While in recent days Antonio Tajani, forced to fill his agenda with ever-new international crises, jokingly called himself the most unlucky foreign minister in history, Stefania Craxi would never give in to such a fit of self-pity. After all, "a Craxi doesn't cry," as her father Bettino once told her, and as she recounts in "In the Shadow of History," the memoir she presented recently in Cabras, at the literary festival of archaeology. But while he remains dry-eyed, Craxi knows enough about foreign policy—undersecretary in the Berlusconi IV government, he now chairs the Senate's third committee—to understand that "we are going through the most dangerous period for humanity since the Second World War, with the international system searching for a new order that is not yet in sight, and Western democracies exposing their fragility and clearly under attack. Unfortunately, we've reached this moment—and I'm speaking especially of the West, and Europe in particular—very unprepared. We didn't see it coming, as they say these days.

Why?

Because in recent years we've been lulled by the dream of globalist ideology, which told us that history was coming to an end, that there would be peace forever, that politics was no longer necessary, that peoples, nations, and borders no longer existed. Well, it seems to me that history has continued to run its course, that politics is useful, that the market, left to its own devices, has widened the gap of inequality, and that people exist, even when they are poor, derelict, and voiceless. Nations exist, with their burden of historical wounds, and borders exist. The only thing that hasn't found borders is money.

What role can Italy play on such a heated chessboard?

Italy is a medium-sized regional power to which history and geography assign a Mediterranean leadership role. That said, no country today can think of acting alone, and Italy acts within the context of its historic alliances: I'm talking about a Europe that must learn to speak with one voice in foreign policy and therefore adopt a unified defense policy, and naturally it must do so within the context of NATO, the alliance with our transatlantic partner, which is an alliance of values even more than a military one.

But now the European Parliament has a motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen: Forza Italia is for "no," the League is for "yes," and the FdI may abstain. How can such a divided government contribute to strengthening Europe?

Meanwhile, divisions are emerging across Europe, and they're not just within the center-right: in recent months, we've seen other divisions within the center-left as well. After that, in international politics, the issue isn't the majority-opposition dialectic: the issue is the country, which must strive for a unified position and demand that Europe, in turn, have a single foreign policy stance if it wants to have any impact on the international stage.

One issue that requires a unified stance is tariffs. Another delay has arrived: how are we preparing for a potentially disastrous outcome to the negotiations?

You know well that the negotiations are not Italy's responsibility, but Europe's, which has a unified position on the issue. I hope that the Trump administration, which is difficult in some ways and challenging in others, will be seen by Europe as an opportunity to speak with one voice on foreign and economic policy. On the other hand, challenges must be met when they arise, and I hope Europe is capable of doing so. Italy is preparing, however: obviously, we are considering support for agriculture and, more generally, for all types of production that will be affected. However, it's clear to everyone that we're talking while negotiations are still open, and if I may, I don't want to end up like the magician Otelma.

A Plan B, or at least a mitigating measure in the event of tariffs, could come from the agreement with Mercosur. However, we are among the European countries with reservations.

"I beg to differ: the government isn't hesitant about Mercosur. The concerns are in the agricultural sector, and we will obviously consider compensation, but it's clear that in a situation like this, we absolutely need to broaden our trade alliances and export markets."

You chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: what do you think of Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Netanyahu?

«I wouldn't want it to go like the one given to Obama. It seems to me that these Nobel Prizes awarded so far in advance never end well».

An inevitable low blow: forty years ago, the Sigonella crisis, in terms of international authority, Italy was a different place.

First of all, allow me to say that it was the final act of our Risorgimento. Of course, you speak of an Italy that mattered more, but we were the fifth-largest economy in the world, and that matters. We mattered more because we had long had a role in the Mediterranean, and obviously because we were a border country between East and West. You know, you can't compare one historical period to another. Craxi was a truly exceptional figure, and as a man of the West, he demonstrated that one can be a perfectly loyal ally of the United States of America without being subservient. I hope that will be our government's stance toward its greatest ally.

Every now and then, when America threatens tariffs on its allies, one wonders how Craxi would have handled it.

I repeat, you can't compare different historical periods. But with this government, Italy has started speaking to the world again, and now, like it or not, it's being listened to.

However, it is rather worrying that on the eve of the Rome summit on the reconstruction of Ukraine, the BlackRock fund, with its enormous financial power, withdrew from its investors.

"There's a proverb that says: do what you must, let what may happen. As an Italian government, we are doing what we have to do."

© Riproduzione riservata