Trieste Cannot Be a NATO Stronghold

Following the articles published in Pluralia about the strategic project developed in Washington to turn the International Free Port of Trieste into a military logistics center to support NATO’s eastern flank, as well as servicing the American bases of Aviano and Vicenza, this topic has come to the forefront of important think tanks capable of influencing political decision-makers in Italy.

Proof of this are the positions of the Limes magazine and its director Lucio Caracciolo, considered authoritative also in mainstream journalism and the political world, as well as the attempt of the Machiavelli Center for Political and Strategic Affairs, very close to the government circles, to promote this topic, an international conference on which was held on October 18 in Trieste with the participation of the regional governor Massimiliano Fedriga.

Lucio Caracciolo emphasized the reality and importance of US military interests in the port of Trieste to deter Russia and China. He did so in his opening speech at the “Days of the Sea” on November 9 and 10 in Rome before an audience of Italian Navy leadership and admirals (here is a video of Caracciolo’s speech, minute 33), then in the presentation video of the volume of Limes Magazine “Masters of the Oceans” on November 16, 2024, and finally by devoting a large part of this Limes Magazine issue’s editorial to this topic, in which he quoted me.

More articles will appear in the next issue of the Italian Geopolitical Journal.

The initiative of the Catholic Church, which held a conference in Trieste on November 19 against illegal arms trafficking in the port, also confirmed the validity of concerns about the Port of Trieste’s involvement in military logistics.

During the meeting, organized by Beacons of Peace, an important speech was made by the Bishop of Trieste, Monsignor Trevisi, who presented a letter signed by himself and several Catholic associations, which was sent to the Port Authority of Trieste, calling for compliance with Law 185/90 that provides for the publicity of arms export operations, as well as a list of the banks that finance them and the offer of services (attached to the article). A strong move, clearly in diplomatic style, on the part of Bishop Trevisi, who demanded transparency on the arms trade in the port.

The bishop’s letter is an unusual act, which, oddly enough, the local newspaper did not report, thus confirming that “some things should not be talked about.” Just as there is no mention of the numerous reports of workers and citizens alarmed by the movement of military equipment in the port, confirmed by the very words of Port Commissioner Torbianelli, who stated in the newspaper Piccolo last September 11: “We have an obligation to allow a part of military logistics to go through…” What obligations might the International Free Port have in allowing arms trade in favor of one military bloc to the detriment of others? This is unknown and is not talked about.

The Catholic newspaper New City reported on November 19 that “in 2022, the port of Trieste exported light weapons and light/heavy ammunition worth 174 million euros, 12% of the total exports for the country.” This is just the tip of the iceberg, not taking into account the heavy equipment and tanks seen and photographed by harbor workers.

Let us now examine the substance of Caracciolo’s assertions in the Limes editorial regarding the possible future of Trieste, following the confirmation of US plans published in The Atlantic Council and The National Interest.

The first hypothesis is of the “hyperautonomist type, with a prehistory of independence based on the development of the International Free Port. Dreaming of a neutral Singapore on the Adriatic.” The second is the American project, “which balances a military emphasis with the Cotton Road. Away Chinese and Russian hands from the Adriatic node of the Three Seas, both direct and indirect (German, Hungarian, Austrian).”

The third option is “undecision in the Italian way.” We hide our heads under a blanket, we refuse to consider the Great War as our cause… We imagine ourselves safe under the star-spangled umbrella… We accept a degree of militarization of the port that is as inconspicuous as possible…”

If Caracciolo’s analysis is correct, and I think it is, the second hypothesis, the American one, clearly represents an existential threat to Trieste and its International Free Port, since it implies a ban not only on China and Russia, but even on those perceived as their “proxies.” That is, Germany, Austria, Hungary are explicitly mentioned. But Turkey is also an unreliable ally that is expanding its influence as a regional power, pursuing only its own interests.

That is, all, absolutely all the states with which the Friuli port trades, both historically and currently.

Trieste is located in this part of the world, not on the Atlantic Ocean, and has always connected the southern coast of Eurasia, from the Adriatic to Turkey, China, and other countries that the United States perceives as strategic adversaries.

Ending relations, providing terminals, etc. with these countries would mean immediately closing the port and devoting oneself to the establishment of a NATO military base living off the expenditure of troops in the city: a humiliating replica of semi-prostitution based on “chocolates, cigarettes, and kapron stockings” of the post-war period.

Thus, the American strategy towards Trieste is a real existential threat that they try to hide with small treats, minor investments, and soft power, such as the unexpectedly repeated American investments in football clubs, basketball clubs, and the local stadium: little can be negotiated to mitigate it.

The attempt to implement this destructive hypothesis through marginal “bread-and-butter” style investments in Friuli-Venezia Giulia collides with Trieste’s genuine dream of emerging from the economic and demographic decline the city has been in for more than a century. A dream fueled by successful examples of free ports multiplying around the world, which is especially needed in such turbulent times.

What does the “American” hypothesis really mean for Trieste? NATO military convoys are allowed to pass through the Free Port, which should instead be neutral, undermining its international credibility, and it becomes a European-level military logistics center for the Atlantic Alliance’s eastern front and therefore a legitimate military target, so the territory’s geopolitical risks are increased by its reduced attractiveness for private investment (which was already seen during the Cold War) and its lack of relations with the “bad” Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and their proxies – Germans, Hungarians, Turks, Austrians, etc. That is, all the customers of the unfortunate port of Trieste, which could have closed on the same day without them.

In exchange for what? For the imaginary Cotton Road that doesn’t exist and is just a weird American-Israeli idea already rendered useless thanks to the Development Road sponsored by Ankara, the main partner of the Port of Trieste, that is being built through Iraq and Turkey.

All this within the framework of membership in the Three Seas: another strategic initiative conceived in Washington, devoid of economic content and aimed at the military objectives of strengthening NATO’s eastern flank. This means giving up the soul and nature in exchange for nothing or, at best, for a “plate of lentils” or a minor investment here and there for the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region.

This would be similar to the “Make Trieste Great Again” proposed by the United States, which is determined to shift the costs and expenses of its military strategies to the Europeans without spending its dollars on anti-China military action in the Pacific.

Caracciolo’s proposal is clearly stated in the editorial: “Explain to Rome that with Trieste we have a resource that is more strategic than ever… The military-economic package developed by the strategic think tanks of the star-spangled flags deserves to be evaluated under a national magnifying glass. The goal: to attach the ‘No Man’s Place’ (Trieste – ed.) to Italy also through America.”

In other words, Trieste is a precious card to throw on the table for national advantage. A port city that, given its inherent tendencies toward autonomy/independence because of its location between Central Europe and the East rather than on a peninsula, should be tied to Italy through military agreements with the United States.

Caracciolo suggests “not too unequal an exchange between Italian and American interests”: a highly unlikely possibility, especially now that Italy is on the brink of extinction and its political class is competing to earn the favor of the sitting US president. Where is this Italian and European political class capable of dealing with Americans with a straight back to defend their own national (or European) interests?

Even if, by some unlikely chance, Rome found the strength and opportunity to play the strategic card of Trieste with the United States – instead of simply obeying its orders, as it has done for years – it would be selling out Trieste and its vital interests for the small benefit of Italian interests that are structurally different from those of the Friulian city.

The likely outcome of the desired negotiations could be a small discount of 3% of GDP of the nationwide level of military spending requested by NATO, which Italy is unable to provide anyway, in exchange for full NATO military approval for Trieste.

Negotiations on the Cotton Road will be on the fringe as the project is frozen, waiting for better times in the Middle East, and lacks infrastructure. As for the Three Seas, it will have “next to nothing” economically because it lacks adequate funding and economic utility, as we have shown in previous articles.

Trieste is again seen as a bargaining chip in geopolitical terms, sacrificed to the interests of others: a good way to exacerbate the spirit of autonomy.

Instead, Italy should remember that it has international obligations with respect to the Port of Trieste, arising from the 1947 Peace Treaty and confirmed by subsequent international agreements (the London Memorandum of 1954 and Osimo of 1975): that is, to fully effectuate the International Free Port of Trieste in accordance with Annex VIII of the existing Peace Treaty. Article 1 states: “In order to ensure that the port and transit facilities of Trieste will be available for use on equal terms by all international trade and by Yugoslavia, Italy and the States of Central Europe, in such manner as is customary in other free ports of the world.”

This means free passage for all, without bans applied to Russia and other countries in the name of sanctions, unilaterally imposed by the Western bloc against its geopolitical adversaries: that is, only 30 countries out of the 193 present at the UN.

The free port, which is neutral and demilitarized, does not allow arms trade to the sole US-led NATO bloc.

There is no legal doubt, even according to numerous recent Italian court decisions, that Italy is bound by Articles 1-20 of Annex VIII of the Paris Peace Treaty. If it does not want to do so, including because of American pressure, and does not want to respect the spirit of fairness and neutrality guaranteed by the Treaties on the International Free Port of Trieste, then, in addition to losing credibility, it will put itself in a difficult geopolitical situation and violate international law.

As a NATO military bastion, Trieste not only makes this port city, located only 80 kilometers from the US nuclear Aviano airbase, a potential legitimate military target, but also exposes all of Italy, which considers this region part of its national territory, to the risk of direct involvement in the conflict.

It may be time to seriously consider this, as the trend toward chaos and war is spreading around the world at this moment of hegemonic transition.

Letter from Bishop of Trieste Enrico Trevisi to the President of the Port Authority

Prot. 698/VDI/24

To the kind attention of Dr. Vittorio Torbianelli, President of the Upper Adriatic Port System Authority, Commissioner Extraordinary

After passing through many major Italian ports, the Beacons of Peace event finally docked in Trieste-Monfalcone, with the support of numerous associations of civil and ecclesiastical society together with the Diocese of Trieste, which, in response to the repeated requests formulated by Pope Francis for world peace, also wishes to promote reflection and prayer at the local level so that the voice of arms may be silenced and the voice of solidarity and fraternity between peoples may prevail.

In this context, it seems important that the values and motivations that led Italy to adopt Law 185/1990, which stipulates that all arms transits through Italian ports must be publicly disclosed, are not ignored in the proposed amendment presented in Parliament.

First of all, we ask that the letter of Law 185/1990, which regulates arms exports, in particular article 6, be respected; and that the letter of the International Arms Trade Treaty be respected, in particular articles 6 and 7, in those paragraphs where they prescribe that the various authorities, which in practice have the power to control the import and export of goods and their transit at ports, shall not allow the transit of arms that may be allegedly used in conflicts, which seriously violate human rights or in which war crimes and genocide may be committed.

We also request that the dialogue include a discussion of the risks posed by ships laden with arms and ammunition upon arrival and stopover at the port, in terms of the safety of workers on the dock and citizens living in the areas surrounding the port. It should also be noted that the Eastern Adriatic Port System Authority at the Port of Trieste has a joint mechanism with the Harbor Master’s Office, which establishes restrictions and special controls on the loading, unloading, trans-shipment, and transit of weapons, as well as bans on the disembarkation, embarkation, or trans-shipment of explosives.

Finally, we request that the dialogue take place in a transparent manner, as provided for in the above-mentioned laws, and that all authorities responsible for control at ports, the nature of goods in transit, and the movement of military material by competent State authorities respond positively, within their competence, to requests for access to documents relating to arms loaded on transit ships and the destination of such arms: a dialogue that we hope will include civil society and its representatives.

We therefore support the need for transparency and legality with regard to the transit of goods and arms loaded on transit ships and their destination, believing that such oversight can also contribute to curbing any illicit trade in arms and drugs, which are destructive to the human race.