This, is undoubtedly one of these cases. Yet it is interesting in its own way because it has turned into a diplomatic incident furthering the already wide gap between Britain and Italy or, possibly, the EU. Like the Concordia shipwreck, it involves "Cameron" and the italians who "do not count" on the international scenario.
Let's recap.
So we are told that, during a special rescue bid directed by the British secret service to free two hostages in the hands of Nigerian terrorists "linked to al-quaeda" (the usual completely unfounded statement), both hostages were killed.
The italian government protested, because, they said, they weren't even aware that the rescue bid was taking place. In other words, Britain left them out of the loop.
The british hostage, Chris McManus -- and the italian one, Franco Lamolinara:
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17308416
"McManus", where did I read that funny name just recently? Uh, I remember: it is a fictional character in the TV show "Oz": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_McManus, "the idealistic manager of Emerald City". But I digress...
Assuming for the time being that this story is more or less real, the linked BBC article explains well enough the differences between italians and UK. But the crucial part comes toward the end -- and could be the key to understand this whole thing:
It is a known fact that Italy in general is in favor of negotiating to free hostages and have been criticized for it. The impression is that the real subject of disagreement between the two nations is not, at the moment, whether Italy was warned of the imminent rescue operation. But rather that Italy did not want to use the option at all, but still focus on some sort of negotiation or ransom payment -- and that over this disagreement the UK went and did what they wanted anyway -- maybe just in time to stop the italians from "buying" the hostages freedom.The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the Italian government tended to be in favour of negotiating in hostage situations, while Britain was absolutely against formal government negotiations.
Which is possibly what had happened back in 2005 in Iraq with Giuliana Sgrena, allegedly kidnapped by some terrorist jihadist organization, and later freed thanks to the mediation of the italian secret service (which means: with an exchange of favors or money). As the story goes, just as Sgrena was being brought to safety, her convoy fell under fire at an american checkpoint, and the Italian official responsible for the operation was killed. Which, if the story is in any way true, could simply mean that this was a way to punish the italians for having used diplomatic methods not allowed in the israelo-anglo-american theater of operations.
Since I remember that this issue of the italians paying to free hostages has been raised in the past in international circles many other times (I still have to find precise references on the internet but I'm sure they are there), it seems that this operation in Nigeria might be serving as an excuse to send to Italy another message: certain initiatives, a certain residual independence in foreign policy will not be tolerated anymore.
i don't know what is real of this story and I personally can't tell yet. But I cannot avoid to feel a certain staged air about it, possibly intended as a lesson to Italy -- possibly as the weak link in the EU that has to be "put in its place".
Is this really an image that anyone would pick to feed to the news or to add to a memorial page?
