Address by the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella at the Conference “NATO at 75: Shaping a New Transatlantic Agenda, Security and Peace at a Time of Global Transformations”

Let me begin by addressing a greeting to Apostolic Nuncio, Cardinal Tscherrig, to the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, to the Members of Parliament present, to the Chief of the Defence Staff, to the Secretary General of the Foreign Ministry, to the Chiefs of the Armed Forces in attendance and in particular to our host, the Commander-General of the Carabinieri, and thank him for his welcome.

And, of course, allow me to also extend a cordial greeting to all the people present.

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the SIOI’s initiative to promote this Conference which, by marking the 75^th anniversary of the Treaty, urges us to reflect on the choice of joining the Atlantic Alliance, so loaded with consequences for our Country.

The Treaty signed on the 4^th of April 1949 – as just recalled by Ambassador Sessa, who I thank – was to contribute to the political identity of the Republic as it still stands today.

At the end of a war, especially as bloody as that of World War II, the priority was to “make peace” and, immediately after, give life to an effective collective security system.

This is what happened in 1918 when, at the request of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in his 14 points, the Society of Nations was established in the hope of superseding the principle according to which a Nation’s sovereignty abroad was expressed through the use of force in international relations. An attempt was even made through a “Treaty to Renounce War” – a bilateral non-aggression agreement – which was promoted by the United States Secretary of State Frank Kellog and the French Foreign Minister, Aristide Briand.

Stipulated in 1928, in addition of course to the United States and France, it was signed by sixty-three States including among others Germany, Italy and Japan, the Countries that would give rise to the Second World War only a few years later.

Therefore, in 1945, the concern was to assure the security of the populations and of the Countries devastated so as not to repeat what had occurred after the First World War.

There were two concomitant concerns: the first was aimed at setting up an international forum between States based on the Declaration of 1 January 1942, which was the first step along the path that ultimately led to signing the Charter in San Francisco – as we all well know – on the 25^th of April 1945, which set forth the creation of permanent conflict resolution instruments.

The second – the legacy of a Europe of big powers - imagined solving problems through one-off international conferences and referred back to bilateral self-defence cooperation agreements. This was the case of the Dunkirk Treaty of 4 March 1947 between France and the United Kingdom which was later expanded to the Benelux Countries through the Brussels Treaty of 17 March 1948.

The reason for this experience was the unabating spectre of Germany; an issue which was soon to disappear.

Conversely, the key role that was being outlined to combat the Soviet Union and its satellites would patently be played by the United States.

We are speaking of choosing the Atlantic Alliance and “Atlantism” and therefore it is useful to refer to its meaning.

In order to do this, we must look at the contents of the meeting held off the Island of Newfoundland in August 1941 between President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill (as we know, the USA had not yet entered the war) whose joint statement set out a number of principles. 

Let us summarize them quickly: no territorial expansions at the expense of others; no territorial changes that do not respect the freely expressed vote of the peoples concerned; the right of all peoples to choose their form of government and the restoration of sovereign rights and the autonomy of those forcefully deprived thereof; access on equal terms to the raw materials of the world and the trading thereof; economic cooperation between all States to assure them all better working conditions, economic progress, and social security; the destruction of the Nazi tyranny and assuring peace to all peoples so that they may live safely within their borders and free of fear and need; free circulation across the seas and oceans; renouncing the use of force. 

This was the Atlantic Charter expressly referred to in the declaration by the 26 Countries (including the Soviet Union) that signed it in Washington on the 1^st of January 1942.

This is the sense of the decision that drove the recently founded Italian Republic to join the North Atlantic Treaty, which specifically referred to those principles and commitments.

Anyone wanting to compare those principles with our Constitutional Charter would find no difficulty in finding ample analogies.

In order to appreciate the value of that decision, we must consider the condition in which Italy was in at the end of the war.

The Paris Peace Conference – lingering in age-old practices that had often determined the cause for the subsequent resumption of hostilities – had excluded it from all international circuits.

It would not be admitted into the Treaty of Brussels, and it was not a member of the United Nations.

This makes it easier to grasp the significance of the noble speech delivered by Alcide De Gasperi at the Peace Conference on the 10^th of August 1946 and the unrelenting efforts made to sensitize the Allies.

The Republic’s membership in NATO therefore primarily implied its endorsement of the values of liberty set forth in the Atlantic Charter and, at the same time, the essential decision to re-enter international politics. It included the pragmatic choice to take the United States as reference, in view of the declining role of Europe in the world, of which the waning British and French influence was but a signal.

After undersigning the Peace Treaty, Italy was able to contribute to defining the instruments for a new international system within the framework of a security architecture capable of guaranteeing its economic and social development among and in coordination with other Western Nations.

This was when the expression “free world” came into use, the world to which Italy chose to belong.

This did not occur without a debate, as Ambassador Sessa recalled earlier. The adversaries of De Gasperi were principally communism and nationalism. The foreign policy of the new Italy also underwent a “constituent” phase. 

A position of neutrality was supported in the bipolar context in which the Soviet Bloc manifested its expansionist ambitions.

The actual facts revealed the wisdom of the decisions taken by De Gasperi and Sforza.

De Gasperi, in the parliamentary debate on the Treaty, said: “Either we join the Atlantic Pact, which in any case also exists without us, or we opt for neutrality. Armed neutrality is impossible due to our financial insufficiency”. And he asked himself: “Who would ever help us if, given the opportunity of accessing collective solidarity, we were to selfishly refuse and reject all common risk?”

As De Gasperi said, NATO was born out of the “need for security” and was based on “integrating the national effort into the collective effort”. The Trento-born statesman thus clarified that the decision met the need to “defend a vaster homeland” making it “visible, strong, and lively”.

That visible and politically lively homeland – which was on De Gasperi’s mind and without which building a system of military alliances would have less scope and significance – was the European project.

Our membership in the Atlantic Alliance therefore immediately took on an ambitious significance and was linked to a supernational and ideal prospect consistent with the founding principles of the Constitutional Charter.

It is an approach that clearly manifests its modernity by establishing the so-called founding link between the Atlantic project and the political development of Europe.

Another characteristic that can be drawn from NATO’s first development and consolidation phase is its full and organic integration into a multilateral system of shared rules and principles hinged on the United Nations Charter and in particular on Article 51, which sets forth the inherent right of all Nations to self-defence.

The Alliance has never failed this vocation, regardless of Russia’s war-mongering rhetoric blaming it for non-existent aggressive and expansionist aims.

The Atlantic Alliance’s power of deterrence has assured peace in Europe and allow me to express the appreciation and recognition of our Republic, as well of all the citizens of the member States of the Alliance, to all the extraordinarily professional and dedicated women and men, civilians and military, who in these past 75 years have represented the “essence” of NATO, controlling its confines of liberty.   

The alliance was joined by the Countries that were empowered to take free decisions after overthrowing their regimes bound under the Warsaw Pact.

This process was outlined in the conclusions of the 1975 Helsinki Conference which made it possible to be optimistic about putting in place and ever more inclusive collective security system, thus turning page on the so-called “cold war”.

The Paris Charter adopted in 1990 at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe made it understood that humanity could enjoy a “dividend of peace” capable of orienting expenditures and investments towards international development and justice.

The war of aggression waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the instability in the enlarged Mediterranean unfortunately put an end to that period.

Today, NATO allies face the need to forcefully reaffirm the unacceptability of “fait accompli” policies.

The value of the international order lies in preventing the assertion of power politics whereby the Governments of stronger Nations can assume to be authorized to annihilate less populated and armed Countries.

Since World War II, Italy’s path within the international community has always been oriented towards peace, working in favour of the European cause beginning in the EDC, and then in NATO and in the UN.

The NATO Summit to be held in Washington next July will offer the opportunity to renew our efforts through increasingly sophisticated analyses and strategies that better meet the new conditions.

This means solidarity. Within the context of NATO’s renewed vitality and appeal, as is also attested by the recent membership of Finland and Sweden, Italy takes part in high-level missions aimed at guarding the north-eastern flank.

Another need refers to the capacity to assess risks and threats – also hybrid and non-conventional, posed by international conditions – that is not filtered through a single lens of interpretation.

There can be no separation between the security of the north flank and the security of the south flank of the Alliance.

We must offset the deficit caused by the progressive lack of attention for the Mediterranean area and the Middle East: the ongoing events speak for themselves.

Alongside the war in Ukraine, the persisting conflict in Gaza, with its fallout on the Red Sea and throughout the Middle East – including the risk of escalation – the missile attack by Iran and the crisis in the Sahel region, all outline a vast area of instability that dramatically converges into the Mediterranean, calling Italy to play a stabilizing role and defend the principles of international coexistence.

The tactic command of the Aspides mission in the Red Sea is part of this scenario.

The aforesaid threats, in addition to global threats, have the common objective of downsizing the multilateral system based on international law of which NATO is a pillar.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In a context characterized by extraordinarily serious threats, also the European Union is called upon to elevate the level of its commitment, and to do so urgently.

Today, this reflection ultimately focuses on the need for a common defence system after the failed attempts made at the end of the last century.

In Helsinki, twenty-five years ago, this goal seemed to be within reach. Over the years, its dissolution has repeatedly turned the European Union into a mere spectator of events that have affected it negatively.

To endow the European Union with greater strategic autonomy will enable NATO to gain strength, precisely through the complementariness between the two Organizations, thus strengthening one of its pillars which is weaker today.

Weaker because – as is well known – the lower degree of coordination and integration results in a limited capacity albeit in the face of great financial commitments. To remove this condition would benefit everybody in a world irreversibly characterized by the role played by great international actors.

Ladies and gentlemen,

allow me to close by quoting one of my predecessors, the anniversary of whose birth was celebrated only a few days ago.

Referring to Europe, in 1954, President Einaudi recalled that the spectre of the decisions to be taken by the Countries in the continent boiled down to “existing united or disappearing”.

The experience of the Atlantic Alliance confirms the value of a history that in 75 years never failed its commitment to assure the security of the 32 Countries that are its members: united in defending liberty and democracy.

A value that confirms the importance of the multilateralism advocated by our Republic.