"This conversation will be dedicated to Razan Zaitouneh," said Emma Bonino, even before the spiral notebook was opened, and the recorder turned on. L'Espresso asked the former Italian Foreign Minister and former Commissioner of the European Union, a veteran of every struggle against fanaticism and of all human and civil rights battles, for her opinion about intolerance, a sentiment that is gaining ground all over the world. Bonino, who lived four years in Cairo after moving there to study Arabic, and to get a better grasp of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region, accepted to answer our questions, however, only if the interview started with Zaitouneh’s words, "because intolerance often results in violence and unspeakable crimes."

SPECIALE

Emma Bonino: "Laici di tutto il mondo, unitevi contro l'intolleranza"

di Wlodek Goldkorn

6/1/2015

Zaitouneh, a 37 year-old Syrian woman lawyer, committed and devoted her time since 2001 to defending prisoners jailed for political reasons in Bashar el Assad’s prisons. In 2011, right after the beginning of the revolt against his regime, she set up a center to monitor and document all crimes perpetrated by government troops with the aim of gathering evidence to bring the dictator to an international court. She then worked with the Association No Peace without Justice. Her work expanded after that to gathering testimonies on the misdeeds of Islamist militias. Over a year ago, a group of armed men broke into the headquarters of the documentation center, in Duma, a few kilometers out of Damascus, and seized Zaitouneh and three of her co-workers.

Ms. Bonino, what is intolerance?
The philosopher Karl Popper said that intolerant is someone who considers his or her own tribe’s taboos as absolute, but has not yet discovered that other tribes have other taboos. This definition combines tribes and taboo, hence an inability to accept the Other. Enacting intolerance can shape up to forms so extreme to be bedazzling, bedazzling to the point of blinding one’s mind. "

German historian Wolfgang Benz wrote that the Holocaust is like the sun, you cannot stare at it if you do not want to go blind...
Before we get to that stage, however, you have an array of intolerant attitudes. Hannah Arendt described them in the “Banality of Evil": minor single gestures which do not scare as such, but that put together show how intolerance grows and mounts to tragic and catastrophic outcomes. At that point, it is too late. Nowadays, the theme goes that intolerance concerns mainly the Muslim family: it is among them that intolerance is practiced with unprecedented cruelty. Also in Italy, however, we record phenomena that worry me. I fear that the path we entered will have us backslide into an abyss. I think of hatred against Roma people, also of those who say that they do not want refugees here, not in their backyard. A creeping racism is expanding throughout Europe. Racism is by now apparent and legitimated as anti-Semitism was before Auschwitz. Just replace the word Jew with the word Roma."

What are the consequences?
That we lock Roma people up in camps violating European laws and directives, and even reaping unlawful profits from assisting them. Of course, these camps are different from concentration camps, but it is not hard to imagine how all this can end badly.

Let us talk about the Muslim tribe. Why are intolerants so powerful in the Islamic world?
Because at some point an ideological power struggle occurred within the Sunni family. It is a hegemonic war between two groups: the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi. The Islamic and Quranic foundation plays a role as well: we should not forget hatred between Sunnis and Shiites.

How important is the issue of women's rights in Islam?
Very important, because it is emblematic, in a negative way. Conservatives view women’s emancipation as destabilizing. Nevertheless, let us keep in mind that the taboo of women's bodies is as old as humanity all across all monotheistic religions.

Is the war being fought over women's bodies?
That was always the case. Women's sexuality needed to be controlled because it is dangerous and subversive.

Pious Jews are forbidden to listen to women singing to avoid impure thoughts.
The Taliban banned in the first period white socks, which were considered erotic.

Also in the West, many males find it hard to watch a group of women laughing, and talking about sex. What is the difference between this uneasiness and imposing the burqa?
In the West, and all across the world, males continue to kill females. That said the difference is a cultural one. In the West, we learned, to a certain degree, to manage diversity and ourselves. The female difference is at any rate a conquest obtained by women. It was forced upon males. That said, even in the Islamic world there have always been differences and contamination. Just think of the Tunisian President Bourguiba and of Ataturk, albeit they were not democratic. "

One could also recall, perhaps, Egyptian president Nasser. Some feature film posted on the Internet shows Nasser in the late fifties, telling the story of how the Muslim Brotherhood demanded him in 1953 to pass a law to impose wearing the veil on all women. You can hear the audience laughing aloud. Over fifty years ago, imposing the veil on women, at least in cities, was ludicrous. What changed?
"I think external factors weighted in. In many countries, the issue of the veil does not involve religion but identity. The point is to counter the West. I would like though to touch upon a thought that I believe is important. There are many secular people in the Muslim world, who consider religion a private matter. They are the bearers of any discourse on tolerance. We seriously do not want to believe peace and tolerance to be Western export goods, or do we? Peace and tolerance are not events, but a process. "

Can you elaborate on this?
There is a hype around interreligious dialogue these days. I would rather start an inter-secular dialogue. I am sure that many secular people in the Muslim world would agree with me.

You mentioned the veil as an element of identity, not just a religious one. Building up an identity requires always excluding the Other?
"Yes, if antibodies are not available. Antibodies - that is, secular Muslims – are to be found everywhere in the region. First of all there the women, also those that wear the veil. Male or female, everyone is afraid. In addition, I would like to clarify that I do not consider wearing the veil to be a scandal, I would forbid only the burqa, which cancels your face, and hence the person. However, Italy too is missing some antibodies. '

Let us talk about intolerance at the domestic level.
"That can partly be explained with social unrest. The problem is that politicians do not respond as firmly as is needed. I mean also culturally firm. Indeed, racism seems to induce a degree of shyness among the political class. They say that opposing racists is unpopular. I answer that the bad guys are there, because the good ones do not speak out. What I mean by this is that often the response to racists is just as racist, only a little bit more polite. Moreover, the majority of politicians does not dare to say that by 2050 Europe will need about 50 million new immigrants. Such an obvious truth is taboo. We are ever more absorbed by the present, by the economic crisis. If you looked at Europe from Mars, you would say that this is the richest and more educated and cultivated region on planet Earth. You could therefore be bold thinking of the future, making imaginative and daring plans. Nonetheless, even the meetings of the Council of the European Union recall those of the board of a bank. The ruling class, politicians and the media evoke principles not for these to guide actions and life, but merely to keep them far up there, in a sort of Pantheon.

Being constricted to such an “accounting” present breeds intolerance?
"Tolerance is applied for electoral purposes. People do not realize that a racist discourse is like weeds. They take root quickly. Eradicating them is then a long and arduous process"

You held the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs and were always involved in international affairs, as shown by the dedication you suggested beginning this conversation. So, how do we deal with intolerants, with dictators who commit genocide? Was not intervening in Syria the right choice?
The West is still very good at fighting wars. It knows very well how to get rid of dictators. The problem is that no one knows what to do next. And for two reasons. The first one is that we often go to war in countries we refuse to get to learn. Just think what happened in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed. The second one is that resorting to military intervention became sort of an automatic reflex that precludes trying to find other solutions. You can recall here Marco Pannela and the radicals’ feasible proposal of forcing Saddam Hussein into exile. Furthermore, the notion of humanitarian intervention is often confounded with an intervention aimed at a change of regime.

You did not respond to the question if not intervening in Syria was the right thing to do.
I can answer based on my experience in Egypt. I lived for four years in Cairo, and was hence telling everyone that the situation with Mubarak was unsustainable. No one took my call seriously. Then the "Arab springs", as we called them, exploded surprising and frightening us. But what springs? In that region the conquest of democracy will need at least two decades. On the other hand, even in Eastern Europe getting to a decent condition took twenty years. As for Syria, perhaps taking action in 2011 was feasible, I do not know. I took over the Syria dossier later on. The fact is that in the meantime the fundamentalist Islamists had taken over what once had been the opposition to the regime. The Gulf and Saudi monarchies intervened. Their war tactic was to create terrorist groups, the same way Taliban were invented in 1997 (with Pakistan’s participation). Since 2006, we now have Isis. In 2013, when I became Foreign Minister, resistance in Syria was already in the hands of people whom I would not have given a slingshot, let alone real weapons.