The analysis that I have carried out since that distant February 15, 2012 has induced certainties and doubts in me. To tell the truth, more perplexity than conviction for how the whole affair has been dealt with over time.
There are three safe beliefs, all important. The first concerns the obvious link along which the Monti government and the Letta government transmitted a modus operandi that has reached the current executive. Last but not least, the call to silence, almost in analogy to the "secret diplomacy" invoked by the former Minister Bonino, with results to be demonstrated.
The second certainty concerns the responsibilities and the reasons why on March 22, 2013 the two marines were sent back to India, the assessment of which was entrusted to the analysis of the judiciary. Finally, the absolute expression of the sense of the State and the ethical value of the resignation of Ambassador Giulio Terzi as Minister of Foreign Affairs. An act of personal dignity occurred when the interested party became aware that the interests of economic lobbies prevailed over the rights of two Italian soldiers and that the two marines had been sold off for "thirty denarii".
In the face of these objective findings, only perplexity. Prime does all those that emerge from recent and repeated declarations by the defense and foreign affairs ministers, which could lead us to hope for a rapid and concrete solution to the case, but which suddenly until now have not found real objectification.
Many doubts arise from what Minister Mogherini tells us and which arouse spontaneous questions despite the fact that she has "recommended silence", where keeping silent could mean depriving the citizen of the right to know.
I therefore apologize to the minister if I am going to undermine his "recommendations of silence", but in this case they are not shareable and for some unexpected aspects because they refer to substantial aspects such as having invested state resources to involve foreign internationalist experts, even if in Italy we have well-known academics competent in the specific legal field of international law and the sea.
A choice that in the absence of clarifications has led us to think that perhaps it derives from lack of information in the possession of the minister on the reality of the Italian academic world in the specific sector, which could derive from the minister's previous university and professional experiences. Graduated in political science with a thesis on political philosophy on the relationship between religion and politics in Islam, done during Erasmus in Aix-en-Provence, France and with an international experience as head of international relations of the PD following related dossiers to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process (Source: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federica_Mogherini).
Therefore, I propose three simple questions with the hope that while respecting the confidentiality invoked, the minister will grant me an answer which, on the other hand, did not happen in a letter sent by me at the time of his inauguration.
1) Minister, a loop agency of 4 July reports some of its textual statements such as, "in these months 5 the government has given a somewhat different imprint" that "points to the result, the return home". He also recalled that Italy has given the start "to a different phase, the internationalization" of the affair. "Just yesterday we worked with the international jurists" appointed by the government, and "when there will be concrete passages to communicate we will do it , at this stage we are working ".
Why international legal and non-Italian lawyers and what does internationalization mean when international legal acts such as arbitration show that they have not yet been launched?
2) Another agency on July 3 reports that you declared "One less word is more useful than more", underlined the minister who, moreover, undertook to report "when there should be passages in which Parliament should be informed ".
Does it want to explain the usefulness of a word less in a phase in which the cards to play are known to everyone? Perhaps because you have little or nothing to say!
3) He tells us again yesterday that on the marines "we are not in a phase of reflection but in an operational phase that is neither easy nor brief" but the "work is constantly underway and the level of internationalization is underway even if complicated".
I go back to ask you with the modesty of a person who cannot understand from your words, what does "internationalization" mean if the acts provided for are not implemented so that the matter is brought to the attention of an international judge? Perhaps, but it would be interesting to hear from you, it means asking for help from the USA rather than the UN or even worse to rely on a team of international experts not better identified unless the English sir Daniel Behtlehem, former legal advisor of the United Kingdom Foreign & Commonwealth Office not particularly experienced in the law of the sea as shown by your CV?
Three simple questions that if they remain so, any illusions or personal convictions will be lawful.
An immediate opinion is that involving international experts or asking the commitment of other States to resolve the matter does not represent the internationalization of the case, but the umpteenth declaration of weakness of our foreign policy and a further collapse of national sovereignty, of which we are tired at least me and the other 387 Italian citizens who have signed the complaint presented to solicit the interest of the magistrate on unclear facts of the story, including the attendance we are witnessing.
Fernando Termentini
