It is not necessary in this article, destined for the Ethiopian public, to explain how one of the largest Axum obelisks ended up in Rome. I have had occasion to explain personally, in one of my many visits to Ethiopia, the country of my birth, how insane it was to remove from the holy city of Axum one of its most important monuments. This left a wound, which even after sixty years still hurts. Intellectuals, politicians, students, ordinary people, and even their children, have felt this loss, and to this day see this violence, inflicted on them by Italian fascism.
The looting of the obelisk, in my opinion, was an even more serious crime than the use by the Italians of Poison Gas in their invasion of a country of ancient civilisation. Gas, shocking as it was, could be seen as an act of cruelty, like that committed by all belligerents in wartime. War is never chivalrous: the Americans used atom bombs on the Japanese people.
We Italians can today feel less guilty about the use of gas, for our Ministry of Defence has, after sixty years, finally recognised that Italian aviation, in the war against Ethiopia. employed asphyxiating gas, prohibited by intemational convention. The use of gas was for several years a matter of debate between the famous Italian journalist. Indro Montanelli and the noted historian Angelo Del Boca. The former, who had fought in that war, argued that the Italians could not havc used it, for the Italian troops would otherwise have known about it. We have no reason to doubt Montanelli's good faith. However, the meticulous researches of Del Boca in the archives, and oral evidence, permitted him to refute Montanelli's observations. My own father, a geologist in a mining concern in Ethiopia, winessed the effects of gas on vegetation many months after its use.
Why is the question of the obelisk even more important than the use of gas? It is because we Italians have failed to return the obelisk when the people of Ethiopia ask for its return. They ask for it because it is an important part of their cultural heritage. What would we Italians say if the Germans, during the last war, had taken from us the relic of St.Gennaro of Naples? There is, I feel, no need to insist further on the legitimacy of the Ethiopian request for the obelisk's return.
I would, however, try to analyse the reasons why the Axumite obelisk has remained in Rome, in front of the FAO headquarters. It is appropriate to confront other shameful episodes of the fascist period, so that the Italian people, in Freudian terms, can free themselves of the ghosts of their fascist past. If I say the entire Italian people, it is because the responsibility of not restoring the obelisk to Ethiopia cannot be attributed to the generations of politicians who have succeeded each other in the last 60 years but to the entire Italian people who continue to be accomplices in this far from edifying story.
The, grave events which have characterised Italian fascist colonialism included, for example, he systematic destruction of the means of subsistence of the Libyan population, rebels against Italian occupation. One of the most serious events of the time was the hanging in 1932 by orders of General Graziani, of the Libyan patriot Omar Al Mukhtar, an old man over seventy. A film on the life of this Libyan patriot was made at the expense of the Libyan Government but to this day it has not been shown in Italian cinemas! Graziani, by his action imitated the Austrians who, to cite the most famous case, at Trento in 1918 hang the Italian patriot Cesare Battisti.
At a distance of over 60 years it is difficult to understand the reserve about Omar al Mukhtar of successive Italian Governments, which were not, and are not, fascist. They wish to keep such episodes of the past from public opinion.
As far as the Rome obelisk is concerned it should be recalled that the Italian Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Emmanuele Scammacca, concluding his visit to Ethiopia last September. declared that the monument should be returned. This declaraation, the only one on the subject made by any Italian politician or cultural figure, was followed by complete silence. It is true that, given the delicate Italian political situation, we had more urgent things to think about. But now, we have a government of the Left Centre, expected to last for the full legislature period of five years, what can we expect of it? It is my personal opinion that things will not be easy unless the Ethiopian Government firmly insists on this matter, which is delicate for Italy, but does not threaten its security
That the Extreme Right in Italy has declared itself opposed to the obelisk's restitution is understandable, even though this contradicts its claimthat it has little or nothing in common with the fascism of Mussolini. That is merely the pretence of politicians. It is, however, far less comprenensible why Rome's non-political Superintendent of Archaeology, Adnano La Regina, an exponent of Left Culture should have declared himself opposed to the obelisk's return.
On the oLher hand another notable exponent of Italian culture, in this case on the Right, the Hon. Vittono Sgarbi, has declared that the obelisk should be returned to its legitimate owners.
At an ad hoc committee of the Settore per Beni Archaeologici, or Italian organisation for cultural heritage, the majority declared themselves opposed to the obelisk' s removal which they recrarded as removing part of Rome's archaeological heritage.
At this point it seems evident that there are sufficient reasons to declarethat the obelisk's restitution involves the Italian collective conscience more than mere political convictions.
The long delay, and reluctance, with which our Ministry of Defence has recently admitted the Italian use of gas is revealing. This delay can not be explained by accusing the Ministry officials of "fascist mentality". This silence, it should be noted, lasted 60 years, over two generations.
What is sacred in Italy, as in other parts of the world, is the country's image which the powerful have constiucted over the years for the consumption of the masses. It is an image which transcends political convictions, and is accepted by almost everyone.
How could it be that the country of today's Italians, good people, the people of the Risorgimento (i.e. struggle tor independence), and of the wars of independence, were flung into a criminal enterprise, such as the war against Ethiopia? We forget that Italian aggression against Ethiopia won a considerable consensus in Italy. Not only among fascists, but also among those, who, after the war, irrespective of their political convictions, put themselves, their energy and their skills, at the disposition of the regime to bring "civilisation" to Ethiopia. And how do you explain to Italians of later generations that their fathers were tainted with war crimes, using gas, which had been banned by conventions entered into by civilised countries? It is useless to argue that the invasion of Ethiopia was the exclusive work of fascism; it was of course concocted by fascism, but was enthusiastically accepted by almost all Italians.
So, how to explain to young Italians why this obelisk, so foreign, so different from those of the Egyptians, is in Rome? Is it not better to remain silent? Is it not better to leave things as they are, and not to speak? Is it not better to find the only expert prepared to say that transporting the obelisk from Rome to Axum is impossible, and that it would involve serious risks to the monument itself? We have lost the intellectual integrity to remember that the ancient Romans two thousand years ago took to Rome whole Egyptian obelisks, not a monument in five pieces. As was that of Axum.
Intellectuals and non-conformists speak about the obelisk's return, but not in tront of the general public. Several months ago I proposed to discuss the question on the Maurizio Costanza Show, a popular television programme, run by a cultured professional producer. Up to now he has not replied. I do not believe Costanza asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for permission to discuss this matter, or that the Ministry applied pressure on him to prevent the discussion. The same happened when I asked to speak on the matter on State radio.
Let us now return to Scammacca's declaration. Evidently a diplomat like him would not have made his declaration extempore. But it would be unreasonable to delude ourselves into assuming from his words that the obelisk's restitution is a fait accompli. Even if we now have a government in Italy in which the Left is in a majority, this should not lead us to believe that restitution will take place quickly. All those who agitated by means of appeals, press campaigns. meetings, and diplomatic initiatives, because they believed that Italy respects her obligations, must not assume that they have won, and that the most difficult part of the question has been solved. Quite the contrary!
At the cost of repeating myself I am convinced of the good faith of Scammacca (now ambassador in Moscow) and of all those who have pronounced favourably about the obelisk. However, Italian democracy, even if well established reflects the mentality of the people. In Italy, unlike France for example. there are innumerable centres of decision-making between the Head of the Government and the tecnnical agency responsible for putting into effect decisions taken and ratified by the competent organs of government. Our Head of the Government does not have the power to silence or to overrule an arrogant minister or one opposed to official policy.
Thus a favourable decision by the Italian Council of Ministers to return the obelisk must pass through many institutions which have the right of veto, and can in practice render it ineffectual. The Parliament must ratify an eventual decision by the Government. But the Archaeoiogical Superintendent of Rome, led by Adriano La Regina, must also approve. Again the Rome Commune must give the necessary authorisation, but here the ex-Italian Ambassador in Addis Ababa, Angeletti, will be a great help, for he is today the diplomatic adviser to the Mayor of Rome, Francesco Rutelli and has declared himself in favour of the monument's restitution. The Committee of the Archaeology Sector, which was previously opposed to restitution, must likewise make new pronouncement.
When all the obstacles have been overcome the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must nominate a commission of experts to study the dismantling and transport to Ethiopia of the obelisk. It is only at that point, alas, that the serious work begins.
We should remember that the obelis, originally lay on the ground in five pieces. They were brought to Rome separately, and there placed in a vertical position, with internal metal pins. The technical solution which would involve least risk for the monument would be to cut these pins with a helicoidal wire, such as used in marble quarries, and then transport the various pieces (the largest weighing about 60 tons) by undercarriages used for the transport of armoured cars to the port of Naples or Civitavecchia, whence they can be loaded on to a "roll-on,roll-off' boat, to be disembarked at Massawa.
An alternative would be for the undercarriages which transport the pieces of the obelisk to be loaded separately on Galexy C5-A transport aircraft, which the United States could generously put at the disposal of Ethiopia, a friendly power. In that case the obelisk would arrive directly at Ethiopian airport.