It is the most sparkling parliamentary commission among those in activities. The group of ladies that is investigating the management of the pandemic by the government and its branches every week reserves small and large scene shots. The response of the World Health Organization to the request for the hearing of one of his representatives was made public in yesterday’s premium office. In his response letter the Swiss Gaudenz Silberschmidtdirector of the multilateral health and external health and partnership sector, has cloaked the clear refusal of hypocritical courtesy.
Triggering the reaction of the members of Fratelli d’Italia within the Commission. Whose position was summarized in a hard note, where we read: “The unexpected refusal is motivated by the” intention of protecting the impartiality and objectivity of the organization “, which instead should collaborate with the Member States and therefore their maximum institutions such as Parliament”. The commissioners recall that “the WHO activity during the pandemic raised strong perplexities” and, as an example, cite the “document produced by an organization’s official, Francesco Zambonwhich noted default by the Italian government “, a document that” was first published and then made to disappear following an intervention by the then minister Roberto Speranza».
But let’s read the response, quite surreal, of the Swiss doctor. “Dear colleagues, we thank the Italian investigation commission on Covid-19 for the interest shown in WHO’s work” is the incipit, almost mocking. Followed by the “No”, albeit diluted in a huderning circumlocution worthy of a roval diplomatic: “During the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO received requests for similar information from several government and parliamentary bodies. In consideration of its special status of intergovernmental organization, the WHO has a policy that normally does not involve itself or members of its staff in the national parliamentary investigations or investigations. This policy aims to protect the impartiality and objectivity of WHO as an international public organization “. Silberschmidt informs the commission on which contribution the WHO is willing to give: «While keeping in mind the above, it would be available to provide a technical briefing written in response to specific questions from the Commission. Please note that this will be provided on a voluntary basis as a technical contribution and based on the available scientific tests ». The WHO, his goodness, also lets you know that “he would not have objections to the publication of information on condition that they are not presented as” tests “provided by witnesses, but as technical information provided by WHO”. Byzantinisms that, in reality, only serve to avoid that some too sincere response can nail those who manage the pandemic emergency to their responsibilities. The WHO, which does not agree to testify in the classroom so as not to have to answer the burning to unwelcome and not previously agreed questions (“we would be grateful if you could share with us the specific topics to be addressed and the expected deadline” write from Geneva), however, is not there to go to the censorship body and announce that “in the interest of transparency and access by its Member States at the same information (…) Publish any information exchanged within this framework ».
In front of the letter the president of the Commission Marco LiseiSenator of Fdi, said he was “affected” and did not hide his disappointment: “The WHO during the pandemic was the subject of numerous accusations on the absence of transparency and thirdness. Referring and responding to the commission of investigation would have been an opportunity to dissipate these doubts and opacity; On the other hand, rejecting the request will do nothing but feed them further ». A behavior that for Lisei It would justify certain defections: “It cannot be surprised then if some countries choose to get out of this international organization by questioning the credibility”.
Perhaps to scare the leaders of WHO and its Italian supporters are performances like that of Professor Alessandro Vespignaniamong the greatest experts of “computational epidemiology at an international level”, which, convened on the indication of the Democratic Party, made very critical declarations on some choices made by our rulers during the emergency.
Vespignani He explained that the effectiveness of the Lockdown in epidemiological terms must always be commensurate with the side effects, for example those on the economy and the school system. A good practice that the Conte government has not applied. “The closures had to be done promptly and selectively and not late in a indiscriminate way” they remarked the commissioners of FDI, after the hearing.
The senator Guido Liris he went back: «The picture he described Vespignani It is desolate: in full health emergency, while the then President Conte dared to have promptness, those who had to manage the epidemiological data, necessary to take the consequent decisions, was forced to work with Excel sheets or even handwriting. The consequences were obvious: the data collected badly have negatively conditioned and delayed decisions on the containment measures. Yet, as the same pointed out Vespignaniit was known since November 2019 that we could face a pandemic ».
Meanwhile, the commission will today will begin to hear the members of the Technical Scientific Committee and the Task Force of experts called, at the time, to assist government decisions.
The majority was decided to secure the auditions to guarantee the authenticity of the testimonies. In fact, even in the processes, the texts before speaking in the classroom cannot take part in the hearings to avoid conditioning. The representatives of the oppositions contested the decision, accusing the majority of poor transparency. In fact, once the auditions are finished, the transcriptions of all auditions will be published.
In these hours the representatives of the party of Giorgia Meloni They are also deepening interesting strands of investigation, at the judicial level, in the embryonic phase due to bureaucratic hitches and beyond. The theme is that of the investigations on the scam supplies of masks at the beginning of the pandemic and in particular the mega contract of 1.2 billion euros signed with three Chinese consortia that caused non -certified devices and, in many cases, failed.
The intermediaries (on trial) of the deal in their communications spoke of over 200 million euros of commissions, but the Capitoline investigators managed to seize only a third of that money.
To try to complete the treasure hunt, the Neapolitan prosecutor is arriving on a stable plan in the commission Paola Izzoexpert in crimes against the public administration, which has already had the green light for the assignment of the CSM out of role. In recent weeks, a consultant of the caliber of Antonio Rinaudoformer anti -mafia and anti -terrorism prosecutor of Turin, a career that began fighting the BR and ended with the processes to the violent No Tavs. The retired magistrate is analyzing the rogatory sent by the Rome prosecutor to China and San Marino. In those documents the fundamental role in the negotiations and management of the financial flows of the Sammarinese banker emerges Daniele Guidialready sentenced for a total of 15 years of imprisonment in the Republic of Monte Titano for various crimes and accused for further disputes, ranging from the association to criminal to recycling.
Guidi issued an invoice to the Chinese consortia through the BGP & Partners Limited (of which they were also members Stefano Beghi And Ivano Ferruccio Fran Poma) to collect at least 13 million commissions destined for him. The fees have also passed on the companies attributable to his wife Maria Stefania Lazzari and his accountant study. The Pacific Business Advisory Limited (attributable to the woman and recorded on behalf of Poma) and the Chenxing Management Consulting Limited, both with Base of Hong Kong, where the spouses have moved their interests, also obtained a residence permit, are ended. Do the two live abroad with the money of the commodities not seized? The commissioners want to discover this.
Interest also arouses the very rapid archiving from the accusation of corruption for the former commissioner Domenico Arcuri. As this newspaper revealed at the time, the manager and his right arm, Antonio Fabbrociniwere registered in the register of suspects on 9 November 2020. On 19 and 20 of the same month The truth He gave news of the mask of the masks e Arcuri He sent a letter to the Rome Prosecutor’s Office (registered on the 24th) in which he hypothesized his involvement in a Capitoline investigation and made himself available for any clarifications. In close tour, the investigators asked the investigating judge for the storage of that contestation for the two suspects. Now the Commission seems willing to understand on the basis of which elements the decision has been made, perhaps acquiring the application of the prosecutors from the court.
Also because, at the time, magistrates and investigators seemed to have different views. In fact, the Guardia di Finanza on December 1 presented a list of 25 targets to be searched. Among these were indicated Fabbrocini and another close collaborator of Arcurithe magistrate Mauro Bonarettibut the prosecutors did not get a visit to their homes. Those same investigators who, 48 hours later, as mentioned, asked for the archiving of the most serious accusation for Arcuri And Fabbrocini. A move that, after almost five years, could return to discuss.
