Good Ole Days
‘Cause the good ole days weren’t always good
US military aircraft asked permission to land at the Sigonella air base in Sicily. Italy’s government refused.
It was 1985.
It was a week ago on March 27th: a US bomber on the way to Iran was refused permission to land at Sigonella, an Italian military air base home to a U.S. Naval Air Station as well as a key NATO hub.
Memory lane
The recent incident jogged my memory, and I thought it would be useful to review this bit of history. It was October 1985, with Cold War I in full swing, the halcyon days of NATO cohesion and transatlantic cooperation. Italy was the reigning soccer world cup champion — feels like a lifetime ago. Four Palestinian terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt. They asked for the release of fellow Palestinian terrorists held by Israel, threatening to kill passengers if their demands were not met. The Italian government negotiated with the terrorists, including with Abu Abbas, the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, who, it would turn out, had masterminded the attack. The hijackers were promised safe passage to a friendly country if they released the passengers unharmed. By the time the ship docked back in Egypt, the terrorists had killed Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly wheelchair-bound American Jew. They murdered him and threw him overboard with his wheelchair.
The four hijackers and Abu Abbas boarded an Egyptian airliner for the safety of Tunisia. U.S. Navy fighter jets intercepted the plane and diverted it to Sigonella. Italy refused permission to land. When it appeared that the Egyptian plane was running out of fuel, Italy authorized the landing.
Then things took a movie-like turn. Italian soldiers surrounded the Egyptian plane. Another U.S. military aircraft landed, and Delta Force troops surrounded the Italians. More Italian soldiers and militarized police (Carabinieri) surrounded the Americans. Italian and American troops stood facing each other, weapons in hand, on a NATO base. The U.S. wanted to bring the terrorists home for trial, since they had killed an American citizen. The Italian government insisted they should be tried in Italy. In the end, President Reagan ordered the Delta Force to stand down, and the Italians took custody of the terrorists.
Within a few days, Italy released Abu Abbas, claiming there was no evidence he had been involved. A few months later an Italian court sentenced him, in absentia, to life in prison for murder. Italian justice is not without a sense of irony. The other four terrorists were tried and sentenced. Italy refused to extradite them to the United States, and for the terrorists that was a blessing. The one who had shot Leon Klinghoffer was given a good conduct leave in 1996 and escaped. He was later recaptured. Two were granted parole in 1991. Of those two, one escaped.
We could argue about the legal aspects of the case until the proverbial cows come home. But back then Italy and some other European countries maintained a, shall we say, non-confrontational attitude towards Middle Eastern terrorist groups, in the hope this would shield them from attacks.
The best of friends
Why bring this up now? After all, the situation last week was very different. The U.S. bomber plane was active in a war that Italy refused to join, a war the U.S. started without consulting its NATO allies. Still, it’s useful to remember that Europe’s loyalties have always been divided. That even in the good old days of strong transatlantic relationships, before Trump was even a gleam in the voters’ eyes, Italy decided to take a confrontational stance against the U.S. and give lenient treatment to terrorists, and the two allies had an armed stand-off on a NATO base.
U.S. President Trump is a master at alienating friends. That might help explain why today, as the U.S. fights a terrorist state in the Middle East, Italy refuses to assist and Spain has closed its airspace to U.S. planes. But the U.S. and Europe’s different attitudes to islamic terrorism have deeper roots; and those help explain Europe’s pusillanimous refusal to assist an ally at war with even the most basic logistical support.
A different world
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was the towering menace, threatening Europe and the U.S. in equal measure. The rest of the world was a chessboard for the two Cold War adversaries. This kept the U.S. and Europe close and aligned. With the Soviet Union’s collapse and China’s ascent, the world has changed. The U.S. is trying to prioritize its attention among competing theaters. Asia has become overwhelmingly important as the lack of trust between the U.S. and China has deepened. Stability in the Middle East is still crucial for the global economy. Latin America is the U.S.’s backyard and backdoor.
For a while, Europe believed we had moved to a less dangerous world, one that could be managed by diplomacy alone. It looked to Russia as a reliable commercial partner, and regarded China mostly through an economic lens as an attractive market, a welcome investor, and a potential competitor. Now Europe has again branded Russia as an existential threat; it has labeled the U.S. as a “revisionist power”, and hasn’t quite made its mind up as to whether China is an ally or an adversary.
The U.S. and Europe are not the only ones reassessing their priorities. Asian powers like Japan, Korea, and Australia must decide how to contain China’s aggressive stance. As India keeps growing, its long-standing — and expedient — predilection for straddling the geopolitical fence will become untenable and its choices will help determine the balance of power in Asia and beyond. Some Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are trying to chart a new path with more diversified and advanced economies and more modern societies. This sets them on a collision course with Iran’s islamic theocracy, but offers an alternative future for the Middle East. Latin American countries need to weigh their allegiance to the rest of the “global south” against the U.S.’s more assertive role in the region.
The good ole days
The US and Europe were never as closely aligned on values, principles, and priorities as common wisdom asserts. They were held together by common strategic priorities in a much simpler world: a world where the US and the Soviet Union were the only two geopolitical superpowers, the latter posed a threat to both Europe and the US, and Europe was an economic giant. Today, a diminished Russia poses a greater challenge to Europe than to the US; China has emerged as the U.S.’s main competitor and adversary but is seen by Europe as a potential partner; Europe’s economy is in structural decline while Asia’s rise appears unstoppable. With external forces no longer holding them together, the U.S. and Europe are drifting apart. That’s not surprising — and it’s not even the most important development in the global picture.
The world is changing, but it’s not the end of the world. ‘Cause the good ole days weren’t always good, and [maybe] tomorrow ain’t as as bad as it seems, as the song goes.
Great piece, Marco, it raises several important points.
First, I thank you for telling the whole story about Sigonella in 1985. In Italy, this is often remembered as a brave standoff against an arrogant nation, the US, while what happened after the incident is conveniently forgotten. Also, Italy remained conveniently embedded in a US-led security framework, so the Italian pride on Sigonella sounds bit ridiculous.
On extradition, the experience of Italian extreme-left terrorists who found refuge in France under the Mitterrand Doctrine highlights how complex — and political — these matters are, even within Europe (as recently as 2023 the highest French court rejected the extradition in Italy of former terrorism, on grounds of human rights....). The idea of a fully coherent, rules-based legal space has never taken roots in Europe and tension with the US — who long excluded political terrorism as an exception to its extradition treaties) hasn't made much progress since 1985.
When you say that "Europe believed we had moved to a less dangerous world," I am afraid it's not only Europe. US businesses have greatly exploited the China opportunity, even more than Europeans, reaping lofty profits and lowering the general price of goods. If economically, globalization made sense, politically it was a disaster in the making. When I hear pundits affirming that 'Trump is destroying the global political order,' my reaction is that little was left to destroy. I think that the global political order has in fact been a disorder since US and European businesses welcomed the chance to offshore significant production to China. So it was not only Europe, but the US as well who sleepwalked us in the current situation.
As we discuss China, it seems odd that — writing from the US — you describe China’s political stance as "aggressive". China is evidently aggressive towards Taiwan — which, to clarify, neither the US nor the broader EU recognise as a sovereign nation. Yet, it hadn't fired a shot until now. Yes, China has created over 3,000 acres of new land in the middle of the disputed South China Sea — unilaterally adding runways, ports, and air defence systems to strengthen its territorial control — and the Sino-Indian border dispute caused some skirmishes and a few fatalities between 2020 and 2021. But if we look at recent months, I would say the most aggressive stance comes from the US. Mind you, I am not expressing an opinion on whether this aggressiveness is justified or beneficial to the balance of forces. I am simply saying that if 'middle' countries define their allegiance based on 'aggressiveness', they have plenty of options.
Good old days! I recall 1939 😂