During his visit to Ankara, Italian Foreign Minister Gentiloni did not use half measures.
"Italy has always supported Turkey's approach to the European Union and will support it even more in the future ..."
The Italian minister after the meeting with colleague Cavusoglu said that opening up to Turkey is fundamental for stability and for strengthening dialogue between nations.
The Turkish minister, who for the occasion thanked Italy for its support, has for weeks been among the most active exponents of Turkish politics within the Syrian crisis, distinguishing itself among other things by statements that in terms of dialogue and stability leave some doubt. Cavusoglu, despite the concerns expressed by the international community, is among the supporters of the establishment of a "security cushion" on Syrian territory that guarantees security on the southern borders of Ankara and among those who have repeatedly sponsored the need for direct Turkish intervention in the Arab country.
Minister Gentiloni would also have supported the thesis that Turkey's entry into Europe would be in line with a greater regulation of migration flows from the Asian block to Europe.
The statements of the Foreign Minister overlap with those of Minister Pinotti of last November 29, when the head of defense accused Europe (France and Germany in particular) of not having allowed entry to Turkey in her time thus losing a historic occasion and at the same time complicating the current framework in the Middle East.
We take advantage of the utterances to reflect in two ways.
Net of the effectiveness of a political direction always aimed at making one's work responsible without considering that of others and in respect of the immense historical and cultural heritage of the Turkish nation, one wonders how appropriate are the statements of our two ministers in the current political, economic and social context of the European Union. In a crisis of institutional and political identity, does the Union, increasingly similar to a bureaucratic body with nuanced connotations than to the idea of a family of peoples on which it was conceived, really need a further expansion of its borders? Let us at least reflect on the fact that, at least on paper, the Union could find itself in a few years with one more Turkey and one less Great Britain ...
Is there really another 80 market millions of citizens what we Europeans need?
Is the integration of Ankara really on the road to rapprochement between the citizens and the institutions of Brussels in a moment of emptiness of identification and correspondence?
We launch the doubt remaining in the field of historical and political opportunity without even touching the problem of European conscience regarding the cultural compatibility between Europe and Turkey which deserves further study.
The second consideration is contextual to the current Middle Eastern scenarios. For many months, Difesa Online has been at the forefront of reports and analyzes of the Syrian conflict and Turkey's role appears to be not without weight and responsibility in the evolution of political and military events.
Gentiloni and Cavusoglu would have liked a ground intervention in Syria agreed between powers at international level. If the possibility falls fully within the dynamics and interests of Ankara, one wonders where the opportunity is for Italy, for the Union and even for the West.
As much as Italy shares a decades-long military political alliance with Turkey, can our government's statements be evaluated in terms of strategic and geopolitical opportunities?
A more thoughtful reflection in these cases, perhaps it would not seem too much.
