by Ennio Caretto, "Corriere della Sera," March 7, 1998.

Washington - James Schlesinger was director of the CIA, Defense Secretary and Energy Secretary and is today adviser to the Congress and to the White House.

Q. Do you think that the era of embargos has drawn to a close?

A. The USA believe they have a duty to reprimand or punish those countries which do things that they don’t like. Since the use of force is politically risky, the USA adopt sanctions. The trouble is that you can become embargo-dependent: just in Clinton’s first term, the USA have imposed or threatened the imposition of sanctions upon 35 countries, which make up 42 percent of the world population. Furthermore, sanctions can backfire: because of them France has strengthened its oil industry in the Gulf to our own detriment. It is a strategy to be re-examined.

Q. Would you write off all embargos?

A. Let us differentiate. In the case of Iraq, the sanctions are justified: they are multilateral and are effective, together with the threat of bombardments. If in Italy somebody thinks that they should already be lifted, they are wrong: Saddam has mocked us all and for so long that we need to judge him for his deeds. I am against unjustified unilateral sanctions. They are no longer necessary against Cuba and I find laws such as the Helms-Burton, which penalise those foreign countries that invest in Cuba and Iran, absurd.

Q. How do you judge Bernabè’s call for Italy to become a protagonist in the multi-polar world?

A. I think it is normal: Italy will take care of its long-term interests as we take care of ours! Furthermore, it has a crucial role in the Mediterranean and in northern Africa, which represent the new frontier of Nato. There is the danger that in so doing Italy may occasionally irritate America, but it is not written in stone that all allies have to align themselves with us. One thing is to co-ordinate the foreign policies of Nato member-states according to mutual concessions, another would be if a country has to kneel before the only superpower.

Q. Has Dini’s visit to Teheran surprised you?

A. It hasn’t. Recently, the Italian diplomacy has taken up big initiatives, often successfully, in Somalia, Bosnia and Albania. Dini has moved well. In Iran the situation is still delicate, but there is no doubt that president Kathami wants to open to the West. And Clinton is not opposed to it: insofar as the population goes, contacts have already begun. In this case the interests of Italy and America collide. This is the path to be followed for the stabilisation in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East.

Q. Would you be scared by the perspective of a partnership between Italy and Libya?

A. I would place Gaddafi halfway between Kathami and Saddam. On him is still the spectre of the Pan Am tragedy of 1988. I don’t know whether following that event he has supported terrorism: I no longer direct neither the CIA nor the Pentagon. However, against Libya are in force UN sanctions, to which Italy has agreed; I believe that your government would make a mistake to distance itself from the international community to go hand in hand with Gaddafi.