Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Blog Article

Blog Article

Italian Elections stalemate: Berlusca Bunga Bunga, Rigor Mortis, A Retired Priest, the Communist and a Clown. An Analysis.

by

By Pablo De Orellana

SenatoreMarioMonti@Bocconi

This is not a joke. These are the nicknames of the principal politicians participating in the election, except for the priest and the clown. The latter cannot participate in person, but has been the underestimated wildcard in this this shuffle of Italian fortunes.

On Sunday, three women hurled themselves naked at Silvio Berlusconi howling “Basta Berlusconi” [“Enough Berlusconi”], in one of many and desperate signs of the overdrawn exhaustion of the Italian political class and the loathing that it has garnered among voters. Berlusconi is still politically alive and kicking in yet another election campaign. This is because of the incredible challenges facing Italy and especially the deep unpopularity of the Monti technocrat government. The difficulties and brutal cuts of Italy’s latest austerity drive cannot be overstated. The trouncing of Monti’s hopes in this election is proof of this clearly expressed resentment.

This is not a common election. At first sight the results (see below for detailed breakdown) appear to reflect the old right-left divide, with reincarnations of the old DC (Christian Democratic Party) and PS (Socialist Party) –the originals died drowned in the embezzled funds of the Tangentopoli scandal in the 1990s. There are, however, a number of new wildcards complicating the equation. Most importantly, Italy has not seen circumstances so dire for a generation with a stagnant economy, record unemployment and rapidly falling living standards.

Mario “Rigor Mortis” Monti is the loathed bogeyman of this election. Most political discourse in this campaign has been written and spoken in reference Italy’s financial credibility, which Monti has promised to fix with increasing doses of austerity bloodletting. The proverbial straw was the IMU tax, a levy on the value of a household’s primary property. This has caused exasperation in a country where low and middle earners are already very heavily taxed, with horror stories of bankrupt families due to the IMU. In some regards, Monti too has been an unconventional saviour of Italian finances. In Italy’s past debt scares (they happen every decade) una tantum (‘once only’) taxes were levied on luxury properties such as second and third homes, luxury cars, capital gains, bonuses. Monti, on the other hand, can be credited with importing European Neo-Conservative economics, with the resulting faith in public service cuts and increased taxation of the most numerous part of the population – who on average make little more than 900 per month (INSEE data) – rather than higher earners or corporations such as Berlusconi’s own Mediaset Group. Not unlike George Osborne, Monti’s entire programme is ostensibly designed to uphold the credibility of Italy’s credit ratings. Monti has run in this election as leader of a coalition of small centrist parties, although their parliamentary weight is negligible at just over 10% of the vote. This is clear proof of the great resentment that austerity measures have elicited in Italy.

Italy’s centre-left party grouping, the Partito Democratico (PD) led by Pier Luigi (aka “ex-Communist”) Bersani, has been a great disappointment both in campaign and in today’s results. PD promised to keep the course and spirit of Monti’s reforms – albeit with a few concessions to the need for growth measures – and indeed looked likely to form a coalition with Monti. This unexciting passive acceptance of the austerity dogma has alienated many supporters and  has allowed other protest candidates to trounce its advantage in polls over the last few weeks. In last night’s results, PD  is basically tied in voting percentages with Berlusconi’s alliance of conservative parties and only just ahead of Beppe Grillo’s 5-Star Movement. Italy’s puzzlingly complex voting laws give the PD bloc extra bonus seats, which should make the lower house just about governable.

Then come the rogues: the ones defined by opposition to the Monti administration and austerity policies. The most puzzling aspect of this election, and one that foreign analysts seem to miss, is that Silvio “Bunga Bunga” Berlusconi has, in an incredible piece of high-speed historical reframing, recast himself as a rebel, a transgressor to the Merkel-imposed austerity dogma and calling into question Euro membership, the EU, Mario Monti’s reforms and budget cuts. Most spectacularly, only a few days ago Berlusconi made the extraordinary promise of returning paid IMU tax to taxpayers if elected. He is now at the head of the second biggest group in the Lower House.

Machiavelli was right in decrying his indignation at Italy being saddled with the Papal Curia, and the Vatican has had varying policies in its involvement with Italian democracy, from sometimes banning the faithful from voting, to sanctioning specific parties. Yet another unusual factor, one that might be overlooked is the Pope’s resignation. Whilst in recent years the Church has not attempted to excommunicate stray voters and has adopted subtler means, its influence cannot be underestimated. It is likely that the Vatican’s temporary distraction has been to the disadvantage of conservatives and especially Mario Monti’s group.

Finally, the greatest surprise to those not accustomed to Italy’s political volatility and unfamiliar with recent economic woes is the success of the party led by comedian Beppe “Clown” Grillo, the 5-Star Movement. It has exceeded all projections, and is now the single largest party in the lower house (although it is outdone by the centre right and centre left alliances). It stood on a simple basis: reforming the overpaid, corrupt, rentier, clientelist and mafia-tainted nature of Italian politics by “sending the old [politicians] home”; reforming Italy’s economic course towards fairer taxation, limiting the rampant tax evasion of the richest individuals and corporations, removing austerity policies and encouraging higher employment and stemming Italy’s tragic graduate brain drain.

Considering Monti’s very poor showing, this Movement’s surprise showing is all the more important: The 5-Star Movement now holds the balance of power in the lower house. Grillo has declared that he wants no alliance with the old parties, and this is further complicated by the Movement’s staunch anti-austerity policy. I suspect that, barring fresh elections to resolve this stalemate, PD will have to make concessions to the Movement to be able to govern; but considering Bersani’s strongly-worded disapproval of the comedian’s protest party and its policies, this seems unlikely.

This election is not only a stalemate, but speaks of the worldwide dilemmas of democracy, finance, debt and the economic future of Europe. Sadly, the stalemate is fodder for market instability, political instability and stagnation. It is not clear who has won this election; what is clear is that there is one loser: Italy.

Dante Alighieri put it better than I ever could. Reader, I will let you translate these sad verses.

Italia, poi che se’ sì grande
che per mare e per terra batti l’ali,
e per lo ‘nferno tuo nome si spande!
Tra li ladron trovai cinque cotali
tuoi cittadini onde mi ven vergogna,
e tu in grande orranza non ne sali.

Dante, Inferno, XXVI, 1-6

—

Detailed election results in full as well as the fine detail of Italy’s complex electoral laws can be found on <http://elezioni.interno.it/camera/scrutini/20130224/C000000000.htm> [last accessed 26 February 2013]

Defence undermined?

by

By Hal Wilson
800px-Gulf_of_Aden_-_disabled_pirate_boat

One of the greatest threats to global stability is US defence policy – but not for the reasons we usually hear. Typical allusions to sinister neo-cons or ‘American imperialism’ are both misleading and prejudiced. But current policy – specifically the cuts of January’s Defence Strategic Guidance – reflects a dangerous ignorance of history.

That this came about is no great surprise. Consider trends in US politics and discourse. The final US presidential debate saw a highly symbolic illustration of this. Mitt Romney’s remark on numerical decline in the US fleet was instantly met by Barack Obama’s scornful quip about “horses and bayonets.” Alternatively, observe the opening scene of Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom. The protagonist decries the idea of America as the world’s greatest nation, snapping that one of the few areas it leads in is defence spending – surpassing the next twenty-six countries combined. (The clear implication being ‘how pointless!’) Similar observations abound, sharing a similar theme: US military spending is bloated and useless; opponents of cuts are old-fashioned or dangerous.

A deeper investigation quickly highlights the problems. Obama’s quip emboldened liberal allies – but it also highlighted simplistic, worrying thinking about defence in the modern era. Equally, Sorkin’s piece in The Newsroom strikes me as childishly trite – reeling off numbers sounds convincing until you put them in context. Namely, US defence spending reigns supreme largely because so many have relied so long on America for cheap defence: the results are self-evident.

Note that Operation Ocean Shield, NATO’s anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia, rests primarily on American naval power. Even so, too few ships are committed to adequately patrol the area. Likewise, while France and Britain provided major impetus toward a NATO mission against Colonel Gadaffi, the US again bore the brunt of the effort. Conversely, many European states made risible contributions to that mission – or in Germany’s case, none at all. Britain’s recent Strategic Defence and Security Review neatly underlines this: the Royal Navy is now too small to properly patrol the Somalian coast. Accordingly, when UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond urged a stronger German approach to defence, it was hard to take him seriously, but his stance was valid. Europe has largely grown complacent behind an American shield that now threatens to disappear.

This takes us back to the contentious statement beginning this article. The risk to global stability comes from the fact that the cuts threaten to hamstring the most meaningful force behind its maintenance: American power. Already, US planners find it a “struggle to preserve the necessary forces in CENTCOM to address all the possible conflicts and crises.” In 2011, a bipartisan commission found the US Navy “would need 346 ships to meet its global commitments. But, as a result of budget cuts, the fleet is going to decline from 282 ships today to fewer than 250…”. Indeed, declining numbers “means longer cruises with less time… [for] maintenance and for sailors to recuperate” – a deceptively simple yet crucial point.

Suddenly, Obama’s scornful comment to Romney seems rather ill-considered.

History warns us against such a policy as that in January’s Strategic Guidance. When European war loomed due to a Middle East crisis in 1832, overwhelming British naval power underscored Palmerston’s effort to prevent it. Likewise, it was the Royal Navy’s strength that helped it overcome terrible attrition in suppressing the slave trade. It was a strategic reserve in both cases that allowed Britain to deliver on key policies – a crucial reserve that bolstered diplomacy in the former; that absorbed losses in the latter. And it is just such a military reserve that would be compromised by January’s outlines: a dangerous prospect in the face of a challenging international outlook.

The Lost Revolution

by

By Lamya Hussein Marafi

It almost seems that the Egyptian revolution never happened, or is still waiting to happen. A struggling economy, an ambiguous foreign policy, extremely brutal police system, continuous fatal train accidents, increasing unemployment rate, sexual harassment of both women and men, a controversial constitution, the abandoned, ‘dangerous’ land of Sinai, a return to the emergency law, and a threat of a state collapse —President Morsi is torn and lost between satisfying the Muslim Brotherhood or the revolution.

The battle between the President’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the revolutionaries will continue until one side wins or the military intervenes. If the MB continues to hold firmly to power, Egypt’s relationship with the West could deteriorate due to fractionalized, poor governance and the rise of Islamic extremism. On the other hand, if the revolutionaries succeed, then they will also face challenges in creating a unified opposition that will continue to seek dialogue and political integration. This is because they are widely thought of as seculars, liberals, moderates, socialists, and even Muslims and Christians who simply oppose the MB. It is unlikely that the military will intervene due to political alienation, criticisms, and exhaustion from governing Egypt’s post-revolution transitional period. If so, for now the battle is between the MB and the revolutionaries.

The MB, including President Morsi, claims that they are not abandoning the revolution, while the opposition claims that Morsi and the MB ‘hijacked’ the revolution. The MB desperately wants to control Tahrir Square, even though this was where all political groups rallied against Mubarak. Tahrir Square and other major public spaces across Egypt will continue to be the microcosm of the struggle over who should represent Egypt’s revolution. The beauty and irony of it all is that no single leader or political group was credited for triggering the revolution: literally anyone who opposed Mubarak’s regime went out to the streets calling for the regime’s downfall.

Given this alarming situation, Egypt’s revolution seems lost. A solution will be difficult to implement because it seems unfortunately too late for President Morsi to regain the trust of the opposition in order to achieve a sense of consensus. Likewise, it is very unlikely that he can rebuild faith to engage in national political dialogue.

The country is caught in a vicious cycle. Security-sector reform needs to be initiated from within the government to avoid a descent into anarchy and chaos. A stable, solid economy and democracy will not thrive without the proper development of state security and institutions. But it is risky to rely on foreign aid to achieve security sector reform or even some form of economic stability. An influx of foreign aid will increase Egypt’s dependency on the West or perhaps the Gulf region, stirring political controversy among those who expect a lack of transparency on loan conditions and future repayment of debts.  At some point, a leader must emerge out of this revolution who will be capable of establishing political consensus and a sustainable vision to get Egypt’s out of its ‘collapsed’ state paradox.

The revolution was genuinely peaceful and people-led. However, with all the chaos developing as a result of the dramatic change and lack of political security and reform, the revolution is at a crossroads. It could either lead to complete state collapse or a nostalgic return to Mubarak’s past. It is not useful to reflect whether it was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to overthrow Mubarak in this particular period, as Mubarak’s regime would have eventually collapsed, for better or for worse. More urgent and important is to think about how this lost revolution can be found again.

—

Lamya Marafi is currently pursuing her master’s degree in Conflict, Security, and Development at King’s College London. Lamya’s interest is the Middle East region, especially youth and women’s empowerment, as well as civil society. She also loves traveling to explore diverse cultures.

Joining the ‘Million Man March’

by

By Nesma El Shazly

I was not allowed to leave the house throughout the first week of the revolution. Although my parents wholeheartedly endorsed the revolution, they feared for my life and would not let me join the protests. For this reason I spent that week documenting the events as they unfolded from my own home. The Egyptian people were revolting against sixty years of military rule, calling for three demands: bread, freedom and social justice. For eighteen consecutive days, protesters were engaged in face-to-face confrontations with President Mubarak’s brutal central security forces. Revolutionaries peacefully faced live ammunition, rubber bullets, tear gas, kidnappings and detainment with complete fearlessness.

After watching the horrifying brutality with which protesters were met on The Friday of Anger (28 January), I decided that enough was enough. I could not sit at home helplessly watching my people die. I frantically called up all my friends to see who was willing to march to Tahrir Square with me. Needless to say most of my male friends tried to discourage me out of concern for my safety. I was one of many women facing difficulty in taking to the streets and so, my friends and I, all women, decided to join the ‘Million Man March’ on 1 February.

As I walked down the stairs carrying the banner that I had spent the whole night making, my mother followed me, tightly gripping my hoodie, trying to pull me back. My brother drove me to my friend’s house, where we had all planned to meet. That morning came to be a turning point in my life. As we were about to leave to Tahrir, my best friend called me from the airport to tell me that she and her husband were leaving for the U.S for the safety of their 2 year-old child.  I experienced a mixture of conflicting emotions. I felt content that I was doing the right thing, excited that I was going to be a part of making history, apprehension of the risks I was about to take and sorrow that I could not even bid my best friend farewell.

There were three phases to our day: comedy, terror and euphoria. The first phase took place on the underground train. As we purchased our tickets the vendor looked at us with pride and said “May God be with you,” while a man standing behind us in line looked at us in disgust and told his wife that we were probably drug addicts. As we boarded the train, an old man selling copies of the Quran followed us on and tried to convince us that we should buy a copy and read it before we go to Tahrir and die. The adverse reactions we received throughout our journey put us in hysterics.

We experienced the second phase – terror – as we got off the train in downtown Cairo. We marched through the streets towards the Square alongside several other small groups. Mubarak supporters were surrounding the Square yelling out foul words at all the revolutionaries. An older woman followed me and grabbed my arm asking me where I was going. I looked her straight in the eye and said, “I’m going to Tahrir.” She tightened her grip on my arm and started hitting me and shouting out, “You are going to ruin this country! You are going to turn Egypt into Iraq!” My friends eventually realized that I had been held back and ran to my aid.  It was only at this point that we realized the extent of danger we were subjecting ourselves to. We resumed our journey quietly.

As we got closer to the Square we started hearing the enthusiastic chants of the protesters, “Al sha’ab yoreed isqaat al nizam!” (The people demand the fall of the regime!) Surges of revolutionary spirit and energy shot into us, abolishing our fear and wiping away thoughts of our encounter with Mubarak supporters. I have never felt as safe as I did that day in the Square. We were all brothers and sisters uniting for one common goal. People welcomed us as we marched in, handing us water and fruit. Nobody looked at us. No man tried to harass us. Everyone there truly believed in the cause. They knew that this was a matter of life or death.

While the world classifies the events of 25 January as a revolution, most revolutionaries have a contrary view. We ousted one brutal figurehead, and that in itself is a tremendous accomplishment.  But we have yet to dissolve the ruthless military regime that has ruled our country for 60 years. The Egyptian public was manipulated into believing that the military supported our revolution. But their assumption of power following the ousting of Mubarak suggests otherwise. It seems more likely, in my eyes, that the military sought to reinstate their power, which had seen a downturn during Mubarak’s later years. Throughout that period, Mubarak shifted his focus towards the business elite, bringing prominent businessmen into the political sphere.

During November 2011, the public was voting in the parliamentary elections that the military was administering. Concurrently, protesters were being attacked and killed by central security forces in the Mohamed Mahmoud clashes. Not only were we seeing the military gradually replace central security forces, we were also seeing protesters being unlawfully detained and tried in military prisons and courts. Furthermore, we had yet to see the last of Omar Suleiman and Ahmed Shafiq, who later sought to run for presidency. Omar Suleiman, a leading figure of Egypt’s inhumane intelligence system, renowned for his direct implication in the CIA’s callous rendition programme, took on the role of Vice President on 29 January. Suleiman later sought to run for the 2012 presidential elections. However, he failed to garner enough support in the initial stages of the race. Ahmed Shafiq, a military-backed figurehead that turned his back on the revolution through his assumption of the position of Prime Minister on 31 January, also sought to enter the race. However, unlike Suleiman, Shafiq somehow managed to garner widespread support. His support base mainly derived from ardent anti-revolutionary supporters of the Mubarak regime and the military, as well as liberals who feared the growing dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the political sphere. The fact that Shafiq was even able to run for president, let alone make it to the final round of the elections, shows that the revolution is far from over

—
Nesma El Shazly was born and raised in the UK. She moved to Egypt in 2007 to study at the American University in Cairo. On 1 Feb 2011, she took to the streets in protest and she has been a participant of the Egyptian Revolution ever since.

COMING SOON ON STRIFE: ‘The Lost Revolution’, by Lamya Hussein Marafi, assessing the remaining challenges for Egypt’s revolution.

Panetta Speaks at King's

by

By Amelie Sundberg

To most of my friends beyond the War Studies Department at King’s Leon Panetta doesn’t quite achieve celebrity status or the description as ‘cool’.  But Friday morning was definitely cool.  As I battled through the snow to the Strand building I couldn’t help but notice the big men in overcoats with ear pieces – not the common tourists at Somerset house. I felt very privileged to be one of the lucky students about to see Panetta’s ‘Big Speech’ of his European Tour, probably one of his last major speeches as US Secretary of Defence.

To be honest, I realised that I had no idea what to expect from the man in charge of the world’s strongest defence establishment and former director of the CIA.  His affable composure surprised me.  Perhaps I am simply a victim of good speech writing, but I felt I saw a glimpse of Leon the human, just like us, which made his career even more inspiring.

Panetta’s speech in many respects was predictable.  After a few words on the current hostage situation in Algeria, his main focus was on the Transatlantic relationship and NATO.  Particularly predictable was his frequent referral to the ‘special’ US-British relationship.  Having said that, I enjoyed Panetta’s historical anecdotes. Recalling his memories as a little boy during the last years of the Second World War, he said that Roosevelt and Churchill’s personal friendship and “clear-eyed resolve” had inspired a generation in war and continues to inspire us today. He sees  NATO as the fulfilment of their dreams to ensure that “the world would never again descend into turmoil”.  Panetta thinks that the transatlantic alliance is today facing a turning point, where it might retreat from its responsibilities due to altered priorities and fiscal restraints or could demonstrate creativity and the commitment to remain resolute.

On the one hand, the world is witnessing a period of conflict coming to a close – the Iraq war is over, NATO has declared troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, Al Qaeda has been largely dissembled and the intervention in Libya is drawing to a close.  On the other hand, Panetta challenged Britain, warning us to “make no mistake” about the threats posed, to both the US and Europe, by Al Qaeda affiliate terrorist groups, the continuing conflict in Afghanistan, nuclear intentions of North Korea and Iran, and the consequences of the fall of the Assad regime in Syria – which, “make no mistake”, will fall.

Panetta also paid considerable attention to the “fiscal austerity in full force on both sides of the Atantic”. He seemed worried about the implications of defence spending cuts (as high as 20%) in most European countries over the past couple of years. The US is facing similar hurdles, required to meet $487 billion in budget reductions over the next ten years.  Not only did Panetta stress that the new US Defence Strategy of last year shall seek to invest in a leaner, more agile force, developing fields such as intelligence, space, cyber capabilities and special operations in order to make up for reductions. He confidently asserted that the US must remain the strongest military force in the world.  He also emphasised that no one state can meet these threats alone, and so alliances must move beyond the cold war frame work and modernise into a flexible and rotational model. Duplication is no longer necessary, and “the time has come to share”.

One of  Panetta’s biggest fears is the cyber threat that could cripple our economies and infrastructure instantaneously. Thus  NATO must develop a role within cyber defence.  Lastly, Panetta boldly asserted that Europe should not worry about the US turning away from us in its “pivot” towards Asia- rather, we should join them in developing new regional partners.

The message that I found most harrowing in Panetta’s speech was his observation that he will probably be the last US Secretary of Defence to have direct memories of the Second World War.  This really is a new generation, a dawn.

Although a cynic might interpret Panetta’s calls for collaboration, quoting Churchill’s assertion that ” our friendship is the rock on which to build the future of the world”, as mere rhetoric for the declining US ability to act alone.  But the bleak reality is that gone are the days where we can afford to pick and choose our allies – we must strive to foster defence friendships throughout the world if we are to prevent sinking in today’s sea of fiscal austerity and unpredictable threats.  I am inclined to agree with Panetta’s strong, but still positive, challenge to Europe to adapt to the reality of the 21st Century.