For its part, the Italian government has announced that it will file an appeal against Brazil’s decision with the International Court of Justice in The Hague. "The Brazilians believe they have struck a blow for the left," remarks a columnist for the Milan daily: "they think they have saved a heroic freedom fighter like Garibaldi or Che Guevara, whereas Battisti was simply a trigger-happy assassin" whose release "is an affront to the memory of his victims and the history of our country."

The daily’s main front-page headline focuses on the referendums to be held on 12 and 13 June, which will rule on the reintroduction of nuclear power, the privatisation of water utilities and the "legitimate impediment" that will prevent high-ranking state officials (including the head of government) from attending trials where they face charges. While Silvio Berlusconi has campaigned for abstention, La Repubblica remarks that “the Fukushima effect" could result in a sufficient turnout for the votes to be valid. As Espresso points out, a victory for the "yes" voters would mark the end of "the cycle of Berlusconism."

This is a legitimate claim because the emerging countries are under-represented in international organisations. At the IMF, for example, the BRICS account 

for 11.06% of voting rights while representing 20% of global GDP. Europe accounts for 35.6% of voting rights and just over 30% of global GDP (the United States represents 16.08% of voting rights and nearly 30% of world GDP). If the voting rights/economic weight ratio is unfair to the BRICS, and if a reform is desirable, it is nevertheless true that Europe constitutes the most influential bloc within the IMF.

There is therefore no reason for Europe to give up the fight to maintain control of this very strategic post, especially at a time when several European countries have been or are still negotiating aid packages. But for this to happen Europe must, once again, speak with a single voice and propose the candidate that best defends its interests. If Europe wants to avoid having the IMF once again appear as the baleful guardian of free-market orthodoxy, it had best choose a candidate possessed of sensitivity and creativity so as to diminish, as much as possible, the bitter taste of the medicine it will have to administer.

Público voices its support for several environmental groups that are hoping to weigh on the EU’s "review of the common agricultural policy (CAP)," which accounts for 40% its budget. The daily remarks that CAP policies, on the table for discussion at 24 January meeting of Europe’s agriculture ministers in Brussels, were responsible for the indifferent reception that greeted the "Meat Free Mondays" initiative when it was presented by singer Paul McCartney in Brussels last year. "Neither the European Commission or the governments of Europe’s 27 member states were willing to consider proposals put forward by the campaign," points out Público.

From the point of view of climate change, the outcome was an immense disappointment. The last minute agreement hammered out by world leaders fell far short of expectations with no long-term targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions, insufficient aid for the adoption of  non-polluting technologies in developing countries, and no restrictions that are in anyway binding. One wonders if the monumental 46,000-tonne carbon footprint of the summit itself (according to the Deloitte estimate) was really worth it. From the point of view of politics, it is a result that highlights a significant weakness of the European project that has yet to be resolved. Europe may well be the world's major economic power with 600 million citizens who are willing to make an effort for the well-being of future generations, but it remained on the touchline. Once again, the lesson is clear: without a united front, Europeans will remain unable to influence world affairs. The question is: when will this lesson be assimilated by Europe's leaders?

G.P.A