On Wednesday, March 11, the Italian Parliament will once again debate the war escalating in the Middle East following the US and Israeli attack on Iran on February 28. However, as of this writing, a clear contradiction is already emerging from the resolutions presented to the Chamber: while the conflict risks spreading to the entire region, the Italian political debate continues to move within the confines of the Atlantic Alliance, carefully avoiding the issue of military bases in the region. In short, the resolutions presented by the parliamentary groups demonstrate the limitations of the Italian political debate: energy and security are discussed, but the issue of military bases and Italy's role in NATO's wars remains in the background.
Behind the calls for "de-escalation" and the need for a diplomatic solution, a common line emerges: confirming Italy's alignment with NATO's strategic framework, strengthening Europe's military presence, and, above all, managing the economic consequences of the conflict.
It's no coincidence that in parliamentary debate, the war often appears as a domestic issue: rising energy prices, the safety of Italian soldiers stationed in the area, and the protection of citizens working in the Gulf countries. The conflict itself-its legitimacy, the violation of international law, and the risk of a new regional war-remains in the background.
Only a few resolutions explicitly raise the issue of the attack on Iran and its international legal framework, even raising the question of the possible use of US military bases in Italy. This is a theme that runs throughout the history of the Republic and resurfaces punctually every time a new conflict directly or indirectly involves the Mediterranean.
This is precisely the most repressed point in Italian political debate. From the war in Yugoslavia to those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the bases of Aviano, Sigonella, and Camp Darby have represented essential junctures of US military deployment in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. This is a mechanism that often operates sheltered from real parliamentary scrutiny and with minimal public debate.
Should the crisis with Iran escalate further, this issue would inevitably return to center stage. But it is precisely here that the parliamentary debate risks revealing its most obvious flaw: discussing the war without truly questioning the system of alliances and military servitude that makes Italy an integral part of that system.
As long as Italy remains dotted with foreign bases and integrated into NATO's military apparatus, any parliamentary discussion of the war risks resembling an acknowledgment rather than a genuine political decision.
Totò Caggese
https://umanitanova.org/quando-la-cura-e-resistenza-ravenna-proibito-certificare-inidoneita-a-cpr/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #8-26 - A NATO Debate Under Siege. The War, Parliament, and the Silence on US Bases (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten