Dear director, celebrating one hundred and fifty years of history of a military body belonging to the Navy means showing off one's lights but also dealing with one's shadows. There are those who argue that we learn more from a defeat than from a victory and that only those who are able to treasure the lessons learned from defeats will have the chance to win in the future. I believe that too, as I observe all phenomena connected with the sea and maritimeity.
Lately annoyed by too much propaganda, perhaps also due to the titles of avenues and squares at the Port Authority by the sea, as if to conquer and occupy spaces of public land, I began to reflect by asking myself some questions about some professional behaviors expressed by some members of the harbor master's office - coast guard, called to guarantee safety at sea, in ports and which should be an expression of the work ethic itself at the service of others. A continuous search for evidence to show that sailors are different from those who wear the same uniform, wear stars and are a sailor from Italy or better still, lend their service in the Navy.
One would object but what is the difference if they are also aesthetically equal to the Navy?
These considerations, far from denigrating the useful work of the many components of the body, I consider legitimate especially in a political-economic moment in which the whole of Italy is looking for efficiency, cutting costs due to duplication of functions. It is easy for the news to be full of flattering words towards those who help and this is not discussed, but in evaluating the merits we should always keep in mind also the demerits on issues that also should not be forgotten.
We are all happy to see work well done being emphasized but I wonder why in the same way one does not punish and pursue bad work or lack of care in doing one's job. To remind us of this are the relatives and relatives of the 32 victims of the Costa Concordia on January 13, 2012, of the seven people killed following the accident of the Jolly Nero that knocked down the control tower in the port of Genoa, that cursed 7 May 2014 , or the fire on the high seas that broke out aboard a Greek merchant ship the Normal Atlantic on 29 December 2014, which highlighted a certain limitation in guaranteeing safety at sea and which was remedied by intervening with suitable naval means and aircraft, both of the Navy and of the Air Force.
For the Concordia case, one might wonder why if the operations center of the Harbor-Guardia Coast Guard had the radar track of the ship under control, they did not prevent the famous bow.
Why does the Port Authority, which has safety at sea among its tasks, not fight hard to codify the prohibition of this practice of bowing under the coast at a regulatory level?
Why, despite having to protect safety in ports, the Harbor Master's Office - Coast Guard had an operational post located in a very dangerous position in the Genoese port, a position that contributed to the disaster?
If on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the body, these events were remembered and a constructive process of reflection was opened on them and a return to an ethical behavior of one's work, truly respectful of citizens and leaving aside ambitions of political influences to the advantage of one's own independence from an institution to which one belongs, would certainly be more useful for the entire country system. It would be useful because the costs would actually be rationalized, it would avoid seeing incomprehensible offshore vehicles made available to a component that is instead called to operate offshore, unjustifiably duplicating the functions and costs, which are attributed to offshore vehicles. Navy.
In short, critical thinking leads us to reflect on whether it is not better for the good of all that we return to work without too much noise, humbly at the service of others. Accepting to be a fundamental component, therefore framed in the much more articulated and complex Navy. Abandoning the ambition of doing politics through the establishment of a strong and transversal lobbying system capable of stifling any critical thinking and opposition to those who plan a coast guard independent from the defense department. Ambition that is also manifested aesthetically if you go to see the renewed website of the Coast Guard, which after 30 June 2015, in the new home page, compared to the previous one, saw all references disappear
visual and link to the armed force of belonging. So the more experienced and perhaps the most technical, will also notice that in the site address the coast guards have passed under the domain gov.it (www.guardiacostiera.gov.it) which certainly makes their search on the web less intuitive and quick in terms of usability by users, who previously could simply type www.guardiacostiera.it. It might seem like a nuance, in part it is, but in it lies the affirmation of feeling independent and detached from the Navy, which would not seem to be a small thing, also given the pressure with which they insist on detachment. In short, our grandparents would have said (who benefits?).
I leave the appropriate deductions to you, the director and the attentive readers of your newspaper. For my part, I would add that if we were to adhere to the concept of national security and defense, in the event of a detachment, neither the defense department nor that of the interior would have much relevance to take action against the Coast Guard, which would be an additional police force. however directed by the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport. If this is not abnormal, I would like to know what is it?
Celebrating one hundred and fifty years of honorable service is also this, reflecting on one's history and dealing with one's mistakes rather than just showing one's successes.
