Connect with us

Americas

The Reincarnation of Benito Mussolini?

Published

on

“It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep. My fellow-Italians we do not win any more. We must restore the Roman Empire: march on Rome, invade Ethiopia, revive law and order, make the trains run on time, stop the Bolshevists threat, close the borders to foreign influences on our Latin culture, restore Roman discipline and authority as symbolized by the bundle of wheat bound to an ax (the glorious fascist party), suppress strikes and social unrest, institute racial laws, take care of the people who have no voice, punish the crimes of the capitalistic class, restore discipline, in short make Italy great again, never mind constitutional guarantees and respect for human rights, never mind a free press or free speech, never mind political correctness!

We will insure all this through our elite praetorian guards, the Blackshirts. We must become winners again. I am destined to be the man who will restore the lost honor and the glory of Italy. Together we will construct an Italy which is commensurate to its great artistic achievements.”

If the above statements by Dictator Benito Mussolini sound slightly familiar, it is because we just heard them yesterday loud and clear at the RNC’s acceptance speech by Donald Trump. All that needs to be done is tweak them a bit. The very first quote about lions and sheep was actually tweeted by Trump only a few weeks ago. Then there is the quote about “we do not win any more” and “make America great again” propagandistically and mindlessly repeated time and again. “Fellow Italians” of course needs to be tweaked to “fellow-Americans,” closing the borders tweaked to Trump’s anti-Moslem immigration proposals, the anti-racial laws by some of the outrageous bigoted statements against Mexican-Americans, Moslem-Americans, women, people with disabilities, naturalized American citizens. Suppression of free speech can be tweaked by his anti-media statements, the Black-shirts advocacy can be replaced by his proposals that dissidents and protesters at his rallies be taken out on a stretcher. And of course “We must make Italy great again” gets replaced by “Make American Great Again.”

What has not escaped notice is that not only the rhetoric sounded familiar but even the body language and the gestures that appeared during the one hour plus speech were uncanningly and familiarly Mussolinesques. That raising of the chin with a firmly clenched mouth and a raised finger, that pose of determination and intransigence affirming one’s superiority. All that was needed was a war helmet and the resemblance would have been perfect. Some have gone as far as suggesting that we were witnessing a veritable reincarnation or rebirth of the infamous dictator.

For those who not know or do not wish to know much about modern history and believe that what happened in Italy between 1922 and 1945 could not possibly happen here, we have too many constitutional guarantees and checks and balances of power, it may be useful to be reminded that a majority of Americans actually supported Mussolini, at least his frightening rhetoric, for most of his dictatorship. They felt that he was molding a new race of patriotic nationalistic Italians who would be different from what they considered the undisciplined, impoverished, illiterate Italians arriving to the US from Southern Italy (among whom my own grandfather who arrived in American at the turn of the 20th century in his twenties). Mussolini, after all, was a different kind of Italian, with “high energy” (another Trumpian slogan), resolute, a man who built things, of few words, a man of action, even if slightly ridiculous at times. After all, he was making Italy great again and it would take nothing short then a dictator to accomplish such a feat, just as Trump is now posed to make America great again, after eight years of occupation of the White House by somebody descendent from an inferior non-while race, who was not even born in America and is therefore illegitimate.

One may ask: what are the characteristics which both Mussolini and Trump seem to have in common and which are found so appealing by so many Americans? Let me enumerate a few: xenophobia, ultra-nationalism parading as patriotism, anti-media and anti-free speech, the stressing of old-fashioned hierarchies such as authority, obedience, militarism, hard-work and discipline, the restoration of glory and greatness, ideological purity, the redressing of perceived social injustices, populism. Useful to remember too that Mussolini began his career not as a fascist but as a socialist in sympathy with the plight of the disadvantaged but then opportunistically changed direction when the political winds changed; something hat Trump has also done, for he began as a pro-choice democrat who is now a pro-life republican. The appeal to the gay community, trying to blame its persecution not on native bigotry but on international terrorism (hence the Orlando outrage prominently mentioned), is also intriguing. In any case, those who insist on declaring “that it cannot happen here” will perhaps have second thoughts now. At least one can hope so; for it rationality has already left our body politics, then God help us.

It may also be worthwhile to examine what the Europeans are thinking as we speak. After all Europe is the place where Fascism and Nazism took root. Europe is, after all, a place where the excesses of America are promptly denounced. It is safe to say that their sense of superior political sophistication is giving way to alarm and dismay. Europeans know quite well that democracies can collapse all of a sudden. They painfully experienced that phenomenon: that in times of fear and anger and economic hardship, stoked by those who would wrestle power, the demagogue appears promising the moon in the well and a restoration of law and order. He will point out everything that is corrupt in the polity; corrupted by money, that is. He knows it well since he is part of it; he had to become rich and famous and successful, as Trump in fact announced to his audience. The public interest is the least thing on his mind, although he makes pious pronouncements to it. What is at work, rather is a show-business parading as a political campaign. The crowd is entertained by circuses galore while the Empire disintegrates.

Enter the head-clown who promises a restored lost greatness with the bully’s penchant for the jugular. He attacks political correctness and takes over a Republican party which has prepared the way for him with bigotry, obstruction of the legislative process, and a racially tinged attitude toward the current US president. As previously mentioned, this is the Frankenstein monster coming to devour its maker. He is usually underestimated by its belittlers till it is too late; he may be anti-rational but he is not stupid; he is a master at deal-making and rabble rousing; a master at capturing resentments and a desire to reclaim something: power, confidence, vague unexpressed hopes and frustrations, and creating the right feelings and vibrations dissembling the fact that in reality he is a thug trafficking in contradictions fueled by hatred, but presenting himself as a savior of sorts; hence Mussolini redivisus.

This is something that is not seen very often. The closest we have seen it in contemporary Europe is Silvio Berlusconi’s political performance. The ones who most admire this Mussolini redivivus are politicians of the ilk of Le Pen, Putin, the Russian oligarchs, and just about all the right-wing populist leaders of the EU. No wonder Europe is alarmed. For the power of the Oval Office and the character of a bully necessarily make for an extremely dangerous combination, when combined with contempt for the media, a taste for the language of violence, a tremendous ego which swaggers as above the law. Indeed, as the likes of Adam, and Churchill have already warned, democracies do die at times; or as Socrates’ trial also teaches us, they are at times midwife to their own demise. Once dead, they usually stay dead and the best the bereft people can hope for is the patient waiting for a new Renaissance.

Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Who benefits more from the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva?

Published

on

With the Putin-Biden summit in Geneva around the corner, the question is who actually benefits more from the meeting in the small Swiss town.

Mainstream media and right-wing foreign policy thinkers alike have argued that a joint press conference would “elevate” President Putin to the level of the American President.

Ivana Strander, the Jeane Kirkpatrick fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, argued that the upcoming Geneva summit is actually “a gift” to Putin.

In a CNN story, Kaitlan Collins and Kevin Liptak mention that “officials who have been involved in arranging past US meetings with Putin say the Russian side often pushes for a joint press conference, hoping to elevate Putin’s stature by having him appear alongside the American leader”.

Whether as a subconscious bias or an actual reflection of attitudes, prevalent is the idea that coming close to the US President is a privilege that other leaders can only dream about. But who gains more from the upcoming summit?

In fact, it is the American President who is vying for other leaders’ approval and acceptance once again after a humiliating period – not the other way around. American is emerging from Trumpism, which revealed the other, ugly face of America. Trumpism is not gone and the other face of America is still there.

This week, US President Joe Biden is eager to show the world that America is “back”. In meetings with the G7, NATO countries’ top leaders, the NATO Secretary General, the Queen of England, and President Putin in the same week, Biden is asking the world to forget the last four years. And he is not doing this from the position of power or superiority. That’s why assuming that other heads of state, be it Putin or anyone else really, can only gain by coming close to the superiority of the American President is a misplaced and misguided. The US President is asking the international community to take America back – not the other way around.

President Putin doesn’t need the US President’s acceptance – Putin already got that. That happened back in 2018, in Helsinki, when President Trump sided with Putin over the US government’s own intelligence agencies, by rejecting the idea of Russia’s meddling in the US presidential elections. Trump slapped across the face and humiliated the US intelligence community in front of the whole world. Ever since, the US intelligence community has tried to figure out ways to prove Trump wrong and show him otherwise. And they have gone to incredible lengths, only so that they can get their pay pack of a sort, and prove Trump wrong. So, Putin already got what he wanted. He doesn’t need more “elevation”.

What’s also striking is that in Geneva, the UN is absolutely missing from the action. Geneva is the home of numerous UN agencies and international organizations, and not one is actually involved, which speaks volumes to questions of relevance. It is the Swiss government from Bern which is organizing the Summit. The UN is nowhere to be seen which is also indicative of the current Biden priorities.

If Trump was about “America First”, then Biden is about “America is still number one, right?”. But as the United Kingdom learned the hard way recently, it is sometimes best for a declining power to perhaps elegantly realize that the rest of the world no longer wants to dance to its tune, or at least not to its tune only. Discussions about how much Putin gains from coming close to the presence of the US President are misguided. In trying to climb back on the international stage on crotches and covered up in bruises, America is not in a position to look down on other big powers. And as regards who benefits more from the Summit, it seems like one side is there with a clear request asking for something. My understanding is that it is Biden who wants Putin to hand cyber criminals over to him. Putin still hasn’t said what he wants from Biden, in return.

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s legacy hangs over human rights talk at upcoming Biden-Putin Geneva summit

Published

on

biden-syria
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Two days after the NATO Summit in Brussels on Monday, US President Joe Biden will be in Geneva to hold a much anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The two leaders are meeting at the shores of Lake Geneva at a villa in Parc la Grange – a place I know very well and actually called home for a long time. The park itself will be closed to the public for 10 days until Friday.

A big chunk of the lakeside part of the city will be closed off, too. Barb wire and beefed up security measures have already been put in place to secure the historic summit. The otherwise small city will be buzzing with media, delegations and curious onlookers.

I will be there too, keeping the readers of Modern Diplomacy updated with what’s taking place on the ground with photos, videos and regular dispatches from the Biden-Putin meeting.

The two Presidents will first and foremost touch on nuclear security. As an interlude to their meeting, the NATO Summit on Monday will tackle, among other things “Russian aggression”, in the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Last week, Stoltenberg said that he “told President Biden that Allies welcome the US decision, together with Russia, to extend the New START Treaty, limiting strategic weapons, and long-range nuclear weapons”. To extend the treaty is an important first step for Stoltenberg. This will be the obvious link between the two summits.

But Biden also has to bring up human rights issues, such as the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and Putin’s support for the jailing of Belarusian activists by Lukashenko. Human rights have to be high on the agenda at the Geneva Summit. And indeed, Biden has confirmed officially that pressing Putin on human rights will be a priority for the American side.

Biden and Putin are not fans of each other, to say the least. Both have made that clear in unusually tough rhetoric in the past. Over the years, Biden has said on numerous occasions that he has told Putin to his face that he doesn’t “have a soul”. Putin’s retort was that the men “understand each other”.

Right at the beginning of his Presidency, earlier this year, Biden also dropped the bomb calling President Putin a “killer” for ordering the assassination of political opponents. The Russian president responded to the “killer” comment on Russian television by saying that “it takes one to know one”. Putin also wished Biden good health, alluding to the US President’s age and mental condition which becomes a subject of criticism from time to time.

Understandably, Putin and Biden are not expected to hold a joint press conference next week. But we weren’t expecting that, anyways.

For me, this Summit has a special meaning. In the context of repression against political opponents and critical media voices, President Biden needs to demonstrate that the US President and the US government are actually different from Putin – if they are any different from Putin.

This week, we were reminded of Trump’s legacy and the damage he left behind. One of Trump’s lasting imprints was revealed: Trump had the Department of Justice put under surveillance Trump’s political opponents. Among them House Democrats, including Congressman Adam Shiff, who was one of the key figures that led Trump’s first impeachment that showed that Trump exerted pressure on Ukrainian authorities to go after Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

In the context of Trump’s impact, President Biden needs to show that there has to be zero tolerance towards the cover up by the US government of politically motivated attacks against voices critical of the US government. If President Biden wants to demonstrate that the US government is any different from Putin’s Russia, Secretary of State Blinken and FBI director Chris Wray have to go. Biden has to show that he won’t tolerate the cover up of attacks on political critics and the media, and won’t spare those that stand in the way of criminal justice in such instances.

Biden is stuck in the 2000s when it comes to Eastern Europe, as I argued last week but he needs to wake up. President Biden and the US government still haven’t dealt effectively with Trump’s harmful impact on things that the US really likes to toot its horn about, such as human rights and freedom. Whether the upcoming Geneva Summit will shed light on that remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Americas

Will Geneva Be Any Different Than Helsinki?

Published

on

Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Any meeting between the leaders of Russia and the U.S. is inevitably an important international event. At some point in history, such summits decided the fate of the entire world, and the world held its collective breath as it followed Kremlin-White House talks on strategic arms or the two sides seeking agreements on urgent regional problems or any political signals coming from the superpower capitals prior to another round of negotiations.

The bipolar era has long been gone, and the Russia-U.S. relations are no longer the principal axis of international politics, although the suspense over bilateral summits remains. As before, the two countries are engaged in “top-down” interaction. Summits give the initial impetus to Moscow and Washington’s cumbersome bureaucratic machines, then diplomats, military personnel and officials start their assiduous work on specific issues, collaboration between the two countries’ private sectors and civil society perks up, the media gradually soften their rhetoric, bilateral projects in culture, education and science are gradually resumed.

Still, there are annoying exceptions to this general rule. In particular, the latest full-fledged Russia–U.S. summit in Helsinki in July 2018 failed to trigger improvements in bilateral relations. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland’s capital aroused massive resentment among the anti-Russian Washington establishment. Ultimately, on returning home, the U.S. President had to offer awkward apologies to his supporters and opponents alike, and relations between the two countries continued to rapidly deteriorate after the summit.

Surely, nobody is willing to see another Helsinki scenario in June 2021, this time in Geneva. Yet, do we have good reason to hope for a different outcome this time? To answer this question, let us compare Donald Trump and Joseph Biden’s approaches to Russia-U.S. summits and to bilateral relations at large.

First of all, in Helsinki, Trump very much wanted the Russian leader to like him. The Republican President avoided publicly criticizing his Russian counterpart and was quite generous with his compliments to him, which inevitably caused not only annoyance but pure outrage in Washington and in Trump’s own Administration. Joe Biden has known Vladimir Putin for many years; he does not set himself the task of getting the Russian leader to like him. As far as one can tell, the two politicians do not have any special liking for each other, with this more than reserved attitude unlikely to change following their meeting in Geneva.

Additionally, in Helsinki, Trump wanted, as was his wont, to score an impressive foreign policy victory of his own. He believed he was quite capable of doing better than Barack Obama with his “reset” and of somehow “hitting it off” with Putin, thereby transforming Russia if not into a U.S. ally, then at least into its strategic partner. Apparently, Biden has no such plans. The new American President clearly sees that Moscow-Washington relations will remain those of rivalry in the near future and will involve direct confrontation in some instances. The Kremlin and the White House have widely diverging ideas about today’s world: about what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, what is fair and what is unfair, where the world is heading and what the impending world order should be like. So, we are not talking about a transition from strategic confrontation to strategic partnership, we are talking about a possible reduction in the risks and costs of this necessarily costly and lengthy confrontation.

Finally, Trump simply had much more time to prepare for the Helsinki summit than Biden has had to prepare for Geneva. Trump travelled to Finland eighteen months after coming to power. Biden is planning to meet with Putin in less than five months since his inauguration. Preparations for the Geneva summit have to be made in haste, so the expectations concerning the impending summit’s outcome are less.

These differences between Biden and Trump suggest that there is no reason to expect a particularly successful summit. Even so, we should not forget the entire spectrum of other special features of the Biden Administration’s current style of foreign policy. They allow us to be cautiously optimistic about the June summit.

First, Donald Trump never put too much store by arms control, since he arrogantly believed the U.S. capable of winning any race with either Moscow or Beijing. So, his presidential tenure saw nearly total destruction of this crucial dimension of the bilateral relations, with all its attendant negative consequences for other aspects of Russia-U.S. interaction and for global strategic stability.

In contrast, Biden remains a staunch supporter of arms control, as he has already confirmed by his decision to prolong the bilateral New START. There are grounds for hoping that Geneva will see the two leaders to at least start discussing a new agenda in this area, including militarization of outer space, cyberspace, hypersonic weapons, prompt global strike potential, lethal autonomous weapons etc. The dialogue on arms control beyond the New START does not promise any quick solutions, as it will be difficult for both parties. Yet, the sooner it starts, the better it is going to be for both countries and for the international community as a whole.

Second, Trump never liked multilateral formats, believing them to be unproductive. Apparently, he sincerely believed that he could single-handedly resolve any burning international problems, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to North Korea’s nuclear missile programme.

Biden does not seem to harbor such illusions. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of multilateralism, and he clearly understands that collaboration with Russia is necessary on many regional conflicts and crises. Consequently, Geneva talks may see the two leaders engage in a dialogue on Afghanistan, on the Iranian nuclear deal, on North Korea, or even on Syria. It is not at all obvious that Biden will succeed in reaching agreement with Putin immediately on all or any of these issues, but the very possibility of them discussed at the summit should be welcomed.

Third, Trump was not particularly fond of career diplomats and, apparently, attached little value to the diplomatic dimension of foreign policy. The Russia-U.S. “embassy war” had started before Trump—but not only did Trump fail to stop it, he boosted it to an unprecedented scale and urgency.

Sadly, the “embassy war” continues after Trump, too. Yet President Biden, with his tremendous foreign policy experience, understands diplomatic work better and appreciates it. Practical results of the Geneva summit could include a restoration of the diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow to their full-fledged status and a rebuilding of the networks of consular offices, which have been completely destroyed in recent years. Amid the problems of big politics, consular services may not seem crucial but, for most ordinary Russians and Americans, regaining the opportunity for recourse to rapid and efficient consular services would outweigh many other potential achievements of the Geneva summit.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Economy2 hours ago

The free trade vision and its fallacies: The case of the African Continental Free Trade Area

The notion of free trade consists of the idea of a trade policy where no restrictions will be implemented on...

Africa Today3 hours ago

Mozambique: Violence continues in Cabo Delgado, as agencies respond to growing needs

Civilians continue to flee armed conflict and insecurity in northern Mozambique, more than two months after militants attacked the coastal city of Palma, located in...

Americas7 hours ago

Who benefits more from the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva?

With the Putin-Biden summit in Geneva around the corner, the question is who actually benefits more from the meeting in...

Economy8 hours ago

Turning to sustainable global business: 5 things to know about the circular economy

Due to the ever-increasing demands of the global economy, the resources of the planet are being used up at an...

Reports10 hours ago

How the Pandemic Stress-Tested the Increasingly Crowded Digital Home

The average U.S. household now has a total of 25 connected devices, across 14 different categories (up from 11 in...

small-business-economy small-business-economy
Finance10 hours ago

Top 5 Examples of Best Nonprofit Grant Proposals

Introduction Compiling a grant proposal is a complicated task. Nonprofits have to conduct ample amounts of research, create multiple drafts...

Energy News12 hours ago

It’s time to make clean energy investment in emerging economies a top global priority

The world’s energy and climate future increasingly hinges on whether emerging and developing economies are able to successfully transition to...

Trending