Rome (Italy) October 12, 2011
Afghanistan and Iraq: the “War on Terror” ten years on.
The long, poignant period of reminiscence which led up to and beyond the tenth anniversary of “9/11”, and, of course, the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, could have been an occasion for objective analysis of that event’s impact, and an evaluation of its consequences after a decade. Unfortunately the circumstance also gave rise to a renewed spate of statements still imbued with whining and/or truculent rhetoric, understandable perhaps in the immediate aftermath, but totally useless and, indeed, perilous today.
Few have pointed out that, by transforming what was basically a criminal act of enormous impact into an “act of war”, our leaders contributed to the creation of an authentic “Clash of Civilizations” atmosphere of which we shall continue to pay the consequences for many years to come.
The Empire of Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour was certainly an act of much greater international relevance and significance than the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. Ten years later, however, in December 1951, I do not recall President Truman officiating a ceremony on the site of the attack. For this reason I strongly fear that by underscoring the “dastardly deed” aspects of the event, and thus fanning a generalised feeling of distrust and hatred towards Islam and its adherents, no progress will be made towards what, in reality, ought to be uppermost on most peoples’ minds nowadays: no longer “revenge”, but “dignified exit” from a stagnant and potentially dangerous situation.
There have been some attempts at analyzing the mistakes committed by the “West” after September 11th. It is difficult to single out the one greatest error, but it is easy to recall the sense of horrified disbelief when “respected” western leaders , referring to the ill - fated Afghan campaign, and, with even greater emphasis, to the totally unrelated and unjustified invasion of Iraq, coined and used the expression “war on terror”, apparently unaware of its irrationality and of the potential risks such superficiality entailed.
It is not without a sense of deep embarrassment that one recalls the clumsy attempts made to equate the post 9/11 situation to the events of September 1939, pointing to public ignominy those who favoured “appeasement” with Saddam Hussein – who had nothing to do with the attacks – and subtly (and not always subtly) comparing the active western leaders to Churchill or Roosevelt, often getting historical facts grievously mixed up in the process.
An estimated 100,000 civilian and over 6000 “allied” combatant deaths later, it would appear difficult to draw anything but a bleak picture of the damage brought about by the unbelievable hubris which animated those who took such fateful, unwarranted and unwise decisions after the Twin Towers’ attack. The fact is that a military struggle so rashly named as a “war on terror” can never be won: the last terrorist will not appear out of nowhere, hands up shouting for mercy in the best Hollywood war movie tradition.
Above all, the assertion that, thanks to this military folly, the world is a “safer place” today is substantially false and totally misleading.
Indeed, the military action both in Afghanistan and in Iraq led to terrorist attacks in Spain, in the United Kingdom, in India and elsewhere, and if greater tragedies have been prevented it is due not to the results of military victories but to the greater attention on security made necessary by a visibly growing danger of terrorist attacks.
The answer lies in trying to understand where all this has brought us, and to attempt to identify the least damaging way forward..
There have recently been several well targeted and certainly deftly timed attacks in Kabul, including those on the U.S. Embassy and the “C.I.A.. Headquarters”, as well as the assassination of former president Rabbani. These acts, carried out by the Taliban or by other probably more aggressive and better organised entities, are clear messages aimed at those NATO countries most active in Afghanistan indicating that the time is long overdue for a level-headed, unemotional analysis of all the fundamental mistakes made both in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 shock and in later moves aimed at enhancing the Western military presence where it is neither needed nor welcomed.
The escalation of Drone attacks, and the building up of “secret” Drone centres in this and other areas will enhance the aggressive stance of the insurgents and create a legacy of resentment which will endure long after the actual fighting has ceased. As the balance of initiative keeps shifting in favour of the insurgents, and public opinion in the NATO countries develops a growing hostility towards the expense and the human sacrifice this military action entails, the latitude for a satisfactory negotiated settlement keeps diminishing, and the unanswerable question remains on what the original “war aims” were to begin with and what they have in common with today’s confused enumeration of asserted objectives.
It is astounding that none of the strategists involved in this ill-conceived effort realised that by subjecting Pakistan to attack, would be seen as an attempt to reach the very heart of Islam, which for some centuries has ceased to be in the Middle East and has taken firm hold on the Indian Subcontinent. Just leafing through a book on the Mogul dynasty would have been enough, especially if coupled with an analysis of events tied to the Partition of 1947.
The developments in Iraq, years after the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner, are just as discouraging, and have the feel of a disaster waiting to happen. It is enough to ponder on recent statements by the Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada el Sadr, once very much in the limelight and now conveniently ignored by the media: His call to his followers to desist from hostile activities until the final departure of the occupying forces is an eloquent indication of the obvious need to remain there for an indeterminate further period, during which inter-sectarian acts of violence will keep multiplying.
The consideration that these two military ventures have not made the world a “safer place” – indeed, it would be closer to the truth to assert the contrary – enhances the need urgently to find a way out, without being distracted by unrelated events and situations, particularly of an electoral nature.
The Afghan situation is made all the more dramatic by the virtual absence of a political counterpart with whom to conduct serious, meaningful negotiations, and the efforts to form responsible and reliable Afghan security forces have been having uneven success, especially considering that they have been going on for several years. Difficult as it is to look into the future, it seems legitimate to feel that the ultimate situation which the West will leave in Afghanistan will be in many aspects identical to the one left by the Soviet forces in 1989, with the added weight of even greater destruction and resentment.
“OpEd News il 12 ottobre)
mercoledì 12 ottobre 2011
domenica 14 agosto 2011
THE CRISIS IN ITALY: The Vatican and the end of the Berlusconi Era.
Dramatic developments in the world of finance have finally forced Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi out of his self-imposed silence. In one of his rare appearances in Parliament a few days ago, he delivered a speech which was generally deemed disappointing, laying the blame for the crisis on everyone’s doorstep but his own.
Whatever the immediate political developments in Italy, it is safe to assume that the end of the Berlusconi era is upon us, and many questions need to be raised about Italy’s political future.
One of these certainly concerns the Roman Catholic Church, especially in view of the fundamental conflict between pragmatism and dogmatism which has always characterized its attitude particularly, though not exclusively, in relation to the Italian political scene.
The evils of “relativism” constitute one of the mainstays of the current Pope’s ideological make up, and he has been repeating his warnings on the subject since well before his election. There is, indeed, a growing tendency within the Church to return to a more dogmatic attitude, especially in its approach to politics, in reaction to what some consider the “aberration” of the Vatican II Council..
The question has deep roots and subtle implications non lastly for the fact that it continues to be raised, from the highest possible Ecclesiastical authorities, in apparent contrast to the principles of tolerance and Ecumenism enunciated about half a century ago by the Vatican II Council and never explicitly disavowed by the Church.
In the genuine enthusiasm raised by the Council, a basic principle, ever present in the history of religions and ideologies, seemed to have been forgotten, viz. that an indication of tolerance more often represents a sign of organisational and ideological weakness and not necessarily of moral strength. This consideration keeps re-emerging as the Church backslides into older, essentially dogmatic and more familiar patterns of thought and behaviour, while outwardly paying lip service to concepts, such as tolerance and ecumenism, which, in fact, are alien to its fundamental tenets.
In the context of the Catholic Church’s perennial invasive presence in the Italian political spectrum, this dualism poses interesting questions on the policies which have allowed “the Vatican”, as it is often superficially and somewhat erroneously called, to keep a virtually uninterrupted grip on Italian affairs since the early years of the Holy Roman Empire.
The matter acquires even greater significance in view of the manifest fragility of the Italian political system. A political and institutional void is coming into being, and the more responsible elements of Italian civil society appear to be in desperate search for alternatives. This has created the type of situation which most ideally suits the Holy See’s political tactics.
The debacle suffered by both Government and Opposition parties in last May’s electoral results (local elections and referenda) has only deepened the sense of malaise, and induced large sectors of the Opposition, as well as formerly unreliable allies to prefer giving grudging support to the government rather than face the incognita of general elections. In this state of confusion – certainly not helped by the constantly threatened financial upheavals – it is very interesting to observe how the Church is modifying its stance from a highly pragmatic, or “relativistic” approach, to one of greater dogmatic severity, especially concerning the errant private life of the Prime Minister. Until now, in exchange for considerable benefits, the Church had adopted a remarkably benevolent, paternal “boys will be boys” attitude, with just occasional, almost playful slaps on the wrists.
This stance is visibly changing, partly because the Catholic rank and file had started questioning it, and partly because of the visible hostility shown to Berlusconi’s Government by the electorate – including Catholic voters – in the recent electoral results. All the main political parties, right, centre and left, have lost touch with their electorate, but it is unclear to whose advantage. Into this kind of chaos the Church is stepping with much greater assurance than any political party can muster, and the first to feel the sting, of course, has been the governing majority.
The Church, for example, through the extremely influential “Italian Bishop’s Conference” or CEI, has, for example, already expressed deep reservations about the bulk of the drastic and greatly unpopular economic and financial measures taken or planned by the Government to overcome the current crisis
These appear to be merely warning shots, for the state of confusion is remarkable even by Italian standards, and it is difficult to foresee what developments to expect. The main political parties, especially those in the governing majority, are torn by internal dissent, and their leaders (Berlusconi and Umberto Bossi, founder of the “Northern League”) appear to be losing their charismatic hold on the party faithful. The Northern League could well be the key to future developments, because the very vociferous base would like to abandon Berlusconi to his fate, while the leadership feels that a Government crisis, at this stage, would only benefit the Opposition, particularly the Left.
There is a possibility that, perhaps after the summer vacations, the façade will crack, leaving little alternative except for early elections, unless a “technical Government” can be formed to reach the end of the legislature and allow the political parties to nurse their wounds.
Should early elections be called, there will be a scramble to obtain the approval, however indirect, from the Church authorities (particularly the CEI ), and it is safe to assume that words of approval or support will bear their price, thus ensuring an even more invasive role of the Church in Italy’s future..
Carlo Ungaro
August 14, 2011
Whatever the immediate political developments in Italy, it is safe to assume that the end of the Berlusconi era is upon us, and many questions need to be raised about Italy’s political future.
One of these certainly concerns the Roman Catholic Church, especially in view of the fundamental conflict between pragmatism and dogmatism which has always characterized its attitude particularly, though not exclusively, in relation to the Italian political scene.
The evils of “relativism” constitute one of the mainstays of the current Pope’s ideological make up, and he has been repeating his warnings on the subject since well before his election. There is, indeed, a growing tendency within the Church to return to a more dogmatic attitude, especially in its approach to politics, in reaction to what some consider the “aberration” of the Vatican II Council..
The question has deep roots and subtle implications non lastly for the fact that it continues to be raised, from the highest possible Ecclesiastical authorities, in apparent contrast to the principles of tolerance and Ecumenism enunciated about half a century ago by the Vatican II Council and never explicitly disavowed by the Church.
In the genuine enthusiasm raised by the Council, a basic principle, ever present in the history of religions and ideologies, seemed to have been forgotten, viz. that an indication of tolerance more often represents a sign of organisational and ideological weakness and not necessarily of moral strength. This consideration keeps re-emerging as the Church backslides into older, essentially dogmatic and more familiar patterns of thought and behaviour, while outwardly paying lip service to concepts, such as tolerance and ecumenism, which, in fact, are alien to its fundamental tenets.
In the context of the Catholic Church’s perennial invasive presence in the Italian political spectrum, this dualism poses interesting questions on the policies which have allowed “the Vatican”, as it is often superficially and somewhat erroneously called, to keep a virtually uninterrupted grip on Italian affairs since the early years of the Holy Roman Empire.
The matter acquires even greater significance in view of the manifest fragility of the Italian political system. A political and institutional void is coming into being, and the more responsible elements of Italian civil society appear to be in desperate search for alternatives. This has created the type of situation which most ideally suits the Holy See’s political tactics.
The debacle suffered by both Government and Opposition parties in last May’s electoral results (local elections and referenda) has only deepened the sense of malaise, and induced large sectors of the Opposition, as well as formerly unreliable allies to prefer giving grudging support to the government rather than face the incognita of general elections. In this state of confusion – certainly not helped by the constantly threatened financial upheavals – it is very interesting to observe how the Church is modifying its stance from a highly pragmatic, or “relativistic” approach, to one of greater dogmatic severity, especially concerning the errant private life of the Prime Minister. Until now, in exchange for considerable benefits, the Church had adopted a remarkably benevolent, paternal “boys will be boys” attitude, with just occasional, almost playful slaps on the wrists.
This stance is visibly changing, partly because the Catholic rank and file had started questioning it, and partly because of the visible hostility shown to Berlusconi’s Government by the electorate – including Catholic voters – in the recent electoral results. All the main political parties, right, centre and left, have lost touch with their electorate, but it is unclear to whose advantage. Into this kind of chaos the Church is stepping with much greater assurance than any political party can muster, and the first to feel the sting, of course, has been the governing majority.
The Church, for example, through the extremely influential “Italian Bishop’s Conference” or CEI, has, for example, already expressed deep reservations about the bulk of the drastic and greatly unpopular economic and financial measures taken or planned by the Government to overcome the current crisis
These appear to be merely warning shots, for the state of confusion is remarkable even by Italian standards, and it is difficult to foresee what developments to expect. The main political parties, especially those in the governing majority, are torn by internal dissent, and their leaders (Berlusconi and Umberto Bossi, founder of the “Northern League”) appear to be losing their charismatic hold on the party faithful. The Northern League could well be the key to future developments, because the very vociferous base would like to abandon Berlusconi to his fate, while the leadership feels that a Government crisis, at this stage, would only benefit the Opposition, particularly the Left.
There is a possibility that, perhaps after the summer vacations, the façade will crack, leaving little alternative except for early elections, unless a “technical Government” can be formed to reach the end of the legislature and allow the political parties to nurse their wounds.
Should early elections be called, there will be a scramble to obtain the approval, however indirect, from the Church authorities (particularly the CEI ), and it is safe to assume that words of approval or support will bear their price, thus ensuring an even more invasive role of the Church in Italy’s future..
Carlo Ungaro
August 14, 2011
THE AMERICAN DREAM: THEN AND NOW
THE AMERICAN DREAM: THEN AND NOW
My early childhood memory of Americans coincided with the immediate post-war reopening of Italy as a destination for ostensibly wealthy tourists, and the great majority of these, at the time, were American.
The impression they then gave was that they came not from another Country, but from another planet. They appeared taller, straighter, prouder than the rest of us. Their clothes were always immaculately pressed, their teeth a brilliant white, their hair glossier than ours, their pockets bulging with treasures, such as chewing gum, which, for us, were almost unattainable. They seemed cheerfully immune to extremes of climate or fatigue, their brow never marred by a drop of perspiration, their smile always ready and cordial, their generous and affable concern ever ready to surface. Left wing Europeans feigned contempt for them (in France a heavily sarcastic movie short called “le Beaujolais des Americains” – i.e. Coca Cola - was instantly successful), but deep down viewed them with respect and more than a touch of envy. They exuded benevolent power for theirs was the “righteous empire”. Their music, their movies, their sporting prowess were conquering the world just as their armies had done only a few years earlier.
In the history of the world, political and social dreams have abounded, and some, such as the Roman Republic, prospered for many centuries while others, such as the French and Soviet Revolutions, though relatively short-lived, cast a very long shadow on the destinies of the world.
The United States of America is only infrequently referred to as a “revolutionary” society, but the fact is that the American Revolution, almost two and a half centuries on, still has its institutional significance and is still capable of directly spreading its message to a large part of the world.
The “American Dream”, is a term closely associated with the American revolution, and the idea survived even the worst of the Great Depression. It was certainly very much alive when, at the impressionable age of 12, I first set foot in the United States, taken there by my father who had been appointed Italian Consul in Los Angeles.
Life, as I experienced it in Southern California, was extremely close to the image of that dream, at least partially inspired by the movies. Cracks did show however, and we were shocked when, having been invited to an exclusive “Country Club” we had to declare, solemnly, that we were “not Jewish”, as, indeed, we gazed in wonder at the emerging McCarthy phenomenon. Incidents all too reminiscent of the recently defeated European regimes. But the dream, at least for large sectors of the population – particularly white and middle class - seemed to have a solid existence.
It certainly lived in the hearts and minds of the many Italian-American families who had settled in Southern California. In spite of the recent hostilities, which had placed many of them under suspicion, and in spite of an often outspoken admiration for Mussolini and Italy’s Fascist regime, Southern California’s Italian Americans were prime examples of successful migration stories. Their attachment to the heir new country had roots well beyond the economic success which would have been absolutely unachievable in early twentieth century Italy. They, above all, savoured the liberty which had been denied them by the Mother country.
Some of the older members of the Italian American community had crossed the Atlantic half a century earlier, and had never thought of going back, keeping, however, in their hearts, a strong, almost romantic nostalgia for the town or village of their origin.
Thus, as young teen-ager in Southern California, I came to understand and believe in the “American Dream”, although, I have to admit, I was too young to be aware of its ethnic and racial limits which, at the time were seldom, if ever, mentioned.
I wonder nowadays, some sixty years on, whether it is still realistic to speak of an “American Dream”, or whether we are now witnessing its waning years, with a much less innocent society continuing to go through the motions, pretending, often in good faith, that “Over the Rainbow” (an American rainbow, to be sure), skies indeed are blue, just as Roman Emperors fuelled the pretence that they still represented and defended Republican values and principles.
To what extent was the “American Dream” a reality, and when, if ever, did it start to founder are questions which appear interesting at a time when the United States, as well as most of the Western Democracies, are in the throes of one of recent history’s greatest economic emergencies, and seem unable to extricate themselves from military conflicts of dubious moral, or even strategic value which grow ever more unpopular at home.
venerdì 29 luglio 2011
IS ITALY ON THE BRINK OF DEBACLE?
(Published in “Open Democracy” on July 19 2011)
In the course of the past few weeks there was growing, ever more insistent speculation both in Italy and abroad as to whether the “Greek contagion” would end up hitting the Italian financial markets. The official reaction was to minimize the danger and to concentrate attention on the Government’s (and Parliament’s) efforts to approve an exceptionally severe austerity budget, designed to bring the country back from the brink of insolvency. While fierce debate was taking place within Italy’s governing majority on the austerity measures insistently demanded by the International community, the issue suddenly became urgent, as the Italian financial market was hit by a deep crisis which appeared likely to drag the country through a maelstrom of failures and insolvency.
In a remarkable, even surprising change of pace, at the end of the week both Houses of the Italian Parliament passed the most controversial budget law in the country’s history, with austerity measures valued at about seventy billion Euros. The main Opposition parties, still weakened and smarting from the recent electoral and referendum results, had no choice in the matter and adhered to the urgent request by the President of the Republic to abstain from obstructionist measures and to allow this most unpopular law, already defined as “brutal”, to pass speedily.
The dangers facing economic and financial markets in much of the world, and not only in Italy, have been and are being analysed with great competence, delineating an uncertain and potentially bleak future. In Italy the picture is further complicated by growing political chaos which could well reveal itself as a watershed in the short history of the Italian Republic with effects much deeper and graver than a traditional “Government crisis”..
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, after more than a week of uncustomary absence from the public scene, was present in the Lower House at the second parliamentary vote, but was extremely reticent, reserving a few remarks for a small, selected number of politicians and journalists. Berlusconi's silence is a new element in the Italian political scene, and has been much commented on.
It was on the disappearance of Silver Blaze, a champion race-horse, that Sherlock Holmes commented on the “strange behaviour of the dog in the night”. The dog, of course, had done nothing, and that had seemed strange to the great detective. The expression comes to mind in considering the long silence held by Berlusconi, normally a loquacious, indeed, garrulous personality not usually associated with the term “low profile”, especially in moments of political turmoil.. He has, nonetheless, made himself virtually invisible, his few comments doled out in laconic notes emanating from his office in Palazzo Chigi.
There are many possible explanations to Berlusconi’s silence, some connected to his personal vicissitudes which recently took a turn for the worse, but principally in the light of the fact that he is the ultimate populist and cannot bring himself to announce bad news unless it can be blamed on someone else. And, in spite of the apparent respite, with which Government spin doctors are trying to cope, brought about by the last minute approval of this incredibly severe, and perhaps not fully thought out packet of “austerity measures”, there has been plenty of bad news in Italy, with quite a bit more expected to come and all this with potentially uncertain and unpredictable consequences.
There already was, as customary in Italy, and more than ever in these days of looming political crisis, a feeling that things were falling apart, with, for example, the Government’s most influential member, the Minister of Economy, Giulio Tremonti, audibly and publicly calling one of his colleagues a “cretin” in the midst of a joint press conference, or the Prime Minister complaining to the opposition press that Tremonti himself was impossible to work with because he considered himself “the only intelligent member of the Government”
In today’s Italy, however, all this scarcely raised eyebrows, the Opposition’s principal complaint being that the most unpopular and painful measures envisaged in the proposed budget – which rose, in the course of a few days, from about 30 to about 70 billion Euros - were to take effect after 2013, leaving the difficult task of their fulfilment to the next Government.
Then came the violent attack on the Italian financial system (days unimaginatively called “Black Friday” and “Black Monday”) and all the dangers which had seemed safely distant suddenly became tangible and apparently imminent, forcing the Government’s hand and obliging the Opposition parties to swallow the bitter pill and allow the measures to be approved, albeit with their contrary vote.
A number of fundamental questions need to be addressed in any coherent attempt either to understand the current situation or to surmise what the near future holds in store.
The austerity packet has been subject to fierce, and somewhat justified criticism. Without examining the provisions in detail, some fundamentally negative, and perhaps even dangerous aspects emerge. The measures will be felt primarily by the lower middle-class, already tested by the ever growing divide between rich and poor in Italy. A greatly reduced spending capacity will diminish consumption and therefore risks slowing down the faltering economy, also in view of the fact that the package contains no credible stimuli to encourage production.
The fundamental question, however, rests in the doubt whether the current Italian Government, divided as it is, and with its extremely poor record in economic matters, will have the strength, the stamina, or indeed the political will to carry out measures which will certainly diminish its already shaky popularity. The omens are not encouraging, and the general political outlook is extremely bleak, well beyond the sense of panic caused by the economic and financial problems which beset the country.
The most recent events seem to show that the International financial apparatus is far from convinced by the validity of Italy’s austerity measures, and the pressure on the economy seems to continue unabated, while the confusion and the divisions in the governing majority appear, by now, to be totally out of control, with the normally hyperactive Berlusconi giving the impression of having become a spent force. In normal circumstances a Government caught in such a quandary would have no choice except to hand in its resignation, leaving the path open either for the calling of elections or to the formation of a new government, possibly headed by a personality not involved in the current political turmoil and with the task of bringing about the necessary amendments to the austerity packet and to attempt to last out the two years remaining in the current legislature.
At this moment neither of these solutions seems probable, and the country appears headed toward an extremely uncertain future, with popular discontent growing and mistrust of the political leadership – both in the majority and in the Opposition – having reached levels unprecedented even in Italy. Further blows to the financial market could possibly force a solution, and there are some signs, especially, but not only, in the opposition, that the formation of a “technical” government could be in the offing, but it would be unwise to display excessive optimism on the matter.
Carlo Ungaro
Rome, July 19 2011
In the course of the past few weeks there was growing, ever more insistent speculation both in Italy and abroad as to whether the “Greek contagion” would end up hitting the Italian financial markets. The official reaction was to minimize the danger and to concentrate attention on the Government’s (and Parliament’s) efforts to approve an exceptionally severe austerity budget, designed to bring the country back from the brink of insolvency. While fierce debate was taking place within Italy’s governing majority on the austerity measures insistently demanded by the International community, the issue suddenly became urgent, as the Italian financial market was hit by a deep crisis which appeared likely to drag the country through a maelstrom of failures and insolvency.
In a remarkable, even surprising change of pace, at the end of the week both Houses of the Italian Parliament passed the most controversial budget law in the country’s history, with austerity measures valued at about seventy billion Euros. The main Opposition parties, still weakened and smarting from the recent electoral and referendum results, had no choice in the matter and adhered to the urgent request by the President of the Republic to abstain from obstructionist measures and to allow this most unpopular law, already defined as “brutal”, to pass speedily.
The dangers facing economic and financial markets in much of the world, and not only in Italy, have been and are being analysed with great competence, delineating an uncertain and potentially bleak future. In Italy the picture is further complicated by growing political chaos which could well reveal itself as a watershed in the short history of the Italian Republic with effects much deeper and graver than a traditional “Government crisis”..
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, after more than a week of uncustomary absence from the public scene, was present in the Lower House at the second parliamentary vote, but was extremely reticent, reserving a few remarks for a small, selected number of politicians and journalists. Berlusconi's silence is a new element in the Italian political scene, and has been much commented on.
It was on the disappearance of Silver Blaze, a champion race-horse, that Sherlock Holmes commented on the “strange behaviour of the dog in the night”. The dog, of course, had done nothing, and that had seemed strange to the great detective. The expression comes to mind in considering the long silence held by Berlusconi, normally a loquacious, indeed, garrulous personality not usually associated with the term “low profile”, especially in moments of political turmoil.. He has, nonetheless, made himself virtually invisible, his few comments doled out in laconic notes emanating from his office in Palazzo Chigi.
There are many possible explanations to Berlusconi’s silence, some connected to his personal vicissitudes which recently took a turn for the worse, but principally in the light of the fact that he is the ultimate populist and cannot bring himself to announce bad news unless it can be blamed on someone else. And, in spite of the apparent respite, with which Government spin doctors are trying to cope, brought about by the last minute approval of this incredibly severe, and perhaps not fully thought out packet of “austerity measures”, there has been plenty of bad news in Italy, with quite a bit more expected to come and all this with potentially uncertain and unpredictable consequences.
There already was, as customary in Italy, and more than ever in these days of looming political crisis, a feeling that things were falling apart, with, for example, the Government’s most influential member, the Minister of Economy, Giulio Tremonti, audibly and publicly calling one of his colleagues a “cretin” in the midst of a joint press conference, or the Prime Minister complaining to the opposition press that Tremonti himself was impossible to work with because he considered himself “the only intelligent member of the Government”
In today’s Italy, however, all this scarcely raised eyebrows, the Opposition’s principal complaint being that the most unpopular and painful measures envisaged in the proposed budget – which rose, in the course of a few days, from about 30 to about 70 billion Euros - were to take effect after 2013, leaving the difficult task of their fulfilment to the next Government.
Then came the violent attack on the Italian financial system (days unimaginatively called “Black Friday” and “Black Monday”) and all the dangers which had seemed safely distant suddenly became tangible and apparently imminent, forcing the Government’s hand and obliging the Opposition parties to swallow the bitter pill and allow the measures to be approved, albeit with their contrary vote.
A number of fundamental questions need to be addressed in any coherent attempt either to understand the current situation or to surmise what the near future holds in store.
The austerity packet has been subject to fierce, and somewhat justified criticism. Without examining the provisions in detail, some fundamentally negative, and perhaps even dangerous aspects emerge. The measures will be felt primarily by the lower middle-class, already tested by the ever growing divide between rich and poor in Italy. A greatly reduced spending capacity will diminish consumption and therefore risks slowing down the faltering economy, also in view of the fact that the package contains no credible stimuli to encourage production.
The fundamental question, however, rests in the doubt whether the current Italian Government, divided as it is, and with its extremely poor record in economic matters, will have the strength, the stamina, or indeed the political will to carry out measures which will certainly diminish its already shaky popularity. The omens are not encouraging, and the general political outlook is extremely bleak, well beyond the sense of panic caused by the economic and financial problems which beset the country.
The most recent events seem to show that the International financial apparatus is far from convinced by the validity of Italy’s austerity measures, and the pressure on the economy seems to continue unabated, while the confusion and the divisions in the governing majority appear, by now, to be totally out of control, with the normally hyperactive Berlusconi giving the impression of having become a spent force. In normal circumstances a Government caught in such a quandary would have no choice except to hand in its resignation, leaving the path open either for the calling of elections or to the formation of a new government, possibly headed by a personality not involved in the current political turmoil and with the task of bringing about the necessary amendments to the austerity packet and to attempt to last out the two years remaining in the current legislature.
At this moment neither of these solutions seems probable, and the country appears headed toward an extremely uncertain future, with popular discontent growing and mistrust of the political leadership – both in the majority and in the Opposition – having reached levels unprecedented even in Italy. Further blows to the financial market could possibly force a solution, and there are some signs, especially, but not only, in the opposition, that the formation of a “technical” government could be in the offing, but it would be unwise to display excessive optimism on the matter.
Carlo Ungaro
Rome, July 19 2011
giovedì 7 luglio 2011
IS DEMOCRACY AT RISK IN ITALY?
Rome, March 6, 2011
After long and agonizing hesitations, the Italian Government proclaimed last March 17 a national holiday to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Italy as a Nation State. The circumstances surrounding this event raised many questions, and, in particular, caused doubts to be expressed as to whether Italy, after 150 years, is any more united than it was in 1861.
While, on their part, the Government and the institutions seemed almost embarrassed a the rhetoric and the flag waving, the popular response, instead, was actually warmer than expected, and, in many Italian regions, flags were hung out of windows and, indeed, some are still there.
The image of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi kissing the hand of Colonel Gheddafi in the course of one of the Libyan leader’s frequent state visits to Italy was recently circulated, with adverse comment, in that part of the Italian press which is not totally subservient to Government control. In fact, Berlusconi’s often publicly reiterated admiration for Gheddafi and other authoritarian leaders, such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin and the President of Kazakhstan, who, according to the Italian Prime Minister, is “much beloved by his people”, have added weight to questions as to whether, under the Berlusconi leadership, Italy has reverted or is reverting to its Fascist past.
There is no simple answer to this question, for, on the one hand, It has to be pointed out that those marches, slogans and paramilitary uniforms typical of a Fascist regime have certainly not made an appearance, nor have there been episodes of physical violence meted out to political opponents. A recent massive demonstration against the Berlusconi Government took place unopposed even though it was then either ignored or harshly criticised by the Government media.
On the other hand, however, more subtle symptoms emerge which do indicate a constant, steady erosion of basic democratic values and a gradual slippage into what could be called a softer, homespun version of Neo-Fascism. Indeed, it is not difficult to find chilling similarities between attitudes prevalent in today’s ruling majority and those typical of the Fascist regime.
The esteemed journalist and writer Paolo Monelli (1891 – 1984), already professionally active and well-known during the regime, wrote in 1945, early after the fall of Fascism, that “it is difficult to imagine a more intense apathy in a nation. The Fascist dictatorship's greatest fault lies in having rendered an entire nation negligent, apathetic and indifferent.” (Paolo Monelli, “Roma 1943”).
In the course of the past 17 years, during most of which Berlusconi has been in power, he has been able to exert an almost total control on the media. Italians are stubbornly monoglot (most have never even seen a foreign film if not in a badly translated and atrociously dubbed version), and over 80% of the population depends exclusively on the TV as a source of information. The Prime Minister owns three private TV stations and has succeeded in transforming the principal of the three public channels into what can safely be defined as an all pervasive instrument of personal propaganda.
The viewers, therefore, are subject to a constant stream of totally inane shows (mainly “reality shows” or very elementary quiz shows), in which scantily clad female bodies are on constant display and which are quite blatantly geared to reach the lowest level of cultural awareness. This has greatly contributed to dull the general public’s critical alertness and, in a certain sense, to render it willing and ready to accept anything from the TV fare which, in analogy to the neologism “infotainment” could be dubbed “indoctritainement”. There are one or two extremely popular programmes which invite thought and argument. Their very popularity makes them “dangerous” and they are constantly facing the risk of being shut down by an irate Prime Minister who claims that “in no civilized country does the “State Television” criticise the Head of Government”. More than once has Berlusconi telephoned live his strong disapproval in the course of the programmes.
A recent example of media manipulation amply illustrates the situation. In protesting his total innocence on the many charges brought against him and for which he will have to stand trial, Berlusconi likened the “persecution” against him to the type of persecution operated by the notorious “Stasi” in the Democratic Republic of Germany. This statement was given ample, totally uncritical, coverage on the nation’s most followed newscast, on public television at 8:00 P.M.. After that, in an unannounced change of schedule, a recent award-winning film on the German police state was shown, convincing many of the basic truth in the Prime Minister’s complaints
Through constant, unopposed, reiteration on television, another much repeated “Leitmotif”, has taken hold of the public imagination, and a growing number of people seem to accept the totally illogical assertion that the very quantity of indictments brought against Berlusconi are themselves proof of his innocence. It was recently asserted on public television that a normal person may collect one or two criminal indictments in the course of his life. It should therefore be obvious that the Prime Minister, who has to fight against many more criminal indictments, is a victim of unjust persecution by “communist” judges who use illegal means in an attempt to get rid of him”.
The result is a growing conformity and passivity in the expression of opinions, as can be easily ascertained by listening to radio or TV shows which accept telephone messages from the public. This , in turn, generates an appalling docility in the acceptance of ascertained or alleged misconduct on the part of the Prime Minister..
Similarities with the Fascist regime are also noticeable in the growing, and at the end almost total, identification of the leader with the country itself: the embodiment of the dictum “L’Etat c’est moi”. Today’s leader, much like yesterday’s “Duce” seems to confuse his personal vicissitudes with the needs and problems of the nation.
Berlusconi has more than once, with no trace of irony, reiterated that he is the “greatest Prime Minister in Italy’s history”, and has also stated that those who criticise him are actually animated by “anti-Italian” feelings. According to him, Italy’s allegedly poor international reputation is exclusively due to all the poisonous articles written and published about him in the Italian “communist” press, and not a day goes by without some mention of the international “conspiracy” led by the “Anglo-Saxon media”, animated by envy at Italy’s resounding successes on the international scene.
Berlusconi has often inveighed against the system of “checks and balances”, which he attributes to a “Soviet inspired Constitution” and which prevents him from fulfilling the will of “the people who overwhelmingly voted for me”. His favourite target is the Judicial system which, in truth, does need urgent and drastic reform. In fact, trials in Italy take place in an absolutely Dickensian atmosphere, calling to mind “Bleak House” (Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Therefore, when Berlusconi talks about the need to reform the Judicial system, his appeals fall on fertile ground. The Government’s view of Judicial reform, however, is limited to assuring the Prime Minister’s impunity: some days ago a text was presented by a Government Parliamentarian granting considerable advantages to people “over the age of 75, with no prison record”. Not surprisingly, that particular segment of Italy’s population does happen to include the Prime Minister.
Even the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church shows some parallels with the past, when the womanizing, blaspheming, self declared atheist Mussolini, in the space of a few years went from the edge of excommunication to being dubbed “this man, sent to us by Divine Providence”. By the same token, in the name of “stability” Church officials turn a blind eye to Berlusconi’s peccadilloes, although, in truth, there are symptoms of disapproval from the Catholic rank and file, and these keep finding a growing coverage in the Catholic press.
The underlying fragility in Italy’s democracy is further enhanced by an absolutely irrational electoral law, which has transformed Parliament into the type of rubber-stamp assembly normally associated with Communist regimes, and situations such as these (there are many other significant episodes) risk undermining the very essence of the democratic institutions guaranteed by the republican Constitution of 1948. Italy is certainly not yet a Fascist state, but there are serious grounds to justify the uncomfortable feeling of a dangerous, inexorable drift in that direction.
Carlo Ungaro
carloungaro@gmail.com
After long and agonizing hesitations, the Italian Government proclaimed last March 17 a national holiday to celebrate the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Italy as a Nation State. The circumstances surrounding this event raised many questions, and, in particular, caused doubts to be expressed as to whether Italy, after 150 years, is any more united than it was in 1861.
While, on their part, the Government and the institutions seemed almost embarrassed a the rhetoric and the flag waving, the popular response, instead, was actually warmer than expected, and, in many Italian regions, flags were hung out of windows and, indeed, some are still there.
The image of Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi kissing the hand of Colonel Gheddafi in the course of one of the Libyan leader’s frequent state visits to Italy was recently circulated, with adverse comment, in that part of the Italian press which is not totally subservient to Government control. In fact, Berlusconi’s often publicly reiterated admiration for Gheddafi and other authoritarian leaders, such as Mubarak, Ben Ali, Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin and the President of Kazakhstan, who, according to the Italian Prime Minister, is “much beloved by his people”, have added weight to questions as to whether, under the Berlusconi leadership, Italy has reverted or is reverting to its Fascist past.
There is no simple answer to this question, for, on the one hand, It has to be pointed out that those marches, slogans and paramilitary uniforms typical of a Fascist regime have certainly not made an appearance, nor have there been episodes of physical violence meted out to political opponents. A recent massive demonstration against the Berlusconi Government took place unopposed even though it was then either ignored or harshly criticised by the Government media.
On the other hand, however, more subtle symptoms emerge which do indicate a constant, steady erosion of basic democratic values and a gradual slippage into what could be called a softer, homespun version of Neo-Fascism. Indeed, it is not difficult to find chilling similarities between attitudes prevalent in today’s ruling majority and those typical of the Fascist regime.
The esteemed journalist and writer Paolo Monelli (1891 – 1984), already professionally active and well-known during the regime, wrote in 1945, early after the fall of Fascism, that “it is difficult to imagine a more intense apathy in a nation. The Fascist dictatorship's greatest fault lies in having rendered an entire nation negligent, apathetic and indifferent.” (Paolo Monelli, “Roma 1943”).
In the course of the past 17 years, during most of which Berlusconi has been in power, he has been able to exert an almost total control on the media. Italians are stubbornly monoglot (most have never even seen a foreign film if not in a badly translated and atrociously dubbed version), and over 80% of the population depends exclusively on the TV as a source of information. The Prime Minister owns three private TV stations and has succeeded in transforming the principal of the three public channels into what can safely be defined as an all pervasive instrument of personal propaganda.
The viewers, therefore, are subject to a constant stream of totally inane shows (mainly “reality shows” or very elementary quiz shows), in which scantily clad female bodies are on constant display and which are quite blatantly geared to reach the lowest level of cultural awareness. This has greatly contributed to dull the general public’s critical alertness and, in a certain sense, to render it willing and ready to accept anything from the TV fare which, in analogy to the neologism “infotainment” could be dubbed “indoctritainement”. There are one or two extremely popular programmes which invite thought and argument. Their very popularity makes them “dangerous” and they are constantly facing the risk of being shut down by an irate Prime Minister who claims that “in no civilized country does the “State Television” criticise the Head of Government”. More than once has Berlusconi telephoned live his strong disapproval in the course of the programmes.
A recent example of media manipulation amply illustrates the situation. In protesting his total innocence on the many charges brought against him and for which he will have to stand trial, Berlusconi likened the “persecution” against him to the type of persecution operated by the notorious “Stasi” in the Democratic Republic of Germany. This statement was given ample, totally uncritical, coverage on the nation’s most followed newscast, on public television at 8:00 P.M.. After that, in an unannounced change of schedule, a recent award-winning film on the German police state was shown, convincing many of the basic truth in the Prime Minister’s complaints
Through constant, unopposed, reiteration on television, another much repeated “Leitmotif”, has taken hold of the public imagination, and a growing number of people seem to accept the totally illogical assertion that the very quantity of indictments brought against Berlusconi are themselves proof of his innocence. It was recently asserted on public television that a normal person may collect one or two criminal indictments in the course of his life. It should therefore be obvious that the Prime Minister, who has to fight against many more criminal indictments, is a victim of unjust persecution by “communist” judges who use illegal means in an attempt to get rid of him”.
The result is a growing conformity and passivity in the expression of opinions, as can be easily ascertained by listening to radio or TV shows which accept telephone messages from the public. This , in turn, generates an appalling docility in the acceptance of ascertained or alleged misconduct on the part of the Prime Minister..
Similarities with the Fascist regime are also noticeable in the growing, and at the end almost total, identification of the leader with the country itself: the embodiment of the dictum “L’Etat c’est moi”. Today’s leader, much like yesterday’s “Duce” seems to confuse his personal vicissitudes with the needs and problems of the nation.
Berlusconi has more than once, with no trace of irony, reiterated that he is the “greatest Prime Minister in Italy’s history”, and has also stated that those who criticise him are actually animated by “anti-Italian” feelings. According to him, Italy’s allegedly poor international reputation is exclusively due to all the poisonous articles written and published about him in the Italian “communist” press, and not a day goes by without some mention of the international “conspiracy” led by the “Anglo-Saxon media”, animated by envy at Italy’s resounding successes on the international scene.
Berlusconi has often inveighed against the system of “checks and balances”, which he attributes to a “Soviet inspired Constitution” and which prevents him from fulfilling the will of “the people who overwhelmingly voted for me”. His favourite target is the Judicial system which, in truth, does need urgent and drastic reform. In fact, trials in Italy take place in an absolutely Dickensian atmosphere, calling to mind “Bleak House” (Jarndyce and Jarndyce). Therefore, when Berlusconi talks about the need to reform the Judicial system, his appeals fall on fertile ground. The Government’s view of Judicial reform, however, is limited to assuring the Prime Minister’s impunity: some days ago a text was presented by a Government Parliamentarian granting considerable advantages to people “over the age of 75, with no prison record”. Not surprisingly, that particular segment of Italy’s population does happen to include the Prime Minister.
Even the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church shows some parallels with the past, when the womanizing, blaspheming, self declared atheist Mussolini, in the space of a few years went from the edge of excommunication to being dubbed “this man, sent to us by Divine Providence”. By the same token, in the name of “stability” Church officials turn a blind eye to Berlusconi’s peccadilloes, although, in truth, there are symptoms of disapproval from the Catholic rank and file, and these keep finding a growing coverage in the Catholic press.
The underlying fragility in Italy’s democracy is further enhanced by an absolutely irrational electoral law, which has transformed Parliament into the type of rubber-stamp assembly normally associated with Communist regimes, and situations such as these (there are many other significant episodes) risk undermining the very essence of the democratic institutions guaranteed by the republican Constitution of 1948. Italy is certainly not yet a Fascist state, but there are serious grounds to justify the uncomfortable feeling of a dangerous, inexorable drift in that direction.
Carlo Ungaro
carloungaro@gmail.com
AFGHANISTAN: THE ATTACK ON THE KABUL INTERCONTINENTAL
Rome, July 6, 2011
The “Kabul Intercontinental” hotel, attacked last week by insurgents, was built and inaugurated In those halcyon years preceding the end of Zahir Shah’s reign, when Afghanistan seemed like a haven of peace and Kabul was known – rather inappropriately – as “the Paris of Central Asia”.
Even then this massive structure built on a hill overlooking the city stood out and was the object of much comment, not all of it favourable. Already in those years, within the ostensibly “westernized” Kabul civil society, voices were raised which expressed disapproval and, above all, the fear that king Zahir Shah – just like one of his unfortunate predecessors, Amanullah Khan – was showing undue haste in aligning the Capital to Western models, failing to take into account the growing disapproval of the highly conservative rural population. The fact itself that this new modern hotel even had an outdoor swimming pool, open to both sexes, fuelled the growing tide of disapproval.
The significance of this recent Taliban action seems highly symbolic and therefore goes well beyond the loss of life and material damage caused. Many have been quick to point out the startling similarity of this episode to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but a more appropriate parallel could be drawn with a similar assault on the Serena Hotel in the very heart of Kabul, some years ago.
At the time, this incident took many international observers by surprise, and did constitute a veritable turning point in the Taliban strategy, giving notice that nowhere in Afghanistan, not even the capital, could be considered even remotely safe.
No matter what the official line has repeatedly stated, events have been steadily deteriorating since then, and the erstwhile Cassandra's, those who have repeatedly stated that the war as such, is “unwinnable”, are unfortunately being proven right.
Cassandra, we know, was a tragic figure whose gift for prophesizing brought her only unhappiness and, ultimately, doom. There is, therefore, no sense of satisfaction, however grim, no hint of schadenfreude in those very few who, in the course of the past years, have been trying to steer international opinion’s attention to the impending and palpably inevitable disaster in Afghanistan.
It is undeniable that some positive points have emerged, not the least of them being the growing – albeit somewhat shaky - role of Afghan security forces in the armed struggle. It is also true that in many parts of the country, particularly the North and the West, the quality of life, especially for women, has somewhat improved, and that in some regions there is a growing taste for Civil Society’s active participation in local political life. The overall picture, however, remains bleak and desolate.
The term itself, “turning point”, employed ad nauseam on all occasions (lastly the elimination of Osama Bin Laden) is deceptive, because it seems evident that, at this stage, there really is nowhere to turn. Even if, through covert negotiations, power could be handed over to some “moderate” Taliban factions (whatever that may possibly mean), they themselves will probably experience great difficulty in controlling the more extremist elements. For their part, the NATO forces will not have the availability of a nearby haven from which to intervene and aid the new Government in its battle to control the extremists. Pakistan, in its present state of turmoil, is out of the question and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics do not offer guarantees of long term reliability. Their regimes, though apparently strong, would experience great difficulties in granting hospitality to NATO forces with the purpose of keeping an eye on Afghanistan. To what extent Drones can be used to this effect is open to question.
The situation is darkly reminiscent of the Soviet pull-out over twenty years ago: for a while, the Soviet Union was able to keep control of the Afghan skies and thus allow the survival of the Government, but the collapse of the Soviet structure fatally brought about the civil war which eventually led to the Taliban takeover.
“Staying on”, however, is out of the question, not only for the growing unpopularity of the conflict in American and European public opinion, but also because no advantage would be obtained, only the protraction of an equivocal situation which is destroying the very fabric of Afghan culture and civilization.
It seems clear that news of minor victories or setbacks on the military front have lost significance and that close attention has to be paid to the harsh messages that the Taliban have been sending not only to the NATO forces, but also to those sections of the Afghan population still inclined to welcome the presence of foreign forces and to collaborate with them. The attack on the Intercontinental, a very visible symbol of foreign presence has to be placed in this context.
It could well be too late, but perhaps attempts should be made to ensure some local autonomy in the Northern and Western provinces, granting the future Afghan government rather full power in the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the less sinister warlords, who, in some areas, still command respect and loyalty could be “rehabilitated” to this end.
The alternatives to total disaster are fast diminishing, and the time has come fundamentally to revisit Afghan policy, also, of course, in the military sector, but more particularly with an eye to civilian development.
It is almost impossible to keep track of the constantly shifting aims declared by the coalition upon invading Afghanistan and in subsequent years. The latest seems to be oriented toward leaving Afghanistan as a “neutral buffer state”, which, of course, has been its historical role for centuries. This would mean that a return to a distant past in a climate of total uncertainty will be considered sufficient to express satisfaction at the outcome of the long conflict in Afghanistan, and this is a point well worth reflecting upon.
Carlo Ungaro
The “Kabul Intercontinental” hotel, attacked last week by insurgents, was built and inaugurated In those halcyon years preceding the end of Zahir Shah’s reign, when Afghanistan seemed like a haven of peace and Kabul was known – rather inappropriately – as “the Paris of Central Asia”.
Even then this massive structure built on a hill overlooking the city stood out and was the object of much comment, not all of it favourable. Already in those years, within the ostensibly “westernized” Kabul civil society, voices were raised which expressed disapproval and, above all, the fear that king Zahir Shah – just like one of his unfortunate predecessors, Amanullah Khan – was showing undue haste in aligning the Capital to Western models, failing to take into account the growing disapproval of the highly conservative rural population. The fact itself that this new modern hotel even had an outdoor swimming pool, open to both sexes, fuelled the growing tide of disapproval.
The significance of this recent Taliban action seems highly symbolic and therefore goes well beyond the loss of life and material damage caused. Many have been quick to point out the startling similarity of this episode to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, but a more appropriate parallel could be drawn with a similar assault on the Serena Hotel in the very heart of Kabul, some years ago.
At the time, this incident took many international observers by surprise, and did constitute a veritable turning point in the Taliban strategy, giving notice that nowhere in Afghanistan, not even the capital, could be considered even remotely safe.
No matter what the official line has repeatedly stated, events have been steadily deteriorating since then, and the erstwhile Cassandra's, those who have repeatedly stated that the war as such, is “unwinnable”, are unfortunately being proven right.
Cassandra, we know, was a tragic figure whose gift for prophesizing brought her only unhappiness and, ultimately, doom. There is, therefore, no sense of satisfaction, however grim, no hint of schadenfreude in those very few who, in the course of the past years, have been trying to steer international opinion’s attention to the impending and palpably inevitable disaster in Afghanistan.
It is undeniable that some positive points have emerged, not the least of them being the growing – albeit somewhat shaky - role of Afghan security forces in the armed struggle. It is also true that in many parts of the country, particularly the North and the West, the quality of life, especially for women, has somewhat improved, and that in some regions there is a growing taste for Civil Society’s active participation in local political life. The overall picture, however, remains bleak and desolate.
The term itself, “turning point”, employed ad nauseam on all occasions (lastly the elimination of Osama Bin Laden) is deceptive, because it seems evident that, at this stage, there really is nowhere to turn. Even if, through covert negotiations, power could be handed over to some “moderate” Taliban factions (whatever that may possibly mean), they themselves will probably experience great difficulty in controlling the more extremist elements. For their part, the NATO forces will not have the availability of a nearby haven from which to intervene and aid the new Government in its battle to control the extremists. Pakistan, in its present state of turmoil, is out of the question and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics do not offer guarantees of long term reliability. Their regimes, though apparently strong, would experience great difficulties in granting hospitality to NATO forces with the purpose of keeping an eye on Afghanistan. To what extent Drones can be used to this effect is open to question.
The situation is darkly reminiscent of the Soviet pull-out over twenty years ago: for a while, the Soviet Union was able to keep control of the Afghan skies and thus allow the survival of the Government, but the collapse of the Soviet structure fatally brought about the civil war which eventually led to the Taliban takeover.
“Staying on”, however, is out of the question, not only for the growing unpopularity of the conflict in American and European public opinion, but also because no advantage would be obtained, only the protraction of an equivocal situation which is destroying the very fabric of Afghan culture and civilization.
It seems clear that news of minor victories or setbacks on the military front have lost significance and that close attention has to be paid to the harsh messages that the Taliban have been sending not only to the NATO forces, but also to those sections of the Afghan population still inclined to welcome the presence of foreign forces and to collaborate with them. The attack on the Intercontinental, a very visible symbol of foreign presence has to be placed in this context.
It could well be too late, but perhaps attempts should be made to ensure some local autonomy in the Northern and Western provinces, granting the future Afghan government rather full power in the rest of the country. Perhaps some of the less sinister warlords, who, in some areas, still command respect and loyalty could be “rehabilitated” to this end.
The alternatives to total disaster are fast diminishing, and the time has come fundamentally to revisit Afghan policy, also, of course, in the military sector, but more particularly with an eye to civilian development.
It is almost impossible to keep track of the constantly shifting aims declared by the coalition upon invading Afghanistan and in subsequent years. The latest seems to be oriented toward leaving Afghanistan as a “neutral buffer state”, which, of course, has been its historical role for centuries. This would mean that a return to a distant past in a climate of total uncertainty will be considered sufficient to express satisfaction at the outcome of the long conflict in Afghanistan, and this is a point well worth reflecting upon.
Carlo Ungaro
AN "ITALIAN SPRING"? VOTERS REBELLION IN ITALY
Rome, July 5, 2011
The extent of the damage inflicted on Italy’s governing majority by recent electoral results can be measured by a recent statement uttered on public Television by one of the most austere and influential Government ministers who recalled an anecdote about Louis XVI refusing to believe that the attack on the Bastille was a “revolution”, treating it rather as a “revolt” and consequently coming to a grisly end. Giulio Tremonti, Minister of the Economy, thus publicly warned Berlusconi that what had taken place was not a “revolt”, but a real “revolution” by the Italian electorate and ought to be taken seriously.
Even a few months ago, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hold on power seemed impregnable, largely through his vast control over private an public media.
In the course of the past four weeks, however, both Mr. Berlusconi and his only meaningful political ally, the “Northern League”, have suffered a number of unpredicted and severe setbacks as a result of what amounts to a virtual revolt by the Italian electorate which, in recent years, had seemed very passive, to the point of indifference, and readily obedient to their party’s call.
The results of recent local elections in Milan had sounded a warning, with Mr. Berlusconi being defeated in his own territory in spite of an unprecedented, totally personalised media propaganda onslaught, but the hardest and perhaps fatal blow came two weeks later as the results of four public referenda showed the electorate’s disillusionment, even hostility, to the current governing coalition.
In commenting the recent referendum results in Italy, most observers have put the accent on the massive vote (well over 90%) against the nuclear power program which had been similarly rejected by a popular referendum in 1987. The situation, however, needs to be viewed in a much more complex light and could well constitute a fundamental turning point in the Italian political scene.
According to the Italian Constitution, a referendum will be considered valid only if “50% plus 1” of the voters cast a ballot. Many previous attempts at repealing laws through the referendum process have failed because those who opposed the referendum simply abstained. In spite of an abstention campaign launched by both the majority parties, counting on the obedience of their followers, a massive 57% of the electorate chose to vote, and the vote in favour of repealing the laws subject to referendum was uniformly above 90%.
The laws thus repealed concerned the nuclear power programme, the privatisation of the water supply and – perhaps most importantly – the right of the Prime Minister and other Government officials to refuse to appear in court if subject to prosecution for crimes allegedly committed even in periods prior to their accession to office. This last law had been hastily passed with the express intention of protecting the Prime Minister from prosecution. The extremely high proportion of votes cast for its repeal therefore shows an unexpected disaffection of the electorate with Mr. Berlusconi..
A great many questions have been raised by this result, and it would be difficult to tackle them all. Some issues, however, seem of primary importance, and the first consideration that comes to mind is that the main opposition parties, though eager to board the victory bandwagon , were also taken by surprise and can be considered victims of the new political climate, which they did very little to inspire. The successful candidates in Milan and Naples actually ran against the “official” opposition candidates and therefore, until the very end, received only tepid support. Similarly, the referendum vote was considered a lost cause, and only two fringe parties campaigned in its favour: Berlusconi's unwise decision to put himself in the front line, signifying that a vote against his party was a vote against him certainly helped the winners much more than the late and ineffectual support of the main opposition parties. While it is easy to indicate who came out as the loser – and it has been an unprecedented personal defeat for Berlusconi – it is much more difficult to understand who the ultimate winner will be, and the next few, certainly hectic, weeks of Italian political activity will certainly concentrate on the solution of this conundrum..
It is also interesting to note that supporters of the winning candidates and of the referenda received very limited exposure on TV: this could be the beginning of the end of the so-called “videocracy” which has ruled Italy for the past years. The term “videocracy” was recently coined as the title of an excellent, bitter-sweet documentary about Italian politics. Television seemed to be the dominating power, and those who controlled Television controlled the nation. Perhaps the governing parties, and particularly the Prime Minister, have been guilty of over-exposure thus creating irritation instead of consensus. In the recent municipal elections, the parties least exposed to TV coverage came out on top, and this seems highly significant.
Another important concern, which has not been addressed by international observers, is the effect that these results will have on the Catholic hierarchy which, particularly in the recent past, has had a strong, and at times pernicious influence on Italian politics. It may appear specious to speak of the “Catholic vote” in an almost totally “Catholic” country. But traditionally there have always been politicians who have identified themselves as “Catholic” and have therefore received approval and backing from the Church hierarchy. The attitude of the Church towards Berlusconi has been ambiguous: he has occasionally had his knuckles lightly rapped for his behaviour, but the Church has constantly given him its support in exchange for remarkably useful favours. There were complaints, however, from the grass roots, expressed mainly through Parish Priests and the surprisingly massive turnout in a referendum which was widely regarded as for or against Berlusconi will cause some rethinking and could end up with the Church withdrawing its support with understandably negative consequences for the Government.
An early symptom of this change of attitude came very shortly after the vote, when the Italian Bishops Conference came out very strongly against some statements by a member of the Government.
One of the primary considerations, of course, concerns the effect these two “slaps in the face” (as a high ranking Northern League official put it) will have on the ruling coalition and the way in which Berlusconi will choose to react: at the moment he seems intent on the suicidal policy of urgently enacting a questionable fiscal reform, in spite of the fragile situation of the economy.
Berlusconi has been promising “tax cuts” and “Fiscal reform” ever since he first came to power in 1994, but there has been no visible decrease in taxation. He is very much of a populist leader and he has made it known that he wants urgently to enact a “fiscal reform” to alleviate taxes, obviously in the hope of regaining popular support. The type of reform he has in mind would end up increasing Italy’s public debt – one of the highest in the world – and would go against EU advice and rules. His view of fiscal reform, moreover, has always been in favour of the upper income brackets, and this would cause further dissent in a moment when the gap between rich and poor is visibly increasing. This is a risky path and an injudicious fiscal policy at this stage could reduce Italy to the conditions faced by Greece, Portugal and other “problem” Countries.
The ruling majority is in deep trouble. Some stalwart party members openly and ostentatiously disobeyed Party orders by casting their votes in the referendum, and there already have been acrimonious exchanges between the two ruling parties and also within the parties themselves. There is much uncertainty on what the future developments will be, but this has certainly all the earmarks of an important watershed moment.
The extent of the damage inflicted on Italy’s governing majority by recent electoral results can be measured by a recent statement uttered on public Television by one of the most austere and influential Government ministers who recalled an anecdote about Louis XVI refusing to believe that the attack on the Bastille was a “revolution”, treating it rather as a “revolt” and consequently coming to a grisly end. Giulio Tremonti, Minister of the Economy, thus publicly warned Berlusconi that what had taken place was not a “revolt”, but a real “revolution” by the Italian electorate and ought to be taken seriously.
Even a few months ago, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hold on power seemed impregnable, largely through his vast control over private an public media.
In the course of the past four weeks, however, both Mr. Berlusconi and his only meaningful political ally, the “Northern League”, have suffered a number of unpredicted and severe setbacks as a result of what amounts to a virtual revolt by the Italian electorate which, in recent years, had seemed very passive, to the point of indifference, and readily obedient to their party’s call.
The results of recent local elections in Milan had sounded a warning, with Mr. Berlusconi being defeated in his own territory in spite of an unprecedented, totally personalised media propaganda onslaught, but the hardest and perhaps fatal blow came two weeks later as the results of four public referenda showed the electorate’s disillusionment, even hostility, to the current governing coalition.
In commenting the recent referendum results in Italy, most observers have put the accent on the massive vote (well over 90%) against the nuclear power program which had been similarly rejected by a popular referendum in 1987. The situation, however, needs to be viewed in a much more complex light and could well constitute a fundamental turning point in the Italian political scene.
According to the Italian Constitution, a referendum will be considered valid only if “50% plus 1” of the voters cast a ballot. Many previous attempts at repealing laws through the referendum process have failed because those who opposed the referendum simply abstained. In spite of an abstention campaign launched by both the majority parties, counting on the obedience of their followers, a massive 57% of the electorate chose to vote, and the vote in favour of repealing the laws subject to referendum was uniformly above 90%.
The laws thus repealed concerned the nuclear power programme, the privatisation of the water supply and – perhaps most importantly – the right of the Prime Minister and other Government officials to refuse to appear in court if subject to prosecution for crimes allegedly committed even in periods prior to their accession to office. This last law had been hastily passed with the express intention of protecting the Prime Minister from prosecution. The extremely high proportion of votes cast for its repeal therefore shows an unexpected disaffection of the electorate with Mr. Berlusconi..
A great many questions have been raised by this result, and it would be difficult to tackle them all. Some issues, however, seem of primary importance, and the first consideration that comes to mind is that the main opposition parties, though eager to board the victory bandwagon , were also taken by surprise and can be considered victims of the new political climate, which they did very little to inspire. The successful candidates in Milan and Naples actually ran against the “official” opposition candidates and therefore, until the very end, received only tepid support. Similarly, the referendum vote was considered a lost cause, and only two fringe parties campaigned in its favour: Berlusconi's unwise decision to put himself in the front line, signifying that a vote against his party was a vote against him certainly helped the winners much more than the late and ineffectual support of the main opposition parties. While it is easy to indicate who came out as the loser – and it has been an unprecedented personal defeat for Berlusconi – it is much more difficult to understand who the ultimate winner will be, and the next few, certainly hectic, weeks of Italian political activity will certainly concentrate on the solution of this conundrum..
It is also interesting to note that supporters of the winning candidates and of the referenda received very limited exposure on TV: this could be the beginning of the end of the so-called “videocracy” which has ruled Italy for the past years. The term “videocracy” was recently coined as the title of an excellent, bitter-sweet documentary about Italian politics. Television seemed to be the dominating power, and those who controlled Television controlled the nation. Perhaps the governing parties, and particularly the Prime Minister, have been guilty of over-exposure thus creating irritation instead of consensus. In the recent municipal elections, the parties least exposed to TV coverage came out on top, and this seems highly significant.
Another important concern, which has not been addressed by international observers, is the effect that these results will have on the Catholic hierarchy which, particularly in the recent past, has had a strong, and at times pernicious influence on Italian politics. It may appear specious to speak of the “Catholic vote” in an almost totally “Catholic” country. But traditionally there have always been politicians who have identified themselves as “Catholic” and have therefore received approval and backing from the Church hierarchy. The attitude of the Church towards Berlusconi has been ambiguous: he has occasionally had his knuckles lightly rapped for his behaviour, but the Church has constantly given him its support in exchange for remarkably useful favours. There were complaints, however, from the grass roots, expressed mainly through Parish Priests and the surprisingly massive turnout in a referendum which was widely regarded as for or against Berlusconi will cause some rethinking and could end up with the Church withdrawing its support with understandably negative consequences for the Government.
An early symptom of this change of attitude came very shortly after the vote, when the Italian Bishops Conference came out very strongly against some statements by a member of the Government.
One of the primary considerations, of course, concerns the effect these two “slaps in the face” (as a high ranking Northern League official put it) will have on the ruling coalition and the way in which Berlusconi will choose to react: at the moment he seems intent on the suicidal policy of urgently enacting a questionable fiscal reform, in spite of the fragile situation of the economy.
Berlusconi has been promising “tax cuts” and “Fiscal reform” ever since he first came to power in 1994, but there has been no visible decrease in taxation. He is very much of a populist leader and he has made it known that he wants urgently to enact a “fiscal reform” to alleviate taxes, obviously in the hope of regaining popular support. The type of reform he has in mind would end up increasing Italy’s public debt – one of the highest in the world – and would go against EU advice and rules. His view of fiscal reform, moreover, has always been in favour of the upper income brackets, and this would cause further dissent in a moment when the gap between rich and poor is visibly increasing. This is a risky path and an injudicious fiscal policy at this stage could reduce Italy to the conditions faced by Greece, Portugal and other “problem” Countries.
The ruling majority is in deep trouble. Some stalwart party members openly and ostentatiously disobeyed Party orders by casting their votes in the referendum, and there already have been acrimonious exchanges between the two ruling parties and also within the parties themselves. There is much uncertainty on what the future developments will be, but this has certainly all the earmarks of an important watershed moment.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
