Strife

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

You are here: Home / Archives for Italy

Italy

Italy’s Anti-Vaxxers: how victimhood is portrayed through the holocaust

by

Recent Vaccine Protest in Roma. Photo Credit: Flickr, licensed via Creative Commons.

In her diary, Anne Frank immerses the reader in her daily life as a Jew in early 1940s Amsterdam, providing an intimate glimpse into the atrocities of racial segregation. In one particular extract from June 1942, Anne describes the systematic imposition of anti-Jewish laws by Nazis in an effort to exclude them from Dutch society:

Jews were forbidden to be out on the streets between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; Jews were forbidden to go to theatres, cinemas, or any other forms of entertainment; Jews were forbidden to use swimming pools, tennis courts, hockey fields or any other athletic fields; You couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that, but life went on...”

Seventy-nine years later, in the midst of a global pandemic, Anne’s words have been wrenched back into focus in an unexpected context. On the encrypted messaging app Telegram, the Italian group “Basta Dittatura” (“Stop the Dictatorship”) shared Anne’s extract, adding in a prophetic tone:

“History is repeating itself. Italy’s Green Pass will bring us back to the Holocaust.”

After Italy imposed the controversial “Green Pass” restrictions on non-vaccinated people on August 6, prohibiting them from sitting in indoor restaurants, cinemas, stadiums, and other public places, absurd historical parallels with the Holocaust have been drawn.

Above, the controversial message on the Telegram group “Basta Dittatura.”

As thousands of people took to the streets to demonstrate against the implementation of the Green Pass, some protestors wore a yellow Star of David badge reading “Not Vaccinated.” The Italian anti-Green Pass movement is therefore instrumentalizing the Holocaust in a grotesque effort to distort reality and fuel a sense of victimhood among the non-vaccinated population. In their view the Green Pass would be a direct assault on individual liberties: if in the past Jews could not go to cinemas and theatres, today non-vaccinated people are suffering just the same fate.

“They are madness, gestures in poor taste that intersect with ignorance,” commented Italian senator Liliana Segre, who is also a 90-year-old Holocaust survivor, “it is such a time for ignorance, for violence, that it is not even repressed anymore, that has become ripe for these distortions.”

Italy’s protests are instrumentalizing Jewish discrimination. (Credit: Riccardo De Luca, Times of Israel)

Although the Green Pass has been an overall successful endeavor, with vaccine rates rapidly increasing, anti-vax resistance still remains strong, with 80.000 people taking to the streets in the last weekend of July. In a typical snowball effect, the anti-Green Pass movement has also quickly incorporated many conspiracy theorists, libertarians, far-right movements.

On the same weekend, neighboring France counted 230.000 protestors, with some of them also wearing the yellow David stars.

“I wore the star, I know what it is, I still have it in my flesh,” said Joseph Szwarc, a French Holocaust survivor, “it is everyone’s duty to not allow this outrageous, antisemitic, racist wave to pass over us.”

Meanwhile, Italy’s healthcare system has also been hit by the worst ransomware attack it has ever experienced. In early August a group of unknown hackers penetrated the IT system of the health department of the Lazio region and blocked its COVID19 vaccination booking system. This attack substantially delayed the vaccination campaign, forcing people to queue outside of the facilities and medical staff to write patients’ medical information with pen and paper. As hackers are demanding a ransom payment, investigations on their identity are still ongoing. Yet, on social media, Italian people have been quick to draw conclusions. With many suggesting, “it must have been a group of anti-vaccine hackers.”

The latest demonstrations are the symptom of a troubling trend. The outrageous comparison to the Holocaust not only represents an insult to the past, but it is also an indicator of a disturbing phenomenon that perhaps calls for some national soul-searching. On one side, the developing world has been facing severe vaccine shortages – in July 2021, Africa delivered only 4 vaccines per 100 people. On the other side, the developed world sees an abundance of vaccines, with European governments introducing coercive measure to encourage their citizens to get inoculated. Yet, a substantial portion of those citizens are now waging a noisy campaign against those same governments. Drawing absurd parallels with the Holocaust, these citizens are seeking a victim status, fueling a sense of injustice that could easily become a breeding ground for violence and chaos. Exploiting the suffering of the Holocaust to serve an anti-vaccine agenda is a misplaced and insulting move – one that has the audacity to claim that being encouraged to get a vaccine during a global pandemic would be just as brutal as the ethnic cleansing of almost 6 million Jews.

The Belt and Road Initiative in Italy: a distorted reality

by

2000 years ago, two great civilizations dominated each ends of the ancient Silk Road.

At its most Eastern point was China’s Han dynasty, which knew very little of the other mysterious empire that controlled the Silk Road’s Western tip. Chinese people referred to this empire as “Da Qin,” and they thought of it as a sort of “counter-China” which sat at the other end of the world. Today we know that what the Chinese people called “Da Qin” was in fact nothing but the mighty Roman Empire. The story goes that in the year 97 A.D., Chinese ambassador Kan Ying embarked on a journey through the arid steppes of Central Asia to pay a visit to Rome, carrying lavish gifts for its Roman rulers.

Today, that ancient Silk Road has been revived under the name of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced his intention to build a modern-day adaptation of these trade routes, giving life to a network of railways, ports, pipelines, power grids and highways that will once again carry goods and ideas between East and West. In this vision, China and Italy could once again become the two powers sitting at the opposite ends of the Silk Road.

In March 2019, President Xi embarked on a three-day state visit to Italy, which today is less a Mediterranean spanning empire and more of a fatigued country saddled with massive debt. In addition, unlike Chinese ambassador Kan Ying, this time President Xi Jinping did not carry lavish gifts for the Roman rulers, but a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Italy to join the Belt and Road Initiative. This was officially signed on March 23.

Chinese President Xi Jinping. Photo Credit: Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons

That Italy, a member of the G7 and a founding member of both the EU and NATO, embraced China’s Belt and Road Initiative was perceived as a major blow to its traditional Western allies. At a time when the US and China were locked in a bitter trade war which saw Washington and Beijing imposing tit-for-tat tariffs and EU leaders emphasizing the need for a common strategy towards China, Rome’s formal endorsement for the BRI raised concerns that Italy could become the entry point for Chinese influence in Europe.

Various media outlets claimed that Italy “was playing with fire”, and the US depicted the country as “the European weak link in the power struggle with China”. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also warned that Beijing would take advantage of Rome, recalling the common assumption that the BRI only plays in China’s favor, and that countries that will be unable to repay generous Chinese loans will eventually fall into the so-called “debt trap”. And, because the MoU would grant a Chinese state-owned company access to various Italian ports, including Genova and Trieste, in 2019 many claimed that Italy would eventually cede its national assets to Beijing.

An article from The New York Times quickly inflated this narrative and painted a stark picture of Trieste being “invaded” by an army of deep-pocketed Chinese people: “To walk through Trieste is to witness how the city has already opened to China” – the article reads in a prophetic tone – “Chinese tourists shop for the city’s trademark Illy coffee and take pictures with their Huawei phones of the elegant Caffé Degli Specchi”. As the article continues, “most significant, construction workers in scuba gear have been laying foundations near the site where a new pier is expected to become China’s home in the industrial port.” In the imaginary of the Times, the idea that China could soon control major Italian national assets loomed large. Yet, two years since the controversial signing of the MoU, the obvious question is: have these prophecies come about? The answer is no.

First, it should be noted that most of the agreements signed by Italy and China were largely expressions of intention, which never really came to reality.

After March 2019 Beijing had to learn a hard lesson: dealing with Italy’s schizophrenic, unpredictable, and unreliable political system is no easy task. When the MoU for the BRI was first signed, Italy was governed by the Five-Star Movement (5SM) and the far-right League, a dysfunctional and populist coalition that favored a new partnership with Beijing. This coalition also rejected Italy’s traditional Western alliances and was largely anti-EU and anti-establishment. However, this government was quickly replaced by a new coalition that re-positioned Italy back into its traditional alliance system. This approach was then reinforced by yet another change of government in 2021, when Prime Minister Mario Draghi emphasized that his new administration was “strongly pro-European and Atlanticist.” This political roller coaster essentially proved that Rome’s position towards the BRI can virtually change at any time.

In addition, the continuing US-China trade war and the growing tension around Italy’s endorsement for the BRI in 2019 might have eventually influenced Italy’s decision-makers, prompting them to choose different partners. In Trieste, where, according to the New York Times, to walk through the city is “to witness how the city has already opened to China,” the port infrastructure project was eventually contracted not by China Communication Construction Company (CCCC), but by Germany’s Hafen and Logistik.

It is also important to highlight that many concerns on Italy falling into a “debt trap” had little supporting evidence. Both Italian and European legal frameworks limit the ability of foreign companies to acquire assets in country’s vital sectors. In particular, the Italian government can also appeal to the so-called “Golden Power” regulation, a special rule introduced in 2012 and reviewed in 2020 by which the Italian government can decide to stop foreign direct investment when it goes against the national interest. This means that there was virtually no possibility to cede control of Italian ports to a Chinese organisation.

Finally, what is often ignored is that Chinese investment would have been limited to very specific projects: China’s collaboration would not be focused directly on the entire ports of Genova and Trieste – rather, in Genova, CCCC would have invested in the construction of a new breakwater dam, while in Trieste the company would have been involved in the construction of railway stations and rail connections. These considerations seem to suggest that fears over Chinese investments in Italian infrastructure have often been exaggerated by media outlets and political figures. Also, they stemmed from a general mistrust towards China’s BRI, rather than from any thorough analysis. Stating that “to walk through Trieste is to witness how the city has already opened to China” is a form of sensationalism that actively distorts reality.

The Myth of European Solidarity in the Face of COVID-19

by

by Pezhman Mohammadi

Aid material at the international airport of Hangzhou in Zhejiang, being prepared to help Italy with its outbreak of COVID-19 (Image credit: China Daily/Reuters)

With just over 1.8 million active cases at the time of writing, COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc across the globe, rapidly changing the world we once knew. Among many other things, this pandemic has exposed the lack of solidarity and coordination within the European Union (EU), putting its future at risk. This article will look into how the EU failed to assist Italy in its hour of need.

Responsible for monitoring natural and manmade disasters, the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) is the EU’s crisis hub. It operates by forwarding any appeals for help by member states to others in order to find volunteers that are willing to assist. However, when COVID-19 broke out in Italy, calls for help by one of the EU’s most severely hit members were widely ignored. For weeks, not a single member state provided Italy with the critical supplies it needed to combat the virus. In the face of such inaction, help arrived from non-EU states: including China and Russia. The first batch of Chinese supplies arrived in Rome on March 12. It contained over thirty tons of Intensive Care Unit equipment, as well as medical and protective supplies. Just days after, Pratica di Mare, an Italian Air Force Base, received seven Russian military aircraft loaded with medical supplies to assist Italy. Even Cuba and Albania scrambled to help.

Signs of Italian discontent with the EU came into light following a survey in late March, in which only 49% of participants claimed to be ‘pro-EU’. This figure was 64% before the pandemic hit the country. The survey also concluded that 72% of participants believed the EU had failed them in this crisis, while 77% stated that they expect a rocky relationship with Brussels in the future.

The EU’s lack of assistance, however, was not merely limited to not providing essential supplies. Following a Eurogroup meeting on 9 April, it was effectively decided that economically, too, Italy was on its own. Instead of sharing the burden of the catastrophic economic effects, the EU provided a loan from the European Stability Mechanism (MSM) to Italy which is merely dedicated to coronavirus-related health care spending. As a country on the verge of an economic collapse, this was not the concession Italy had hoped for.

The shocking numbers coming out of Italy are also a direct result of the EU enforced austerity measures on the country’s economy following the 2008 financial crisis. Italy merely lacked the funds to invest in its health care system. This, coupled with the lack of support from other member states, especially the rich Northern ones who refused to agree to the so-called ‘corona-bonds’ to mitigate the economic costs of the pandemic, will have its geopolitical and strategic implications in the long run. Italy will not forget how the Chinese and the Russians came to the rescue when its allies turned their backs. Adding insult to the injury, the US’ absence from the international arena during this crisis compounded the massive void in Europe that China and Russia have successfully filled.

Undoubtedly, the EU’s future will be questioned once this pandemic is over. The fact that Germany, as the EU’s powerhouse, and other states neglected countries like Italy will have its unintended consequences. The EU was built on the premise of avoiding conflicts and economic nationalism. The negligence that was witnessed will certainly give rise to far-right nationalist and Eurosceptic factions within the EU, which will eventually leave their marks in European politics. Putting Eurosceptics aside, concerns about the future of the Bloc have been voiced by leading Europhiles such Jacques Delors who warned of a break-up. In addition, in an interview with the BBC, Giuseppe Conte, the Italian Prime Minister, issued a stark warning. Conte stated that the European leaders were ‘facing an appointment with history’. He also added that ‘if we do not seize the opportunity to put new life into the European project, the risk of failure is real.’

Pro-EU advocates have, too, concluded that Europe’s response was selfish, imprudent, and morally questionable. In his resignation letter, Mauro Ferrari, the former president of the European Research Council (ERC) observed that ‘the COVID-19 pandemic shone a merciless light on how mistaken I had been. In a time of emergency, people, and institutions, revert to their deepest nature and reveal their true character.’ Ferrari, an idealist who once supported and cherished the idea of a United Europe, was forced out of the office by the ERC’s Scientific Council as they opposed his efforts to create a coordinated science-led response to combat COVID-19.

Nonetheless, If Italy falls, it will take its friends down with it. After all, misery loves company. However, Europe’s response to Italy or Spain brings to light a much bigger, more serious issue. How would Europe respond in the face of a bigger crisis or threat? Can member states really trust one another and rely on each other’s assistance at times of major crisis? The Head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, apologised to Italy for the lack of support and solidarity – but considering the extent of the devastation caused, it is doubtful Italians will forget Europe’s cold response any time soon.

Pezhman Mohammadi studied Intelligence and International Security (MA) at King’s College London. Following graduation, he worked within the law enforcement field for over four years. Mohammadi now works in the financial industry.

L’impeachment che non fu. Tre appunti per i mesi a venire

by

by Andrea Varsori

Il Presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella arriva nella sala stampa del Quirinale la sera di domenica 27 maggio (Image Credit: LaPresse)

Per l’Italia, gli ultimi giorni del mese scorso sono stati estremamente movimentati, anche per gli standard a cui la politica nazionale e internazionale ci ha abituato negli ultimi anni. Tra il 28 e il 29 maggio, abbiamo assistito all’impennarsi di tensioni interne e esterne. Politici, osservatori e cittadini hanno preso parte a uno scontro senza precedenti tra il Presidente della Repubblica e le due forze politiche che stavano formando il governo, la Lega e il Movimento 5 Stelle. Quest’ultima ha seriamente proposto la messa in stato d’accusa del Presidente. Alla chiamata nelle piazze da parte del M5S ha risposto il Partito Democratico, in una escalation di mobilitazione. Nel frattempo, esponenti politici nazionali si sono scontrati con membri della Commissione Europea e parlamentari europei. Investitori stranieri hanno perso fiducia nella capacità italiana di ripagare il debito, con immediate conseguenze sul valore dei titoli bancari e sul costo pagato dal Paese per rifinanziarsi sui mercati. Almeno in questo senso, sembrava di essere tornati nel caos del novembre 2011.

A vedere, invece, quello che è successo nei giorni successivi, c’è di che stupirsi. Una frattura che, lunedì e martedì, sembrava insanabile e capace di dividere il Paese, si è ricomposta con il semplice spostamento di Paolo Savona, economista fortemente critico della partecipazione italiana all’euro, dal Ministero dell’Economia al meno importante Ministero agli Affari Europei. Il veto del Presidente è stato così superato. Tra giovedì sera e venerdì pomeriggio, un governo tecnico nato morto è stato accantonato, e un governo politico è nato e ha giurato fedeltà alla Repubblica. Quello stesso sabato, Giuseppe Conte, il neo-premier, sedeva sorridente al fianco di Mattarella. E ora, con la fiducia ottenuta in entrambe le camere, il governo Conte è una realtà solida, al contrario di quello che si poteva pensare solo qualche giorno prima.

Sarebbe sbagliato, però, pensare che tutto questo non conti più. Gli eventi degli ultimi giorni di maggio possono ora sembrare sepolti dalle dichiarazioni di quelli che adesso sono esponenti di Governo, soprattutto considerando quanto poco durino le notizie nel clima mediatico in cui viviamo. Per quanto la nascita del governo Conte abbia cambiato la situazione politica nazionale, però, non ha cambiato di certo alcuni fattori strutturali. Questi fattori persistono, e riguardano l’instabilità politica interna, che può tornare in qualsiasi momento; la debolezza economica italiana, che conta ancora moltissimo; e il rapporto tra Italia ed Unione Europea, ormai più di scontro che di confronto.

 

Politica italiana: mai davvero stabile

La prima osservazione che si può fare è che, almeno per i prossimi mesi, non potremo dire che la situazione politica italiana si sia davvero stabilizzata. Questo punto di vista può sembrare molto pessimista, considerato che il governo Conte è nato e ha una maggioranza relativamente solida e un contratto di governo già pronto. La mia risposta a queste obiezioni si limita a evidenziare due eventi accaduti dopo che è emerso il veto di Sergio Mattarella su Paolo Savona. Il primo è la scelta di Matteo Salvini di abbandonare il tavolo dei negoziati e far saltare, in un primo momento, il governo Conte. Sull’opportunità politica della mossa di Mattarella, ovviamente, si può discutere: ma non è quello che interessa qui. La crisi tra M5S, Lega e Quirinale, infatti, si poteva benissimo evitare, soprattutto nel caso sia vera l’ipotesi che Mattarella avesse proposto Giancarlo Giorgetti, storico esponente leghista, come alternativa a Savona. È probabile che la mossa di Salvini sia stata motivata dalla crescita in popolarità che ne sarebbe seguita per la Lega, fotografata da molti recenti sondaggi. Anche se questo non fosse vero, però, la crisi di rapporti si poteva benissimo evitare. La nascita del governo Conte con Savona agli Affari Europei dimostra che un’alternativa era possibile. La reazione di Salvini ha mostrato, nel caso peggiore, opportunismo, nel caso migliore mancanza di capacità di gestire negoziati politici.

Ancora più grave è stata la reazione di Luigi Di Maio, con l’immediata proposta di mettere Mattarella in stato d’accusa. Questa idea, infatti, è stata chiaramente lanciata senza pianificazione alcuna. Ne è testimone il fatto che la Lega da subito si sia dimostrata scettica, pur criticando fortemente il Presidente, e se ne sia tirata fuori già lunedì 28 maggio. Di Maio ha scommesso una parte rilevante del suo capitale politico e delle possibilità di successo del suo partito su una mossa rischiosa, polarizzante, e senza molte possibilità di ottenere risultati tangibili. Ha perfino convocato una manifestazione a Roma che, man mano che la settimana passava, ha dovuto assistere a una paradossale inversione di toni. Chiedere la messa in stato d’accusa è stata una mossa autolesionista per Di Maio e il M5S; il che è grave, dato che denota, come nel caso di Salvini, opportunismo oppure mancanza di capacità di gestire delle crisi.

Queste dimostrazioni di inabilità politica non fanno ben sperare, viste le differenze di storia e retorica tra Lega e M5S. La coordinazione tra le due forze, nei giorni peggiori della crisi istituzionale, è stata scarsa, per non dire inesistente. Questo aspetto potrebbe migliorare se le due forze politiche sapranno imparare a coordinarsi e a guadagnare una la fiducia dell’altra. Ma, stante come si sono comportate la settimana scorsa, questo non succederà certo nel breve periodo. Ancora per qualche mese non potremo dire che l’Italia sia davvero stabile. Un qualsiasi inciampo può accadere di nuovo, con tutte le conseguenze negative che abbiamo visto.

 

Economia italiana: una continua debolezza

Le conseguenze negative sono state, principalmente, di natura economica e hanno dimostrato che l’Italia è ancora molto fragile sotto questo punto di vista. Questa affermazione è basata su dati, piuttosto che pregiudizi. La situazione attuale di moderata crescita non deve infatti mascherare il fatto che i fondamentali economici sono ancora deboli. Innanzitutto, la crescita economica italiana è ancora minore di quella degli altri Paesi dell’Eurozona e, secondo stime del Fondo Monetario Internazionale, probabilmente rallenterà l’anno prossimo. La produttività italiana è bassa e stagnante ormai da decenni. L’Italia non è considerata un buon ambiente per fare impresa e non ha molto successo nell’attrarre investimenti esteri, con Regno Unito, Francia e Germania in una posizione molto migliore, nonostante alcuni miglioramenti recenti. La pressione fiscale è tra le più alte d’Europa; il tasso di povertà è in aumento; il tasso di disoccupazione è ancora relativamente alto, specialmente per i giovani, e anche la sua recente diminuzione è dovuta perlopiù a creazione di posti di lavoro a tempo determinato. Infine, la crescita economica italiana è principalmente trainata dalle esportazioni, che saranno particolarmente vulnerabili alle guerre commerciali che gli Stati Uniti stanno iniziando con l’Unione Europea.

Tutto questo aggrava la situazione del debito pubblico. L’Italia ha il secondo rapporto tra debito e PIL più alto d’Europa, superata in questo solo dalla Grecia, e il quinto più alto nel mondo. Il 32% del debito sovrano italiano è in mano a investitori esteri. Questo è un fatto fondamentale, poiché, nel momento in cui questi hanno ragioni per temere che l’Italia non possa o non voglia ripagare il suo debito, il costo che il Paese affronta per finanziarsi sui mercati si alza, limitando immediatamente la disponibilità di soldi del governo. A partire dalla crisi del debito sovrano del 2011, in realtà, la quota di debito in mano a investitori esteri è progressivamente diminuita. È passata dal 51% del 2010 al 36.1% del 2016; in questo, le operazioni di Quantitative Easing della BCE hanno costituito un’occasione che gli investitori esteri hanno sfruttato per liberarsi di circa 78 miliardi di euro di titoli di stato italiani tra il 2015 e l’inizio di quest’anno. Da una parte, questa diminuzione è un fenomeno positivo, poiché riduce in una certa misura il rischio di contagio tra Italia e Unione Europea e rende Roma meno dipendente dai mercati esteri. Dall’altra parte, però, le banche italiane ora possiedono una porzione maggiore del debito sovrano nazionale. Questo significa che qualsiasi crisi del debito italiano si traduce immediatamente in una crisi bancaria, comportando minore accesso al credito per imprese e famiglie.

È molto difficile che questi fondamentali economici cambino nel breve periodo.

 

Rapporto Italia-UE: i pregiudizi hanno la meglio

Infine, gli eventi della scorsa settimana ci hanno dimostrato che il rapporto tra Italia e Unione Europea probabilmente sarà di scontro, piuttosto che di cooperazione. Si tratta di uno scontro che riguarda innanzitutto le regole europee. Per quanto ci siano notevoli differenze tra Lega e Movimento 5 Stelle, queste due forze politiche hanno un obbiettivo comune: convincere Bruxelles ad allentare i limiti sulla spesa pubblica e a rimandare qualsiasi tentativo di riduzione del debito sovrano italiano. Carlo Cottarelli, qualche giorno prima di essere coinvolto nello sfortunato tentativo di formare un governo tecnico, aveva pubblicato con l’Osservatorio Conti Pubblici dell’Università Cattolica di Milano uno studio in cui analizzava costi e coperture del contratto di programma M5S-Lega. Lo studio evidenziava che le proposte avanzate dalle forze di governo costeranno tra i 108.7 e i 125.7 miliardi di euro, con coperture previste per solo mezzo miliardo. Anche se il neonato governo Conte dovesse decidere di realizzare solo parte del suo contratto, difficilmente risolverà questo problema. È probabile allora che il nuovo esecutivo cerchi di ottenere, anche con metodi energici e poco ortodossi, un allentamento dei vincoli europei.

Non sembra, però, che a Bruxelles ci sia molta voglia di concedere ciò. Anche se altri Paesi mediterranei dovessero unirsi al tentativo italiano (cosa affatto scontata), alcuni Stati settentrionali, come Paesi Bassi e Finlandia, si opporranno alle richieste di Roma. La Germania farà altrettanto. Concedere tempo e margine economico all’Italia, infatti, sarebbe visto come una resa nei confronti di un Paese che poco ha fatto per rimettere i conti a posto, nonostante il massiccio aiuto offerto dalla Banca Centrale col Quantitative Easing. Una mossa conciliatoria nei confronti dell’Italia sarebbe dunque immediatamente criticata dal partito euroscettico Alternativa per la Germania, il principale rivale della CDU, il partito della cancelliera Angela Merkel. Per quanto riguarda la Francia, l’impulso del Presidente Emmanuel Macron sembra essersi per ora esaurito. Le sue proposte di riforma hanno trovato più ostacoli del previsto, soprattutto nei Paesi citati sopra, e sono state considerevolmente ridimensionate da Merkel domenica scorsa. Il nuovo governo italiano può fare poco per cambiare questa situazione, anche se decidesse di abbandonare il progetto di alcuni suoi esponenti di usare la minaccia di uscire dall’euro come strumento per ottenere concessioni.

Lo scontro tra Italia e Unione, però, non sarà solo di regole, ma anche di idee e pregiudizi. Lo abbiamo già visto nei giorni successivi al veto di Mattarella alla nomina di Savona. A Bruxelles, esponenti politici europei si sono lasciati andare a commenti di dubbia utilità politica, con commentatori, giornalisti e politici italiani pronti a brandirli come prova che l’Europa stesse condizionando la politica nazionale. Tra gli episodi più noti c’è senza dubbio la frase “i mercati insegneranno agli italiani come votare per il lato giusto”, attribuita al commissario europeo Günther Oettinger martedì 29 maggio. La frase, però, era solo una sintesi molto semplicistica scritta dall’intervistatore in un tweet. Il giorno dopo, un membro tedesco del parlamento europeo, esponente della CSU, partito alleato alla CDU di Angela Merkel, ha dichiarato in un’intervista che, in caso di bancarotta italiana, “bisognerebbe invadere Roma e prendere possesso del Ministero dell’Economia”. Anche questo commento, certamente eccessivo e irrispettoso, è stato denunciato in Italia, col risultato di ingigantirne l’importanza. Allo stesso modo, dall’altro lato delle Alpi, stereotipi sui tedeschi hanno cominciato a riemergere. L’esempio più famoso ha riguardato Milena Gabanelli, che, in un video per la Dataroom del Corriere della Sera, ha usato un copricapo militare nazista per rappresentare i tedeschi. Accomunare la Germania di oggi a quella degli anni ’30 e ’40, però, viene fatto in maniera più esplicita da molti, incluso il nuovo Ministro agli Affari Europei. È evidente che, in questo contesto, è molto facile per tutt’e due le parti non solo lasciarsi andare a dichiarazioni colme di pregiudizi, ma anche denunciarle e amplificarle, dando così l’impressione che l’intera nazione le condivida.

Questo contribuisce ad accrescere la distanza tra Italia e Germania, oltre che tra Italia e Unione Europea. Questo avviene in un terreno già fertile. Studi annuali dell’Eurobarometro, che si occupa di registrare l’evoluzione dell’opinione pubblica europea, mostrano che l’Italia è tra i Paesi meno convinti dell’appartenenza all’Unione. In un sondaggio di quest’anno, solo il 44% degli italiani crede che l’Italia abbia beneficiato dal fare parte dell’Unione Europea. In un altro studio recente, la maggioranza relativa degli italiani (il 46%) ritiene che l’Italia avrebbe un futuro migliore fuori dall’Unione; in questo, sorpassata solo dal Regno Unito. Questo non vuol dire, ovviamente, che Roma seguirà le orme di Londra. Lo scetticismo verso Bruxelles, però, è ormai un fatto conclamato. E il risvegliarsi di rivalità nazionali, che vanno dai semplici stereotipi a un vero e proprio nazionalismo, può rendere il contrasto tra Italia e Unione ancora più difficile da risolvere.

 

Lo scontro a venire

A mio parere, è proprio questo scontro il fattore più importante per i prossimi mesi. I primi giorni della crisi lo hanno rivelato, con il pronto ricorso a pregiudizi da ambedue le parti. Sappiamo da tempo che le rivalità nazionali in Europa non sono scomparse. In Italia, la loro esistenza era stata mascherata per anni da una retorica europeista ideologica, e forse un po’ ingenua, adottata dalle maggiori istituzioni nazionali. Il velo di questo europeismo è stato probabilmente squarciato nel novembre 2011, con il governo Monti. A quell’epoca, l’idea che l’Unione Europea consista in restrizioni e interferenze, piuttosto che libertà e benefici, ha cominciato a farsi strada. È un’idea, questa, portata avanti con forza dalla Lega e, in passato, anche dal Movimento 5 Stelle. Ora che queste due forze politiche tenteranno di realizzare il loro contratto di governo, può farsi ancora più forte.

Si può già delineare un possibile scenario. Prima o dopo le elezioni europee del 2019, Lega e M5S cercheranno di fare più deficit per avverare le proprie promesse elettorali. Facendo questo, si scontreranno con l’Unione e, in particolare, con i Paesi del Nord, più fiscalmente conservatori. In questo contesto, sarà difficile resistere alla tentazione di ricorrere alla retorica delle rivalità nazionali per ottenere voti e consenso in patria. Naturalmente, è possibile che Salvini e Di Maio si fermino prima, consci dei rischi a cui esporrebbero il Paese andando a uno scontro frontale. Da come si sono comportati la scorsa settimana, però, è lecito dubitarne. Si correrà dunque il rischio di cadere in una spirale di accuse reciproche. Convincere gli italiani che la colpa è della Germania e di Bruxelles, però, può colpire la partecipazione italiana all’Unione nelle sue fondamenta ideali.

 

The English version of this piece is available here.

 

Andrea is a PhD candidate at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Strife. His research focuses on the strategy of urban armed groups in the Global South, in particular on their decision-making processes and their methods of territorial control. Andrea holds an MA in International and Diplomatic Sciences from the University of Bologna; he is also an alumnus of the Institute of Advanced Studies at the same university. His main interests include criminal organisations, drug trafficking networks, urban riots, and urban insurgencies. You can follow him on Twitter @Andrea_Varsori.

Image Source: https://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2018/05/28/034107183-8b461394-435c-4763-beaa-fa88f54be243.jpg

Strife Feature – Italy’s short circuit week and the fight over Europe

by

by Andrea Varsori

The President of the Italian Republic, Sergio Mattarella (Image Credit: LaPresse)

 

Italy’s short circuit week

Last week, Italy’s political system went into short circuit. 84 days after the last national elections, an apparently successful attempt at forming a government unexpectedly collapsed at the last minute. Ten days earlier, the two political forces behind the attempt, the right-wing League and the anti-politics Five Star Movement (5SM), had already produced a joint manifesto, a “government contract”. Their members had already approved it: the League had organised voting at hundreds of stands across Italy, while the Movement, coherently with its calls for direct democracy, let its members vote on its online platform, Rousseau. The two forces had already chosen someone for the role of Prime Minister: Giuseppe Conte, a little-known lawyer and professor. They had already agreed on the future ministers. In short, everything seemed ready to go.

Italy’s political system, however, proved to be an obstacle for their plans. In Italy, the President of the Republic nominates the ministers, while the Prime Minister proposes the names. In the days before the collapse of government formation, the President, Sergio Mattarella, had signalled informally that he would not approve the prospective choice for the Minister of Economy. The League wanted Paolo Savona for that role; however, Savona, an economist and former minister, is a hardline Eurosceptic, known for his statements on the euro as a “cage” for the Italian economy and as an instrument of German economic domination. On few occasions, he had stated that Merkel’s Germany amounted to a new version of Hitler’s Third Reich. Most importantly, on May 26, the Italian Huffington Post showed that, in 2015, Savona had presented a Powerpoint presentation proposing a secret plan to leave the euro. On May 27, Mattarella formally declared that he would not accept Savona as Minister, due to the risks he posed to the savings of Italian citizens.

This decision set off what was to be defined as Italy’s deepest constitutional crisis. The League, in fact, reacted by stating that they would never accept to form a government without Savona as the Economy Minister. Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, claimed that Savona was rejected because “he would have defended the interests of Italians, not Germans”. Luigi Di Maio, political leader of the 5SM, went even further, declaring that the Movement would propose Mattarella’s impeachment. If enacted, this would have constituted an unprecedented move in Italian politics. Due to the role of the President as the symbol of the Italian state, rather than a political actor, impeachment was considered seriously only twice in the past, and on both the occasions the Presidents resigned before the process could even start. On May 28, however, Di Maio, in a Facebook video, confirmed the intention to proceed with impeachment and called for a general mobilisation to respond to the President’s decision. On May 29 the Democratic Party, Italy’s main left-of-centre party, organised counter-demonstrations to support Mattarella. In the meantime, most parties were agreeing on holding elections as soon as late July.

 

What ended the short circuit?

Considering that this was happening as early as the morning of Tuesday 29, it seems incredible that, on Friday afternoon, the same Giuseppe Conte was swearing the oath as Prime Minister, with Savona on his government team. In little more than two days, Italy went from a high-level political crisis to successful government formation; from early elections to political stability (of sorts); from the delegitimisation of the head of State to smiles and toasts with him. What had happened in the meantime? The answer is a mix of economic and political events.

Earlier, on May 27, just after having vetoed Savona, Mattarella tried to form a “neutral”, caretaker government, led by former IMF Departmental Director Carlo Cottarelli. Mattarella had already announced a similar initiative on May 7, when negotiations for a political government had seemed to stall. The prospective Cottarelli government seemed to follow in those steps; besides, the institutional and technocratic character of its components was expected to reassure the markets. This, however, did not happen. In the following two days (May 28-29), the difference in yield between Italian and German government bonds skyrocketed from 191 points to 306 points, pointing out to investors considering Italian sovereign debt as a riskier asset. Stock markets in Europe, Asia, and North America fell, with Italian banks the most hit. This backlash seemed to defy the purpose of the Cottarelli government. The latter also seemed condemned to fail from the start, as only a handful of MPs were ready to vote in its favour.

On the other hand, Di Maio soon understood that he had gone too far, as even the League was refusing to support the impeachment process. He let go of that on the evening of Tuesday 29 and started to pressure Salvini into modifying the government team, moving the controversial Savona to another portfolio. On his part, Salvini was looking forward to new elections, as fresh polls said that his party was due to achieve strong gains; however, a new election would have posed financial problems for the League. Moreover, while Salvini could market himself as the defender of Italian democracy, his continued refusal to form a government without Savona as Economy Minister risked to attract the blame on him. Besides, the opportunity of being part of the government and becoming the Home Minister seemed an acceptable outcome.

Consequently, at the end of a frantic week, Italy received a political government. Notwithstanding the fact that the Five Star Movement is not pro-business at all, and that the League still has a decidedly Eurosceptic tone, investors seem to have valued this development positively. Starting from May 30, global stock markets, including Italian bank shares, recovered. On June 1, the same day as Conte was sworn in as PM, the difference between German and Italian government bonds continued to fall, although to this day it continues to be higher than in April. There seems to be relative harmony between the Five Star Movement and the League, as well as between political parties and the President, notwithstanding the calls for his impeachment  a few days  earlier and the demonstrations against the President’s decision that were due to take place on June 2. Instead, on that day, also observed as Italy’s Republic Day, Conte was sitting next to Mattarella at the celebrations taking place in Rome.

 

The three main takeaways

If this were the end of Italy’s short circuit week, all these events would be relatively uninteresting; just another episode in the national political drama. Instead, they are tremendously important, not only for the country, but also for the whole continent. There are, in fact, three main conclusions to be taken from all this.

The first takeaway is that, after this week, the Italian political system cannot be really seen as stable, regardless of the existence of a government. This judgment is not based on prejudice: rather, it flows from the behaviour of the governing parties and their leaders. Italy, in fact, could have at least partly avoided the turmoil in the markets. There is a distinct possibility that Matteo Salvini engineered the collapse of the negotiations because the veto on Savona was a great opportunity to go to early elections and gain a larger share of votes. That would amount to an irresponsible act of political opportunism that exposed the instability of the country. Even if that was not true, however, the knee-jerk reaction of the 5SM, Italy’s largest political force, is an even more serious event. Instead of keeping in touch with the President, Luigi Di Maio opted to propose impeachment, without even knowing if the League would have followed him. He was then forced to withdraw that idea. This mix of opportunism, radical tones, and lack of coordination is, potentially, the sign of further instability to come. It may happen again.

The second insight is that Italy is still economically weak and exposed to the opinion of investors. The relatively good economic situation of the country must not mask Italy’s long-standing issues. Italy’s growth is still smaller than most other countries in the Eurozone, and it is expected to slow down next year. The country also has a historically low productivity and a mediocre environment for doing business, beyond being relatively unattractive to foreign investments, lagging behind the UK, Germany, and France, despite recent improvements. Taxes are among the highest in Europe; poverty is increasing; unemployment rate is still high, especially for people between 25 and 34; and the country’s extant growth is dependent on exports, which may be hard hit by the potential U.S.-EU trade wars.

Most importantly, Italy has the 2nd largest sovereign debt in Europe as a percentage of GDP and 5th largest in the world. A 32% share of this debt is owned by external investors. This is important, as any concern regarding the country’s ability or will to repay its debts translates quickly into a higher cost of obtaining funds on the markets, which in turn restricts greatly the government’s ability to spend money for its policies. Foreign ownership of the Italian sovereign debt has been steadily declining in the past years: the share of foreign investors-held debt was 36.1% in 2016, and around 51% in 2010; the ECB’s quantitative easing has been an opportunity for these investors to shed a reported €78 billion of Italian bonds between 2015 and early 2018. On the one hand, decline in foreign ownership is a positive development, as it lowers the risk of contagion between Italy and the EU and makes Italy less dependent on foreign markets. This also means, however, that domestic banks now hold a comparatively larger share of debt. Every sovereign debt crisis, then, translates quickly into a bank crisis, restricting access to credit for firms and families. All these economic fundamentals are unlikely to change anytime soon.

The third insight is that there is still a battle being waged over the common currency and the future of the European Union. It is, first of all, a battle of rules. The new Italian government, although relatively divided on several topics, shares a common goal: relaxing European rules regarding the reduction of debt and restrictions on deficit spending. Cottarelli, a few days before being nominated PM designate, published with his Observatory on Public Budget, a study outlining that the prospective costs of the 5SM-League government amounted to at least €108.7 ($126.8 or £95) billion, with prospective revenues for only €0.5 billion. Although it is likely that the government will enact only some of these policies, it is clear that the 5SM-League executive will try to negotiate, even forcefully, more freedom for Italian economic policy. However, there seems to be scarce appetite for that in Brussels. Although Spain and Greece may join Italy in this battle, Northern countries, and in particular the Netherlands and Finland, will oppose all such moves. The German government will also ward off such requests. Surrendering to Italy’s demands would attract fierce criticism from the right-wing, Eurosceptic party Alternative for Germany, the main rival to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU. As for France, President Emmanuel Macron’s reform drive seems to have stalled months ago. His ideas have found formidable obstacles in the countries cited above and have been considerably downsized by Merkel just on last Sunday. The Italian government can scarcely change that, even if it abandoned Savona’s brinkmanship, with his project of obtaining concessions in Brussels by threatening to leave the euro.

This is, however, a battle of feelings as well. In the first half of the past week, the tension between Italy and the European Union skyrocketed. In Italy, politicians, pundits, and citizens instantly and vehemently condemned statements coming from Brussels. In a famous episode, on Tuesday 29, Deutsche Welle journalist Bernd Riegert attributed the sentence ‘the markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing’ to EU Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger. This then was confirmed to be a very simplistic synthesis of Oettinger’s words, written by Riegert himself. The following day, an MEP for the German CSU party was quoted in an interview saying that, in case of Italian bankruptcy, ‘it would be necessary to invade Rome and take over the Ministry of Finance’. On the other hand, in Italy, older German stereotypes started surfacing again. In a video explaining Italy’s relationship with the EU and the ECB, Milena Gabanelli, one of the country’s most famous journalists, used a Nazi military hat to represent Germany (while the French were portrayed with a less controversial, but still stereotypical, Napoleonic hat). In general, Matteo Salvini quickly seized the comments reported above to convince Italians that Germany and the EU had pressured Mattarella into vetoing Savona’s nomination as Minister. This happens in a country where only 44% of the citizens think that they benefited from EU membership, one of the lowest results in Europe. In another recent poll, the relative majority of Italians (46%) believes that the country would have a better future outside the Union: only the UK showed a higher percentage. In the next months, then, the relation between the EU and Italy risks to become the terrain for a battle between opposed national rivalries and prejudices.

 

Italy’s new government: a wedge into a divided Europe

This outbreak of contrast between Italy and the EU is the most important part of this week of instability and constant turnarounds. National rivalries within the European Union are all but gone. In the case of Italy, they have been waking up for quite some time: at least since the birth of the technocratic government of Mario Monti, in November 2011, when Italians started believing that the EU membership entailed more interferences and restrictions than benefits. This is an idea that the League is enthusiastically embracing. It may become stronger as the two governing parties try to enact the government contract. They will seek to cover its expenses with more public debt, thus clashing with European rules. In this contrast, both governing parties will find politically convenient to accuse Germany of imposing its will on Italy. National rivalries will then take centre stage, shaking the ideational foundations of Italy’s EU membership to their core.

 

The article is now available in Italian! Link 

 

Andrea is a PhD candidate at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Strife. His research focuses on the strategy of urban armed groups in the Global South, in particular on their decision-making processes and their methods of territorial control. Andrea holds an MA in International and Diplomatic Sciences from the University of Bologna; he is also an alumnus of the Institute of Advanced Studies at the same university. His main interests include criminal organisations, drug trafficking networks, urban riots, and urban insurgencies. You can follow him on Twitter @Andrea_Varsori.

Image Source: https://www.repstatic.it/content/nazionale/img/2018/05/28/034107183-8b461394-435c-4763-beaa-fa88f54be243.jpg