the Supreme Court now seems pleonastic. We could have done it fully on that 22 March but the path of restitution was chosen so as not to disturb the current economic balance with India, perhaps well known to Ambassador Mancini, an expert in international dynamics in terms of development and the Economy, having a previous three-year experience as diplomatic advisor, international relations manager of the minister for economic development, international trade, energy and communications.

A request, however, that at this time close to the Indian elections could also be dangerous for the physical security of the two.

Fernando Termentini