Opinion - News Analysis

"In India as in Italy, democracy is a difficult exercise"

Vaiju Naravane

Italy's Prime MinisterRomano Prodispeaks on ties with India, his country's engagement in Afghanistan and Lebanon, his difficult coalition, the thorny matter of extraordinary renditions, and the way forward for Europe. Excerpts from an interview in his office in the gilded fifteenth century Palazzo Chigi in Rome:

— Photo: Handout

Romano Prodi: "In the last five or six years we have only opened international problems, we have closed none ... Is it not time to close some of these problems?"

Italy's centre-left Prime Minister on Saturday begins a five-day state visit to India during which he will visit Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai, and New Delhi, in that order. He will address students in Chennai, receive an honorary doctorate from Kolkata University, and witness the signing of several Indo-Italian contracts in Mumbai. In New Delhi, Mr. Prodi will hold talks with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Congress president, and with Opposition leaders.

Mr. Prodi comes to India accompanied by four Ministers and a large, top-level business delegation. The former EU Commission President, who has visited India several times in the past and has known Prime Minister Manmohan Singh since his teaching days at the University of Bologna, describes this visit as "different and special." It is a signal to India, he says, that it is "not a potential but a real partner" politically, culturally and, of course, economically.

You are familiar with India having visited it several times. What will be the focus of your visit this time?

I have been to India many times and I love India. But this mission is different and special. Firstly, because it takes in the entire country — north, south, east, west. Secondly, I am going with an enormous group of Italian entrepreneurs and this has never happened before. So it's a signal to India that it is not a potential partner, but a real partner. Things have changed; India is one of the great protagonists of world economy. Italy wants to have a systematic approach with India. This is why I am going with entrepreneurs, bankers, business associations ... and with four Ministers.

India and Italy have always had excellent relations and even a flourishing economic partnership. But in recent years, despite the fact that trade last year showed an increase of 35 per cent, the economic relationship has stagnated. Why is that?

Don't tell me. I know! When I was head of IRI [Italy's public sector holding group] I was at the forefront of investments in India. We built electrical generating power stations; we had joint ventures with Indian companies. But you know, Italy has some sort of provincial attitude because of internal problems. Now I want to start again. Our relations cannot be only economic they have to be political and cultural. There has to be more information. It is difficult for a country that is mainly composed of small entrepreneurs, if there is a lack of information.

So what are the specific industries or areas of activity that can be strengthened for mutual benefit?

In a modern friendly relationship you have to develop all of them. And for this student exchange is crucial. In an age where economic progress is being propelled by the younger generation how can you have ties without students? In the old times you had traders who went up and down selling. Now things are totally different.

There are several parallels between you and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: you are both economists, have both been professors and neither of you has a party-linked power base. Can comparisons be made?

Honestly, I think there are many, many parallels. We are both at the head of difficult coalitions — mine is perhaps more difficult than his! It's a strange life. When we first met we were both teachers and neither of us could imagine then that we would one day meet as Prime Ministers! He was teaching at Oxford, I was teaching in Bologna. Of course I admire him as a scientist. He was an expert, and a truly great professor of economics. I think in the face of our respective difficulties we shall smile together and exchange notes and experiences. Clearly, in India as in Italy, democracy is a difficult exercise because of the history of both countries. In spite of different environments, we have huge similarities. We have strong regional entities; strong historical roots and both of us are having difficulties in building a unity from these differences. But I think both of us have succeeded in shaping coalitions that will make more and more people responsible in democratic life. Both of us are at the head of coalitions that are increasingly inclusive. So we are also working towards widening democratic participation, not just in theoretical terms. One of the tasks of democracy is to include the extremes.

You will be meeting Sonia Gandhi, the daughter of the soil of Italy. She has not visited Italy in a very long time. How is she seen by Italians at large and by you and will you be extending an invitation to her to come back home for a visit?

I met her so many years ago when her mother-in-law was still alive. I was part of an Italian delegation as the head of a public sector company. I remember her as very reserved, very discreet, full of style. I remember we spoke to each other in English and I understood how she was very conscious of her role and that she was no longer Italian in the sense that she had changed her life deeply. It was a very positive message from her — the sense of duty that she had. So clearly, I should be very happy to invite her to Italy and to receive her, but this decision is only up to her. She knows very well that Italy has the door absolutely open but no invitation can be issued if it is considered to be some sort of interference in Indian political life.

Prime Minister, coming to foreign policy issues, you have come out openly against the war in Iraq and now there is a major debate within your own coalition about keeping your troops in Afghanistan. You need Parliament's approval within 60 days for all of Italy's peacekeeping troops abroad. Is that a major hurdle?

I withdrew my troops from Iraq but I will not do so from Afghanistan because I consider the political background is different. I have taken an engagement over Afghanistan with the United Nations and I want to keep it. Our efforts will be to help in a humanitarian way with a strong emphasis on the civilian recovery of the country. Secondly, we believe in having a shared solution to the problem, which is why we proposed an international conference, even though it may not be held immediately. It is my intention to raise this question with Manmohan Singh. In the last five or six years we have only opened international problems, we have closed none: Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon. Is it not time to close some of these problems? Is it not time to hold a conference in which we try to arrive at a shared, collective end to some of these questions?

Could you react to the open letter urging Italy to remain engaged in Afghanistan published by the Ambassadors of six countries — U.S., Britain, Romania, Australia, Canada, and The Netherlands?

My judgment is absolutely negative about this matter. It is unusual and I've been surprised because I don't see any precedent in diplomatic tradition. Generally, with countries who are your friends you have a conversation, a healthy exchange of views, not an open letter to put the problem in front of public opinion. The true role of Ambassadors is to resolve problems, not to try to create political difficulties.

Coming to the question of extraordinary renditions. The Italian secret service has been accused of having collaborated with certain members of the CIA in the kidnapping of a Milan-based cleric suspected of being an Islamist terrorist. He was sent to Egypt and tortured but then released without charge. Magistrates looking into the case have requested the extradition of 26 Americans, alleged CIA operatives. The previous government refused to forward this request. What is your position?

As you know my government is against any rendition but the case that you refer to concerns state secrets. According to the rules, these files cannot be made public and I have reconfirmed that. There are still discussions on this subject; but for the moment I have not changed the policy of my predecessor.

Prime Minister does that not pose questions of human rights? Do you not feel that often countries tend to use the Official Secrets Act or similar instruments to stifle public enquiry?

There is no contradiction. Even Prime Ministers have to respect the law. This is the law, an existing law. There are discussions about whether this could be changed in the future or not. But your question concerned a specific case in which I have to stick to the existing law.

Even though these renditions were illegal and you are using the law to cover that up?

I am not covering up anything. It is a case of continuity. My predecessor and I signed documents concerning state secrets and I am obliged to do it. There is no change from my predecessor.

But are you for change and greater transparency?

I am for that but I also understand that there are cases in which you have to keep some secrets in order to protect major interests. The problem is to limit this, to have some control in your democratic life. This is why we have special parliamentary commissions, to ensure the decisions are not arbitrary.

Italy is not part of the group negotiating with Iran on its presumed nuclear weapons...

I am not happy about that. You must include countries that have the greatest interest in the problem at hand. Italy is Iran's biggest European trading partner. This is one thing I did not understand about my predecessor because he never asked to be part of that group. Never. There must be a dialogue with Iran. Having a dialogue does not mean that you are weak. I see no advantage in closing a dialogue, in excluding a country because that just creates more resentment. That does not mean that I am not strongly against nuclear proliferation, which I see as one of the dangers for the future. But keeping a dialogue open means you retain the possibility of influencing the course of events.

Tehran has openly called upon India to use its good offices with the U.S. to help resolve this nuclear question. Given Italy's position in favour of dialogue and the fact that you are Tehran's largest trading partner in Europe, could there be an Indo-Italian initiative?

An initiative can come later. What we must do first is exchange views. Iran and Afghanistan are both part of your [India's] area of concern too.

In the past Italy has not had a discernable foreign policy. It has also been said that the Vatican influenced your foreign policy to an inordinate degree. You have said you wish to re-centre Italy's foreign policy. What are your options?

Having a foreign policy means you do not move in an incoherent way. My foreign policy is based on three pillars: Strengthening the United Nations, a new role for the European Union, and NATO with the accent on multilateralism. My predecessor did not bother with the European Union. In making changes I shall not jeopardise our good relations with the USA. So it's really a change in initiative, a change in role, but not a change in direction.

As head of the EU commission you insisted upon the need to strengthen European institutions.That has not happened. The proposed Constitution has been rejected by major countries, Europe has no foreign policy and you are now 27 countries governed by the most unsatisfactory Nice Treaty. What is the next step for Europe?

I would ask you not to be so negative on the subject of Europe. It is true that the constitution has been temporarily blocked. But something like the introduction of the euro has never happened before and we are now the biggest monetary area of the world. There was an enormous political change with the enlargement of Germany. We now have 12 new member states. These were former communist countries and they have completely transformed their economies, moving to market reform, they have changed their constitutions, introduced free press and democracy. That is a fantastic achievement.

I am not disputing the achievements of Europe but you must surely agree that Europe has failed to find unity on a single major foreign policy issue be it the Balkans or Iraq.

That is true. But we are learning our lessons and everyone understands that to correct these mistakes we need European solutions. And I am pushing for those solutions but that is not easy. As for the Constitution, this is not the first time Europe has experienced a standstill. My doctrine is: let us sleep for a while. Let things decant and then we can start afresh. Clearly there are countries that do not share these concerns for unity. There are still differences on political integration but I don't exclude some strong decision on Europe emerging soon. I am not pessimistic because confronted with China or India no European country can go it alone. So integration and unity are inevitable.

Coming to Italy, you have inherited a most difficult situation. Growth has been near zero, national deficit at a record 107 per cent of GDP and credit ratings agencies like S&P or Fitch have placed you on a ratings watch negative. You have just pushed through a whole raft of measures. How much time do you give yourself to right the economy?

I have taken strong measures already in terms of liberalisation — in trade, professions. I have also taken severe decisions on national debt and public spending. All the indices are improving except that of the popularity of my government! Unemployment is going down, inflation is going down, the budget is within the limit set by the EU, and exports, after so many years of crisis, are going up. Only the popularity of my government is going down. But this is the price one has to pay.

You said recently that Italy has lost most of its major companies and that the 2,000 or 2,500 small and medium companies that make up the backbone of Italian industry are not strong enough to capture international markets. What are you doing to give them back their competitive edge?

I am giving them many incentives for mergers, acquisitions, and concentration. There will be consolidation to create niche companies. Take for instance the shoe industry: the number of shoes exported by Italy has dramatically decreased while the value of the exports has significantly increased. There has been a complete restructuring of the industry. The value added goes up, the number of markets decreases, but we occupy niche markets. That is my plan for Italy. Our strength is mechanical industry. The value added for this industry is more than the value added of the pharmaceutical industry of all the 27 European members. If you look at machinery capable of bending glass or steel in the most fantastic way, or packaging materials of the highest design and quality, it is Italian! Of course it's a niche market, but if as a country of 57 million people you want to work in a global economy, niche is the solution. Italian industrialists or small entrepreneurs do not understand this and our missions are also pedagogic. I want to move towards China and India. Next will be Brazil, Japan, and South Korea. That is my strategy.

Are India and China being seen as a threat and will their emergence lead to more protectionist policies in the West?

If you follow the emotional injection given by my predecessor, yes. The problem is not to close markets but to specialise. And I am convinced that the biggest buyers of Italian special products from food to machinery will be the Chinese and the Indians. Absolutely convinced. So I don't see them as enemies, I see them as competitors and consumers.

Italy has been receiving a massive influx of illegal aliens, asylum seekers and economic migrants. How serious a problem is this within Europe? And is this likely to push Europe further to the extreme right?

No, on immigration I think we are still working on a European policy. But we need immigrants. For me, Italy has always been a country of immigrants. The small village of 4,000 people where I was born is now full of Sikh farmers with turbans. I inaugurated a Sikh temple there. They are no trouble at all and they cooperate and participate in community affairs. Such type of immigration is not a problem. The problem arises when immigrants arrive in an uncontrolled way, exploited by human traffickers and you don't know where they come from. Illegal immigration is a problem, not legal immigration.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu