A landmark ruling. On October 7, the Council of State rewrote the "causal link." That is, the "proof" that exposure to depleted uranium or heavy metals has caused cancer. A long and tragic story. Cancer patients have faced courts and investigations for years. Many, too many, have failed. Now the wall of silence has fallen: "It is not necessary," the ruling reads, "to establish an actual causal link: the law has considered the causal link to be inherent in a typical occupational risk, thus placing the burden of proving a specific, non-work-related origin of the disease on the Administration." Thus, a path of pain and silence is reversed: the State must prove that a soldier's cancer is not related to his activity. In 2018, the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into depleted uranium reached the same conclusion. Former President Gian Piero Scanu speaks out.
So many victims, so much time.
My interpretation goes beyond the political aspect: there are no impossible battles. And no one can say, 'I'm not tackling this problem because I won't be able to solve it anyway.'"
Does that mean you heard it from politicians?
"The judiciary did what politicians refused to do. Yet they had the commission's final report, with everything explicitly and incontrovertibly stated."
And is it uncomfortable?
"He identified the causal link. Having told politicians first and then the military, I always thought this was the right conversation. We demonstrated that those working conditions objectively led to exposure to risk."
Strong conclusion. Is everyone in the commission in agreement?
"Politicians ignored our final report. They tried to obstruct the commission until the last day."
Indeed. A question of majority and opposition?
A commission of inquiry can't have a majority and a minority. Those seeking the truth cannot take partisan bias into account. The commission was so secular and impartial that the party that had expressed me at the time, the Democratic Party, tried until the very end, through the Ministry of Defense, to prevent me from presenting that report, and then, when it came time to vote, they voted halfway.
She's telling me the opposition was with her.
"I say that the report was approved thanks to the votes of a large portion of the opposition. This further certifies the accuracy of the work done."
Correct work, but cumbersome commission.
We've used the powers of the judiciary. But always in the spirit of loyal cooperation. Of course, if someone comes along who clumsily and mockingly wants to prove things that are neither here nor there, then one becomes 'forced bitter'.
And we come to Leopardi's "Ricordanze." Indeed, at the time, I even felt it was "forcefully harsh"...
"Yes, but now that I'm out of politics, institutional politics, I've tried to regain some sensitivity."
Interesting point. What do you think of this political season?
"Current politics is hierarchical. The people who are acceptable to the secretaries are nominated. And to be acceptable, as happened to me with Renzi, you have to do what they ask. If you move too little, you'll be kicked out. It's also an ethical issue. Today, politics is lukewarm because the people who do it are lukewarm."
Let's talk about rearmament. Billion-dollar business.
Today, the government decides together with our industrial complex. In the United States, a parliamentary body decides on the appropriateness of the expenditure. Should I buy a hundred tanks? I check the costs with a comprehensive comparison. In Italy, too, Parliament must intervene. There is a law on the matter, but it is ignored.
But if Defense becomes European, some order will be created...
"It's necessary. But countries, including Italy, want to keep their hands free and negotiate directly. Geopolitics shouldn't be used as an excuse to increase spending."
