America: a Policy of Openness

NATO solidarity. Dialogue with Moscow and Beijing. Recognition of the State of Palestine. The judgment of the former Italian Prime Minister on the challenge raised by international terrorism

BY GIULIO ANDREOTTI

On the wave of emotion aroused by the events in New York and Washington, on the morning of September 11th a phrase was going around: “Nothing will ever be the same again.” This was true first of all for Americans, who had lost their certainty that their soil was impregnable. Quite the contrary from the precautions against a possible future missile attack (i.e., the “space shield” program). The enemy already had the ability to violate the sanctuary and had done so in a satanic and shocking way. The number of dead was estimated in the thousands, but more rankling was the choice of target: sensational symbols of the economy and of military might. Inadequate airline security and a presumed lack of vigilance concerning foreigners (an unjust criticism in a free country) could not pass undeplored, but the patriotic sense of Americans was immediately awakened, and everyone rallied around the President. Without indulging in spectacular (but sterile) demonstrative reactions, he launched an appeal to worldwide solidarity against the terrorists, in the meantime pointing to Bin Laden as responsible for the dastardly murders. The evidence? Reserved documentation was submitted to foreign governments, but the billionaire sheik took it upon himself to make the challenge his own. Everyone, or almost everyone, had underestimated him, not taking seriously the warrant for his arrest issued five years earlier by Gheddafi. And even when the Taliban had mown down the Iranian diplomatic delegation in Kabul, an adequate reaction had not occurred. Perhaps the combatants against the Soviet invaders could still count on a residue of credit.

Wisely, President Bush removed one of Bin Laden’s secret weapons by calling the perpetrators of this dreadful act traitors to their religion. Thus, no Crusades for or against Islam.

In the meantime, the government in Washington was moving on two fronts: military preparation for an attack on Afghanistan and the proposal for a broad international agreement against terrorism. NATO solidarity is a very good thing, but it is necessary to forget the past, further the dialogue with Moscow, and open new talks with Beijing. Moreover, it was necessary to take away from Bin Laden the psychological weapon of support for the Palestinian cause. To tell the truth, Clinton had already done a great deal, but it was necessary to go even further. The Palestinian state by now has to be set up, and Sharon has to resign himself to it. As I write, the situation in the Middle East is still very tense after the assassination of a government minister and harsh repressive actions on the part of the Israelis. Nonetheless, the broad policy of openness that the Americans have set in motion preserves all of its due potential. The judgment that, in the Alliance, we were giving of General Powell around 1990 returns to my mind: he seems more of a diplomat than a military man.