An agreement on Libya is perhaps less unlikely than it was in previous months. Many factions are tired of fighting. The country needs money and looks forward to oil exports resumption. UN representative, Bernardino León, is holding a draft of a preliminary
agreement signed in Morocco last July by certain parties. The presence of the IS in Derna and its massacres of Sirte, now
controlled by its militia, an agreement becomes even more necessary and urgent.If it is signed, however, the agreement will be still fragile and precarious. Signatures of remaining parties and factions is necessary to have foreign military presence - authorized by the UN - to which assign
the task of monitoring compliance of the agreed terms, guarantee the
security of the institutions and the resumption of production
activities, including, first of all, oil wells operations.
There will be Egyptian, French, German, British and Italian troops, but a country as leader and major troops provider. It is not excluded that this country will be Italy. For historical and economic reasons Italy is today the country which knows Libya better, its leadership and its needs. Italy cannot be held directly responsible for the ill-fated expedition of 2011. It can use the experience and knowledge accumulated by ENI in recent decades.Is Italy ready to take the risks of an operation that is likely to be more difficult than Lebanon? Are there national interests that should push the government to accept this hypothesis?
It is believed that there are three reasons. The first is obviously economic. If there will be a military presence sent by UN, the Libyan wells could start working again and first country to take advantage of it would be Italy. The second one is immigration. Libya is the path preferred by migrants from Africa and Levant. Along with Greece, Italy is the first stop for those who want to reach central and northern Europe. A military mission in Libya would allow to improve control of people smuggler, to create the conditions for receiving and retaining immigrants on Libyan soil and, in Libya, to separate those with asylum potential from economical mass emigration.The third one is a political interest. In Greek debt crisis management (the other EU big problem), Italy had to be necessarily limited to observer role.
Libya would have a better chance to prove to Brussels that Mediterranean is EU southern border and Italy's security is the security of all. It is not believed that Italian armed forces would dislike to play this role.
Italian armed force have had good experiences in Afghanistan and Kosovo, so they have one more card to prove that security has a price and their budget cannot be treated as crisis scapegoat.
It is not a question of "good impression". It is an opportunity to show that Italy is useful to all its EU partners.
There will be Egyptian, French, German, British and Italian troops, but a country as leader and major troops provider. It is not excluded that this country will be Italy. For historical and economic reasons Italy is today the country which knows Libya better, its leadership and its needs. Italy cannot be held directly responsible for the ill-fated expedition of 2011. It can use the experience and knowledge accumulated by ENI in recent decades.Is Italy ready to take the risks of an operation that is likely to be more difficult than Lebanon? Are there national interests that should push the government to accept this hypothesis?
It is believed that there are three reasons. The first is obviously economic. If there will be a military presence sent by UN, the Libyan wells could start working again and first country to take advantage of it would be Italy. The second one is immigration. Libya is the path preferred by migrants from Africa and Levant. Along with Greece, Italy is the first stop for those who want to reach central and northern Europe. A military mission in Libya would allow to improve control of people smuggler, to create the conditions for receiving and retaining immigrants on Libyan soil and, in Libya, to separate those with asylum potential from economical mass emigration.The third one is a political interest. In Greek debt crisis management (the other EU big problem), Italy had to be necessarily limited to observer role.
Libya would have a better chance to prove to Brussels that Mediterranean is EU southern border and Italy's security is the security of all. It is not believed that Italian armed forces would dislike to play this role.
Italian armed force have had good experiences in Afghanistan and Kosovo, so they have one more card to prove that security has a price and their budget cannot be treated as crisis scapegoat.
It is not a question of "good impression". It is an opportunity to show that Italy is useful to all its EU partners.
No comments:
Post a Comment