The media attention related to Italian missions, despite a considerable military commitment for decades now, is traditionally limited. The current debate about Italian participation in international operations mainly focused on planned new interventions (three missions of the European Union concerning Ukraine, Libya and Niger and one – bilateral – in Burkina Faso) and on the confirmation of a truly significant number of armed forces deployed across the border, in a scenario still deeply conditioned by the war in Ukraine.
The analysis of the resolution, the analytical report and the discussion so far in parliament – fueled in particular by the words of the majority rapporteurs and ministers Tajani and Crosetto – allows you to highlight three central aspects of the Meloni government’s approach to military missions: a long-awaited confirmation, a (persistent) doubt and a (potential) novelty.
Continuity in the international framework
The first element pertains to the continuity with respect to the main operations conducted and the multilateral intervention framework (UN, EU and NATO). Eats predictable e foreseenin the light of literature on matters of parties and foreign policy, of the electoral programfrom the statements and the previous behavior of the majority forces, the defense policy choices of the Meloni government confirm the now traditional Italy’s role of “international peacekeeper”with a presence of thousands of soldiers in more than 40 missions across the border.
The maximum consistency of forces (above 10,000 units) represents one of the highest data in the new century, not dissimilar from that of the past year. In other words, from the Draghi government to the Meloni executive, there are no particular “shakes” in the basic choices on missions, noting that approach essentially bipartisan which for decades has seen the use of the armed forces as a central asset of Italian foreign policy.
Priority contexts for Italian military missions
The second aspect that emerges from the analysis of the debate does not have the contours of confirmation or certainty. On the contrary, it arises as a question open to multiple answers. What is the main area of intervention for the Italian operations? The thousands of soldiers deployed (in the sky, on land and now also at sea) throughout Eastern Europe reaffirm the conspicuous Italian contribution to the eastern flank of NATOas well as the commitment to the EU and allies on the front of support policies for Kiev. Do these numbers, together with the concern for the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then allow us to consider Europe as the vital area for Italy’s defence?
Deterrence and territorial defense they assert themselves as new paradigms also for Italy, as they were in the years of the Cold War? Or, rather, they are traditional geographic contexts (from the Middle East to the Balkans, with increasing military presence) to be the most relevant? At the same time, the references to the Indo Pacific, for now limited on a military level (one aims at “consolidate our positioning in the area”), can they really represent a turning point? While all of these questions appear legitimate, the current debate seems to identify the Mediterranean again – using the words of Minister Crosetto – come “the area of primary strategic interest” for Italy. Beyond the difficulties associated with the security scenario and the general withdrawal of forces (not only Italian) from Mali, the triangle involving Libya, the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Guinea, with the Sahel in the middleseems to emerge once again as the fundamental context for the defense of national interests in the face of threats considered central (including the influence of external actors).
A national security strategy
Finally, the third element that can be deduced from the analysis of the documents and the parliamentary discussion relating to the launch and extension of military missions is the presence of some potential but significant changes. In particular, the intervention of Minister Crosetto outlined possible discontinuities, not so much for the approval of these operations, as for the overall defense approach on the matter. In fact, the review of methods and timing in the implementation of law 145 (which has been commenting on its own for years: we approve some missions in May that end…now!), as well as the request for an overall evaluation of the results and lessons learned of the missions and the elaboration of a (first) national security strategy guide the choices of the defense, appear necessary for a long time expected and desired.
It is also paradoxical, but not surprising given the Italian political and cultural context, that the minister’s reflection on the opportunity to change the general national approach to operations has attracted so little attention. Self review the posture in the generation of national contributions (going beyond the sending of some military units as an “act of presence”, without being able to influence command structures) the open awareness that training local forces “and leaving” does not guarantee an improvement in the political-social and security conditions of a countrydeserves further study. This interest is justified both by the centrality that the training of local forces has held up to now for Italy (and perhaps will also play in a very controversial such as Burkina Faso), and from the now solid literature on the subject which confirms it as the mere security assistance does not generally lead to positive results in terms of stability and development, and that sometimes it even reveals itself counterproductive.
All these innovations appear potentially relevant but need time and further confirmation. At the moment in fact, it is not clear what “systemic” approach we want to adopt on missions (and with what funds, also given the not rosy state of the resources destined for cooperation), nor what process we want to start for the different implementation of 145, for the evaluation of operations, and for the long-awaited elaboration of a national strategy. In any case, it would be desirable that this path be followed involving in a substantial and effective way the skills of a vast plurality of actors – inside and outside the parliament – feeding, for once, a broad and structured debate on Italian defence.
Cover photo ANSA/GIUSEPPE LAMI