There are sad human and judicial events unresolved for years which, even if they do not affect us directly, leave a sense of bitterness and insecurity that lurks for a long time when they reappear in the news or in the mind.
The idea that they might one day randomly hit anyone makes anyone shiver.
So much so that when you try to identify with the eventuality, the thought stops halfway through the simulation, a superstitious gesture to exorcise them.
When these events end with positive epilogues for the accused, it is curious how, despite everything, they develop a surprising resigned serenity and even an optimism towards the future. There is no rancor in them, not even in the first hot statements.
Paradoxically, the sense of indignation and revenge is more present and explicit in those who have been mere passive or indirect spectators of the events in question.
These conditions are well summarized in the story experienced by Michael Giffoni , former Italian Ambassador in Pristina dismissed from office and even disbarred from Italian diplomacy on the basis of a series of very serious accusations from which years later he was exonerated with full formula.
Summarized in these terms, the affair could seem a “simple” case of local mischief, yet another result of a bureaucratic-administrative logic which – here would be the novelty – concerned career diplomacy. That is a category that of its own attracts little compassion in the popular feeling of these times fueled by populism to “anti” sentiments (caste, politics, business, vaccine, etc).
In reality, the formula of the complete and total acquittal of Giffoni serves to recall the personal and professional premises of the whole affair.
Which today make it even more incomprehensible and cast a shadow on its original indictment and on the fury (only partially judicial) that followed.
Among the most promising young people at the foreign ministry in the 1990s, he had reached his post in Kosovo as the Italian diplomat who knew the post-war Western Balkans best.
This expertise, also recognized in academic circles and in the numerous international organizations present in the area, had been gained in Bosnia where he was First Secretary in Sarajevo, right arm of Ambassador Michele Valensise (later Secretary General of the Farnesina from 2012 to 2016) .
It was in those years that Giffoni opted for a way of interpreting his role much more similar to the American diplomatic tradition (which he, born to an Italian family in New York, knew well).
That is, spending oneself in the field, sifting through the difficult Bosnian terrain of the post-Dayton period and weaving relational networks with the myriad of its institutional levels also at the level of local authorities. An exception among the representatives of the International Community reluctant to move outside the comfortable Sarajevo.
Furthermore, another rarity, Giffoni always made himself accessible and available to collaborate with those who turned to him, both for his institutional position and for his knowledge of the territory.
He actively supported a small army of organizations and operators of all nationalities and political backgrounds (including myself, at the time in charge of a Council of Europe project in the city of Tuzla).
When his judicial vicissitudes began, this group of people did not fail to make their voices heard in his defense, certain that the crimes against him in Kosovo could not be ascribed to him.
Had it been driven by corrupt desires, it would have been much easier and more profitable to deal with visa trafficking in postwar Bosnia than (as the prosecution claimed) in the small and overcrowded capital of Kosovo, where a secret does not survive the talk-of. -the-town from morning to afternoon.
Without considering that even a novice student of International Law knows that it is not the responsibility of an Ambassador to deal with the consular section that issues visas.
Nonetheless, it was decided not to listen to these arguments and to continue with a bureaucratic approach where the accusing party was also the judging party, leading to the foregone outcome of making what was a clear historical falsehood to be an administrative truth.
After the Bosnian experience, Giffoni, already accredited in the International Community in the Balkans, was chosen to hold one of the most important positions of the time – Head of the EU Task Force for the Balkans set up by the first head of the newly formed Brussels diplomacy, Javier Solana (former NATO Secretary General).
Despite the importance and status of the role, he had continued to move according to his personal and effective diplomatic practice, appreciated more abroad than at home where his excessively dynamic rhythms have struggled to be accepted.
The visibility and the work collected with the Task Force guaranteed him to burn the stages of his career to reach the prestigious historical assignment of being the first accredited Italian Ambassador in Kosovo. Moreover, when the small Balkan state, which had recently gained independence, was still winning the opening of the world news.
In light of all this, it is excessive and probably misleading to assume that a trap has been deliberately set on Giffoni to interrupt his rapidly growing career.
More likely and that, having stumbled “Italian style” in an episode of bad justice, it was fatal for him not to be able to count on the support and defense of his administration, in which his diplomatic modus operandi had prevented him from fully integrating.
To such an extent that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not trigger in his case those defense mechanisms usually almost automatically reserved for its own officials under accusation. At least until the final judgment of the proceedings concerning them arrives.
The point is that, by doing so, not only the career of Ambassador Giffoni was destroyed.
Our foreign policy has also been deprived of a very valid diplomat who still had so much to give, especially where the main resources and future challenges await our country.
On the European multilateral level.
