[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] A [/yt_dropcap] s announced in my last piece on the issue of Italy’s potential exit from the EU, the omens are not very encouraging and the results of the referendum conducted Sunday the 4th of December confirms it. The PM Matteo Renzi, having lost the referendum he himself called on financial and legislative reforms, has just announced his resignation.
In effect he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Italian people. The populist right wing parties such as Five Stars are of course jubilant. They already won the mayoralty of Rome and now smell victory and power and the eventual withdraw of Italy from the EU. So do the right wing Lega party which would like to eventually dissolve even the Italian national union. They feel that Southern Italian are not real Italians.
Mr. Putin too must be jubilant in as much as the results of the referendum further incentivizes his policy of divide and conquer in Europe and among the Western allies (the so called NATO countries, the Baltics first and foremost). One can safely predict political turmoil in both Italy and the EU in the next year or so, before general elections are held. Given that Italy is the fourth largest economy of the EU, this is a significant event for the whole EU polity.
The question arises: how did we get to this sad state of affairs? To even begin to understand them, as I have reiterated time and again, one needs to go back to the times of Italian unification in 1860 to Garibaldi’s invasion of Sicily, wonderfully described in the famous classical novel The Leopard, already examined in another piece. There we have the prince of Salina’s nephew Tancredi make this insightful comment: “uncle, we need to change everything so that nothing changes.” In other words, it was a matter of changing the king from a Southern Italian Bourbon kind, Francis II, to a Northern Italian Savoy kind, Victor Emanuel II. This is redolent of another famous statement made by an Italian patriot who had fought with Garibaldi, Massimo d’Azeglio: “And now that we have made Italy, we need to make the Italians.” That statement too was prophetic: it resembles what is said today about European unification: “And now that we have made Europe, we need to make the Europeans.”
How about this one: “the Italians thought they were joining a civilization and an ideal union of democratic nations in the 1950s, but soon found out that they were joining a bureaucracy interested only in economic issues of wealth and ‘progress’ (especially banks’ progress), and unconcerned with the real economic needs of the poor and the middle class. These people are now very angry and are lashing out in an emotional rather than rational mode.” Such a statement explains a lot of what is going on. It has less to do with ideological fanaticism and more to do with rampant disappointment and delusion. We have seen a similar phenomenon in the Brexit event and here in America with the unexpected election of Donald Trump to the presidency. When people feel that they have nothing to lose, whey will gamble on a sociopath simply to thwart the hated bureaucracy. Perhaps Dostoyevsky said it best: “put man in a completely determinist universe, and he will blow it up, and himself with it, simply to prove that he is free.”
But let us proceed with the brief suvey of the historical narrative. Italian unification created the illusion that things would now get better, but as Tancredi astutely predicted it was just an illusion; things got worse and one million Italians had to emigrate to North America, South America, Australia and other places. Some scholars have argued that at least the monarchy was constitutional and there was a modicum of democracy in place. That democracy, such as it was, came to an end after the end of World War I when a brutal dictator, Benito Mussolini, rose to power. He managed to destroy whatever progress had been initiated in this latest of European unified nations.
After an hyaturs of twenty five years of authoritarian anti-democratic years, at the end of World War II, a democratic republic was set up in 1946, and once again the Italians were fed the illusion that now, with Democracy restored, things could only get better. Moreover, Italy became one of the six founding member nations of the European Union. Economic progress soon followed with the so called “Italian economic miracle” of the 60s. But the progress in democratic ways and means did not follow suit. What the people experienced was a party, Christian and Democratic, so called, that took over the reins of power, not relinquishing them since. The party, which has dropped the designation “Christian” proved to be neither very Christian nor very democratic, except for its founding fathers who held genuine Christian values. But who listens to them now?
Neither did Mussolini’s nostalgic look back to past Roman glories prove to be a panacea. He should have remembered Guicciardini answer to Machiavelli’s throw back to the Romans: “to compare the present Italians to the ancient Romans is like comparing a noble horse to a donkey.” By which Guicciardini did not mean to disparage the Italians, of which he was one, but to remind them that the new modern Italians (who had universal experiences of the Catholic (universal) Church and universal Renaissance, were not exactly Romans but were good at other things besides military prowess; that military prowess by itself did not make a nation great; that artistic prowess was far superior.
Be that as it may, once again the people felt cheated and between the 60 and the end of the century began to cast ballots as a vote of protest. That explains why the Communist party was and remains the largest outside Russia. The people have seen the rich and powerful tripling and quadrupling their wealth while the poor and the middle class have stagnated economically. Sometimes they misguidedly think that the rich are incapable of stealing and avoiding taxes since they are already rich. So they opted for a clown like Berlusconi and now may end up opting for one like Grillo. Anybody but the current bureaucracy.
Is there a political-moral lesson for the whole of the EU here? Yes, and it is this: it is a delusion wrapped in an illusion for a people to build a union based on bread and circuses, soccer games and reality shows. Failing a strong cultural indentity based on the genuine values that give Europe a genuine identity (which are not exclusively political or economic), there will remain a vacuum that will not be filled by trivialities such as circuses and shows, or vacuous nostalgia for past glories. The delusion nowadays is that the vacuum is being filled by the nationalism and the fascism of old. You see this in authoritarian governments blossoming all over Europe (one thinks of Hungary, Poland, and the myriad right wing parties functioning as Trojan horses in just about all the EU member states with the bleissing of Mr. Putin). Nationalism gives the illusion of strenght and political coherence, but eventually, having destroyed democracy and the very concept of truth, we will all lose and gather what we have sown. The omens are not very good and Cassandra has given her warning. Let those who have ears, let them hear.
From Davos to Munich
An overview of the views and attitudes of European officials during the Davos and Munich Conference and their comparison with each other suggests that the security, economic, and political concerns of European countries have not only not diminished but are increasing.
During the World Economic Summit in Davos, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France both gave a significant warning about the return of nationalism and populism to Europe. This warning has been sent in a time when Far-Right movements in Europe have been able to gain unbelievable power and even seek to conquer a majority of parliaments and form governments.
In her speech, Angela Merkel emphasized that the twentieth century’s mistake shouldn’t be repeated. By this, the German Chancellor meant the tendency of European countries to nationalism. Although the German Chancellor warning was serious and necessary, the warning seems to be a little late. Perhaps it would have been better if the warning was forwarded after the European Parliamentary elections in 2014, and subsequently, more practical and deterrent measures were designed. However, Merkel and other European leaders ignored the representation of over a hundred right-wing extremist in the European Parliament in 2014 and merely saw it as a kind of social excitement.
This social excitement has now become a “political demand” in the West. The dissatisfaction of European citizens with their governments has caused them to explicitly demand the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe. The recent victories of right wing extremists in Austria, Germany and…, isn’t merely the result of the nationalist movement success in introducing its principles and manifestos. But it is also a result of the failure of the “European moderation” policy to resolve social, security and economic problems in the Eurozone and the European Union. In such a situation, European citizens find that the solutions offered by the moderate left parties didn’t work in removing the existing crises in Europe. Obviously, in this situation “crossing the traditional parties” would become a general demand in the West. Under such circumstances, Merkel’s and other European leaders’ warnings about the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe simply means the inability of the Eurozone authorities in preventing the Right-extremism in the West.
These concerns remain at the Munich Security Conference. As Reuters reported, The defense ministers of Germany and France pledged to redouble their military and foreign policy cooperation efforts on Friday, inviting other European countries to participate if they felt ready to do so.
In a speech to the Munich Security Conference, German defense minister Ursula von der Leyen said Europe’s countries would not be able to respond nimbly enough to global challenges if they were stymied by the need to decide joint foreign policy approaches unanimously.
“Europe has to up its pace in the face of global challenges from terrorism, poverty and climate change,” she said. “Those who want to must be able to advance without being blocked by individual countries.”
Her French counterpart Florence Parly said any such deepened cooperation would be complementary to the NATO alliance, which itself was based on the principle that members contributed differently depending on their capacities.
“The reality has always been that some countries are by choice more integrated and more able to act than others,” she said.
The push comes as Germany’s political class reluctantly concedes it must play a larger security role to match its economic pre-eminence in Europe, amid concerns that the European Union is unable to respond effectively to security concerns beyond its eastern and southern borders.
But in their deal for another four years of a “grand coalition” government, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and the Social Democrats have agreed to boost spending on the armed forces after years of post-Cold War decline.
The deal, which must still be ratified by the Social Democrat membership, comes as Germany reluctantly takes on the role of the continent’s pre-eminent political power-broker, a role generations of post-war politicians have shied away from.
Days after U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reiterated President Donald Trump’s demand that European countries spend more on their militaries, Von der Leyen pledged to spend more on its military and the United Nations, but called in return for other countries not to turn away from mulitlateralism.
The pledges come as the EU seeks a new basis on which to cooperate with Britain, traditionally one of the continent’s leading security players, after its vote to leave the EU.
Earlier on Friday, the leaders of the three countries’ security services said close security cooperation in areas like terrorism, illegal migration, proliferation and cyber attacks, must continue after Britain’s departure.
“Cooperation between European intelligence agencies combined with the values of liberal democracy is indispensable, especially against a background of diverse foreign and security challenges,” they said.
First published in our partner Tehran Times
Election Monitoring in 2018: What Not to Expect
This year’s election calendar released by OSCE showcases a broad display of future presidential, parliamentary and general elections with hefty political subjecthoods which have the potential of transforming in their entirety particularly the European Union, the African Union and the Latin American sub-continent. A wide sample of these countries welcoming elections are currently facing a breadth of challenges in terms of the level of transparency in their election processes. To this end, election observation campaigns conducted by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Council of Europe, the Organisation for American States (OAS), the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division, the National Democratic Institute, Carter Center and even youth organisations such as AEGEE and Silba are of paramount importance in safeguarding the incorruptibility of election proceedings in fraudulent and what cannot be seen with the naked eye type of fraudulent political systems, making sure elections unfold abiding national legislation and international standards.
What exactly does an election observation mission supposed to accomplish?
An election monitoring mission consists of operational experts and analysts who are all part of a core team and are conducting their assignments for a period of time varying between 8 and 12 weeks. Aside from the core team experts and analysts, there can be short-term or long-term observers and seconded observers or funded observers. Joining them, there is usually a massive local support staff acting as interpreters and intermediaries. Generally, an election observer does not interfere with the process, but merely takes informative notes. With this in mind, it is imperative of the observer to make sure there isn’t any meddling with votes at polling stations by parties and individual candidates; that the people facilitating the election process are picked according to fair and rigorous benchmarks; that these same people can be held accountable for the final results and that, at the end of the day, the election system put in place by the national and local authorities is solid from both a physical and logical standpoint. Oftentimes, particularly in emerging democracies, the election monitoring process goes beyond the actual process of voting by extending to campaign monitoring.
In practical terms, the average election observer needs to abide by certain guidelines for a smooth and standardised monitoring process. Of course, these rules can vary slightly, depending on the sending institution. Typically, once the election observer has landed in the country awaiting elections, their first two days are normally filled with seminars on the electoral system of the country and on the electoral law. Meetings with candidates from the opposition are sometimes organised by the electoral commission. Talking to ordinary voters from builders to cleaners, from artists to businesspeople is another way through which an election observer can get a sense of what social classes pledged their allegiances to what candidates. After two days in training and the one day testing political preferences on the ground, election day begins. Since the early bird gets the worm, polling stations open at least two hours earlier than the work day starts, at around 7am. Throughout the day, observers ask voters whether they feel they need to complain about anything and whether they were asked to identify themselves when voting. Other details such as the polling stations opening on time are very much within the scope of investigation for election monitors. Observers visit both urban voting centres and rural ones. In the afternoon, counting begins with observers carefully watching the volunteers from at least 3 metres away. At the end of the day, observers go back to their hotels and begin filling in their initial questionnaires with their immediate reactions on the whole voting process. In a few weeks time, a detailed report would be issued in cooperation with all the other election observers deployed in various regions of the country and under the supervision of the mission coordinators.
Why are these upcoming elections particularly challenging to monitor?
Talks of potential Russian interference into the U.S. elections have led to full-on FBI investigations. Moreover, the idea of Russian interference in the Brexit vote is slowly creeping into the British political discourse. Therefore, it does not take a quantum physicist to see a pattern here. Hacking the voting mechanism is yet another not-so-classic conundrum election observers are facing. We’re in the midst of election hacking at the cognitive level in the form of influence operations, doxing and propaganda. But, even more disturbingly, we’re helpless witnesses to interference at the technical level as well. Removing opposition’s website from the Internet through DDOS attacks to downright political web-hacking in Ukraine’s Central Election Commission to show as winner a far-right candidate are only some of the ways which present an unprecedented political savviness and sophistication directed at the tampering of the election machinery. Even in a country such as the U.S. (or Sweden – their elections being held September of this year) where there is a great deal of control over the physical vote, there is not much election monitoring can do to enhance the transparency of it all when interference occurs by way of the cyber domain affecting palpable election-related infrastructure.
Sketching ideational terrains seems like a fruitful exercise in imagining worst-case scenarios which call for the design of a comprehensive pre-emptive approach for election fraud. But how do you prevent election fraud? Sometimes, the election observer needs to come to terms with the fact that they are merely a reporter, a pawn which notwithstanding the action of finding oneself in the middle of it all, can generally use only its hindsight perspective. Sometimes, that perspective is good enough when employed to draft comprehensive electoral reports, making a difference between the blurry lines of legitimate and illegitimate political and electoral systems.
Can Europe successfully rein in Big Tobacco?
In what looks set to become the ‘dieselgate’ of the tobacco industry, a French anti-smoking organization has filed a lawsuit against four major tobacco brands for knowingly selling cigarettes with tar and nicotine levels that were between 2 and 10 times higher than what was indicated on the packs. Because the firms had manipulated the testing process, smokers who thought they were smoking a pack a day were in fact lighting up the equivalent of up to 10, significantly raising their risk for lung cancer and other diseases.
According to the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT), cigarettes sold by the four companies have small holes in the filter that ventilate smoke inhaled under test conditions. But when smoked by a person, the holes compress due to pressure from the lips and fingers, causing the smoker to inhale higher levels of tar and nicotine. According to the lawsuit, the irregularity “tricks smokers because they are unaware of the degree of risk they are taking.”
It was only the most recent example of what appears to be a deeply entrenched propensity for malfeasance in the tobacco industry. And unfortunately, regulatory authorities across Europe still appear unprepared to just say no to big tobacco.
Earlier this month, for instance, Public Health England published a report which shines a positive light on “tobacco heating products” and indicates that electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risks. Unsurprisingly, the UK report has been welcomed by big tobacco, with British American Tobacco praising the clear-sightedness of Public Health England.
Meanwhile, on an EU-wide level, lawmakers are cooperating too closely for comfort with tobacco industry executives in their efforts to craft new cigarette tracking rules for the bloc.
The new rules are part of a campaign to clamp down on tobacco smuggling, a problem that is particularly insidious in Europe and is often attributed to the tobacco industry’s own efforts to stiff the taxman. According to the WHO, the illicit cigarette market makes up between 6-10% of the total market, and Europe ranks first worldwide in terms of the number of seized cigarettes. According to studies, tobacco smuggling is also estimated to cost national and EU budgets more than €10 billion each year in lost public revenue and is a significant source of cash for organized crime. Not surprisingly, cheap availability of illegally traded cigarettes is also a major cause of persistently high smoking rates in the bloc.
To help curtail cigarette smuggling and set best practices in the fight against the tobacco epidemic, the WHO established the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. The first protocol to the FCTC, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, was adopted in 2012 and later ratified by the EU. Among other criteria, the Protocol requires all cigarette packs to be marked with unique identifiers to ensure they can be tracked and traced, thereby making smuggling more difficult.
Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has come up with its own candidates to meet track and trace requirements, notably Codentify, a system developed by PMI. From 2005 through 2016, PMI used Codentify as part of an anti-smuggling agreement with the EU. But the agreement was subject to withering criticism from the WHO and other stakeholders for going against the Protocol, which requires the EU and other parties to exclude the tobacco industry from participating in anti-smuggling efforts.
The EU-PMI agreement expired in 2016 and any hopes of reviving it collapsed after the European Parliament, at loggerheads with the Commission, overwhelmingly voted against a new deal and decided to ratify the WHO’s Protocol instead. Codentify has since been sold to the French firm Impala and was rebranded as Inexto – which critics say is nothing but a front company for PMI since its leadership is made out of former PMI executives. Nonetheless, due to lack of stringency in the EU’s draft track and trace proposal, there is still a chance that Inexto may play a role in any new track and trace system, sidelining efforts to set up a system that is completely independent of the tobacco industry.
This could end up by seriously derailing the EU’s efforts to curb tobacco smuggling, given the industry’s history of active involvement in covertly propping up the black market for cigarettes. In 2004, PMI paid $1.25 billion to the EU to settle claims that it was complicit in tobacco smuggling. As part of the settlement, PMI agreed to issue an annual report about tobacco smuggling in the EU, a report that independent researchers found “served the interests of PMI over those of the EU and its member states.”
Given the industry’s sordid history of efforts to prop up the illicit tobacco trade, it’s little surprise that critics are still dissatisfied with the current version of the EU’s track and trace proposal.
Now, the CNCT’s lawsuit against four major tobacco firms gives all the more reason to take a harder line against the industry. After all, if big tobacco can’t even be honest with authorities about the real levels of chemicals in their own products, what makes lawmakers think that they can play a viable role in any effort to quell the illegal cigarette trade – one that directly benefits the industry?
Later this month, the European Parliament will have a new chance to show they’re ready to get tough on tobacco, when they vote on the pending proposal for an EU-wide track and trace system. French MEP Younous Omarjee has already filed a motion against the system due to its incompatibility with the letter of the WHO. Perhaps a ‘dieselgate’ for the tobacco industry might be just the catalyst they need to finally say no to PMI and its co-conspirators.
Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism
Lucy Komisar, who is perhaps the greatest living investigative journalist, has discovered — and has documented in detail — that...
Artificial intelligence and intelligence
As was also clearly stated by Vladimir Putin on September 4, 2017: “whichever country leads the way in Artificial Intelligence...
How Strategy, Technology, and Operations Come Together in “The Symphonic Enterprise”
New Report shares how leading companies are looking beyond traditional domains to leverage technology broadly across the enterprise. Deloitte’s Tech...
Higher Shares of Renewable Energy Central to Sustainable Development Across Southeast Asia
Southeast Asian countries are on course to meet their aspirational renewable energy target of a 23 per cent share of...
Can Azerbaijan fall into the Turkish pitfall?
In July 1974, the 10,000-strong Turkish army, choosing the name of the gang leader Attila the Hun as the operation...
Digital Controllership: Finance and Accounting Robotic Process Automation a Priority
In a recent Deloitte Center for Controllership™ poll of more than 1,700 finance, accounting and other professionals, 52.8 percent say their...
Why US not trustworthy ally for Turkey
Just weeks after failure of the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria, the United States announced that it is...
Intelligence5 days ago
How security decisions go wrong?
Middle East2 days ago
The war in the Golan Heights and in the Lebanon
South Asia23 hours ago
Why India won’t intervene militarily in Maldives
East Asia5 days ago
China’s soft power and its Lunar New Year’s Culture
Economy4 days ago
Agriculture Is Creating Higher Income Jobs in Half of EU Member States but Others Are Struggling
Newsdesk3 days ago
Helping Armenia Thrive
South Asia5 days ago
Into the Sea: Nepal in International Waters
Urban Development5 days ago
UNESCO demonstrates multi-pronged approach to resilient cities