Versione stampabile
Craig Kennedy è il Presidente del German Marshall Fund (GMF) dal 1995. Sotto la sua guida il GMF ha concentrato le sue attività sulla conciliazione delle posizioni di Stati Uniti ed Europa in politica estera, economia, immigrazione e ambiente. E’ il promotore di numerosi progetti di GMF, tra i quali si annoverano Transatlantic Trends – un rapporto annuale sull’opinione pubblica americana ed europea – e Trade and Poverty Forum – un progetto internazionale di cooperazione tra Stati Uniti, Europa e paesi in via di sviluppo mirato ad affrontare i problemi legati allo sviluppo attraverso il sistema commerciale mondiale.
In visita ufficiale a Roma, Craig Kennedy ha accettato quest’intervista, che riportiamo in lingua originale.
(Q.) Dr. Kennedy, the recent US air strikes in southern Somalia have been criticised by several European governments. Do you think that another drift in the transatlantic relations is close, as in the aftermath of 11-S?
(A.) I think that the transatlantic relation is mature enough at this point that criticism around specific American actions will rarely affect the relationship as a whole. It is very clear that some European countries are concerned about the use of force in Somalia. But the matter is that there is publicly more collaboration right now between the United States and Europe, like in Afghanistan or in Lebanon, than there has been in many years. I do not think that most Americans see those criticisms as something that is going to make the relationship worse, at this point.
(A.) You know, one of the good things about Italian politics is that there is among the political lead a very strong pro-American or pro-Atlanticist tendency. Romano Prodi has at times been very critical of the United States but I do not think that anybody in the United States doubts that he is committed to transatlantic cooperation and that was true of the previous government, as well. I think that the decision on the base was a very positive one.
(Q.) Dr. Kennedy, what are your first impressions on the new strategy of President Bush in Iraq?
(A.) Well, I think that the real question is whether there is enough troops at the right time. Three years ago an additional 30,000 or 40,000 troops might have make a big difference. Will it be enough now? I think that Senator McCain and others might have been very supportive of the President but they have also pointed out that it might take more than 21,000 troops. Let me emphasize though, that it is not in the interest of the United States or Europe that this war turns into a failure. There is a lot of different factors that play in this war but one of them is the conflict between radical fundamentalism and western values and that is really what is at stake here.
(Q.) Do you think that the “surge” in American troops will eventually allow the Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki and the Iraqi military to take on radical Islamic extremists and possibly to secure the population in the country?
(A.) I am not a military expert but one thing that military experts have convinced me is that it is going to take more than a military solution to reach that end, that there has to be both an adequate use and an expert presence of military force to allow the Iraqi to take over. There is also a need of a political and economic initiative that can help to create a national citizenry in a country where that does not exist right now. However I do not think that anyone should assume that a “surge” in troops and police duties by Iraqis is going to take more reforms and more actions than just that.
(Q.) This could mean, anyway, that the US may have to be prepared to stay in Iraq for a long time. Do you think that the majority of the US Congress will accept such a long term engagement?
(A.) I think what you will see among the Democrats is that right now they will vote with a sense of responsibility and they will not cut off funding. That is a way of saying that “we do not approve what you are doing but we are not against the plug on this operation”. The real test will be in around a year, when democratic candidates for Presidency have to start coming up with serious plans for what they will do in Iraq. I feel that it might be better that we are out of Iraq by then, but we will not be.
(Q.) Dr. Kennedy, one challenge to the cause of the promotion of democracy in the Middle East seems to be how to limit the freedom of access to nuclear energy by “rogue States”, and particularly by Iran. Is there a risk of nuclear rearmament of the region?
(A.) I think that the current Administration, no matter who will be the next President, has already set a course for how we are going to deal with this, which is strong cooperation with European allies. The real test is whether this turns into an effective strategy and Iran is going to be an interesting test case. There are many people who think that we have already lost the case of Iran and in effect it is true, we have a very serious decade ahead of us.
(Q.) Do you think that it is worth restarting a diplomatic dialogue between Washington and Teheran, after it was interrupted in 1979 as a measure against the Iranian revolutionary government?
(A.) At some point there will be a diplomatic dialogue. I cannot tell when it is the right time to begin that, but there are people who I admire and entrust who think that it is time to do that now. But there are many others, too, who claim that you cannot have a dialogue with a regime that wants to destroy Israel and that is openly hostile to the Western values and I think that this is the view that most American people have. I do not think we are going to see any overt dialogue, but rather informal conversations. I would guess that this is the position that the Bush Administration will stick with in the next two years.
