Transits from Italian ports “military materialAlso dangerous and explosive“, Embarked on the ships of Bahri fleet directed in Saudi Arabia. This happens despite theembargo elected two years ago in the House of Representatives and confirmed internationally with the resolution European Parliament of September 17, 2020, which penned the fact that “the arms exported to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates“Are used in the”dirty war in Yemen, where 22 million people are in need of protection and humanitarian assistance”. Confirmation of repeated arms transits since then Port of Genoa in areas of the world where the arms embargo applies, you can read between the lines of the four pages with which the State Secretary of the Federal Foreign Office wrote on July 8th Manlio di Stefanoanswered the question the MP asked three months ago Yana Chiara Er (Co-founder of the left parliamentary group manifest).
In the preamble of his answer, the most faithful of the dicastery Luigi di Maio Recognizes the fact that “Bahri” ships are used to transfer arms North America to Saudi Arabia and ships of the Saudi fleet loaded with “weapons and explosivesalthough dangerous, but not radioactive “regularly dock at the port of Genoa. But while these items have carried the Autonomous collective of dockers and various pacifist and anti-militarist associations (and more recently theArchdiocese of Genoa) to ask for the blocking of this trade, the conclusions of the exponent of “Together for the future”, on behalf of the Ministry, they go in the opposite direction. Di Stefano believes these transits don’t hurt her Law 185/90 which regulates the arms trade “or other international regulations”. For this reason, he adds: “No concrete initiatives are needed here.”
In arguing his position, the ex-Grillino seems to boil the question down to a series of bureaucratic procedures the gunships must observe. “We would have expected a political response – response from the Autonomous Collective of Dockers of Genoa – but this one, signed by the Undersecretary of State, seems to us only one clumsy attempt at justificationon a formal level, the legality of a chain of war and death that we consider illegitimate and with which we have chosen not to cooperate in any way”.
The same MEPs from the ManifestA group (again originally elected from among the ranks of the M5s), in the April 19 question, they did not limit themselves to asking what interventions the government intends to undertake, but also underlined how these arms transits are being carried out “Intended for War Zones” in the past they would have done so “The blockade of the embargo against Libya violated” and “on several occasions ‘they would also upload’Bombs from Sardinia by RWM and intended for bombing of civilians Yemenas well as Polish, Canadian, US and French armored vehicles used in combat by the Saudi coalition during the Yemen war”.
According to the ministry’s response, the reason why Italy has not been able to intervene, despite the critical context in which these deals are embedded, is that the weapons are no longer loaded, unloaded or “handled” by the “dockers”. Currently even after repeated blows For this reason, weapons, explosives, helicopters and tanks docked in the port of Genoa are not touched by dockers, they remain “stored” in the holds or locked in containers: “These are materials subject to commercial operations carried out by non-residents on the national territory – is the answer to the parliamentary question – that they do not cross the customs border and are intended for other countries ”.
All the institutions could do then would be to control that transit permits and, as far as the Port Authority is concerned, compliance with the from time to time safety conditions for workers and the proper storage of “explosive goods”.
All agencies involved at various levels (prefecture, police headquarters, port authority, maritime border police and customs authority, port authority) could therefore not intervene unless extraordinary reasons of public order or public safety. The regulatory reference is Article 16 of Law 185 of 1990, which, in the name of respect for trade, authorizes the transit of arms to and from third countries, derogating from the restrictions otherwise provided by law. But there are also those who don’t fit in there, like the lawyers in the law firm Andrea Danilo Conte to which the dockers addressed: “The interpretation of Article 16 of Law 185/90 adopted by the Undersecretary of State must be challenged – they write in a note – (It is an exception that) does not concern the violation of constitutional principles and international treaties impose: Compliance with Article 11 of the Constitution, the prohibition of arms transit to countries subject to an embargo, to countries engaged in armed conflict or responsible for serious human rights violations”. In other words, compliance with the principle of “Hierarchy of Sources” there are “higher” laws of a constitutional or international nature that cannot be circumvented by norms of “lower” order.
Also experts from the Observatory on Arms in European Ports gun clock They say they are astonished by the ministry’s arguments: “Not only does it remain, authoritatively repeated, the substantial violation of the provisions of Law 185/1990 and the International Conventional Arms Convention Treaty – they write on the portal that monitors Arms trade – but it puzzles the thesis that the “non-applicability” of the law is justified by the existence of a “customs border”, an imaginary demarcation line that would put the Bahri ship, laden with weapons and explosives, outside the jurisdiction of the Italian authorities, which only moor a few meters from the houses in the neighborhood sampling arena“.
Contrary to what Manlio Di Stefano argued on behalf of the State Department, Weapon Watch thesis argues that laws and treaties not only “oblige the government to prohibit the sale of arms to countries at war” but also “allow it.” to prevent the transit of those that other countries have sold to the competitors, in accordance with Article 11 of our Constitution”. In the meantime, the Autonomous Collective of Dockers takes the opportunity to rekindle their dispute: “The freedom of arms transit in the name of free trade – they explain to ilfattoquotidiano.it – seems to be more protected than that of workers conscientious objection in accordance with the human rights, labor protection and the laws intended to regulate the arms trade. We will continue our fight even more consciously in order to expand it internationally in a network with other dockers.”