Connect with us

Europe

PM Gentiloni’s government, the new configuration of the Italian political system

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap] he government led by Paolo Gentiloni, obscure Foreign Minister of the vacuous but electrifying Renzi’s government, replaces the previous government but also marks the start of a new political configuration.

The aims of this new government will be the return to the proportional representation voting system, with a small hurdle (3/4%) and a new role played by the government in mediating among the Parliamentary forces and between them and the President of the Republic.

The Democratic Party (PD) will play the same role as the former Christian Democratic Party (DC), Grillo’s Five Star Movement will play the same role as the old Communist Party (PCI) and Meloni’s Brothers of Italy – National Alliance and Salvini’s Northern League will play the same role as the former national right party, Italian Social Movement (MSI).

This government seems to be follower of the liberal laissez-faire approach, but only because it has no impact on various situations and problems. It is also an inert and inactive political system, because Italy is increasingly irrelevant on the international economic scene, of which not only does it not manage some flows, but does not even know how to do so.

The current government is certainly a “photocopy” of Matteo Renzi’s, considering that the rude and ill-mannered “little boy” of Rignano sull’Arno has not lost the election, but only a referendum on a bizarre law reforming the representation system that he had overburdened so much with values and effects, it had not, to vex both his supporters and the majority of voters.

What was particularly irritating were the stadium cheer, the never-ending repetition of slogans and the glib tongue of the “little boy” from Pontassieve, never letting others retort or raise objections .

Now, de facto, he is still the leader inspiring and controlling most of Gentiloni’s government actions.

It is a new form of Parliamentary system, the so-called “ventriloquial” government.

However, what does the new President of the Council of Ministers, Paolo Gentiloni, plan to do?

In his speech before Parliament he dwelt – with sloppy language – on the main actions to be taken with a view to achieving the well-known Italy’s “relaunch”.

A sloppy language is indicative of a lack of ideas.

Firstly, in his opinion, our economy – which is “recovering” – must not miss the opportunity of the new trend of global growth.

The usual refrain by Matteo Renzi, who knows nothing and gets thrilled for everything.

Neither the Italian recovery nor the global growth trend are materializing.

According to SVIMEZ, since 2008 the industrial production has fallen by 35% and investment by 59%.

In Italy the current unemployment rate is 11.4% and, according to the European Commission, a further 12% of people have left the labour market.

In the South of Italy, the youth unemployment rate is huge: 65% in Calabria, 56% in Sicily and 53% in Campania, despite the fact that every year 100,000 young people migrate abroad from the South.

Banks – which, in Gentiloni’s opinion, are “basically sound” – record a 20% share of non-performing loans, which is the highest level in Europe.

Moreover, the European Stability Pact prevents Italy from creating a “bad bank” where all these non-performing loans can be channelled.

According to the strange EU legal experts, this would be a sort of “State aid” that the naïve EU institutions and experts consider Absolute Evil.

Spain, however, did so and Germany backed its Landesbanken which were floundering in a deep crisis.

Furthermore the European Union imposed penalties also on Real Madrid, Barcelona and five other Spanish football clubs, whereas – with an absent-minded and inattentive approach – it is thinking of accepting State aid to the bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

The EU has no single and unambiguous policy, despite the endless codicils of its rules and regulations.

If banks – which are not “an aid to recovery”, unlike what maintained by the optimistic Paolo Gentiloni – have run up too much debt to survive, the option will only be the arrival of the Troika.

Germany “called” it for us on December 6, by stating that the new Gentiloni’s government should ask for an aid program to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

Germany even wants the IMF’s parallel support.

Furthermore the German leaders and politicians maintain that if the new government does not truly modernize the country, there will certainly be the Italexit from the euro.

This is the reality we have to face, which is a thousand miles away from the optimism of Gentiloni’s new “photocopy” government.

On top of it, we need to carefully consider the situation of the small entrepreneurs and young people who leave the country to go and work abroad – currently an uncontainable flood of people.

Between 2008 and 2014 as many as 14,000 small and medium-sized companies (SME)were wiped away. In 2015 a lower number of companies exited the market due to bankruptcy proceedings or voluntary liquidation procedures – less than usual, but the trend has not been reversed yet and it has not returned to pre-2008 levels.

There is no Italian economy without the SMEs: they record a turnover of 838 billion euros, a value-added equal to 189 billion euros and a debt to the tune of 255 billion euro.

Hence the weak recovery depends on the severe lack of investment.

And where can we find governments’ ability to attract foreign and national capital for the industrial revival, considering that investment is falling in every part of the world, except for China and the Russian Federation?

In 2015 alone, over 107,000 Italian citizens left the country.

Five million Italians already live abroad – 36.7% in the 18-34 and 35-49 age groups.

A huge stream of people that impoverishes professions and innovation. This is also a cost, which the State and families bear without having any benefit, amounting to 700,000 euros per each graduate leaving the country.

Not to mention the many entrepreneurs who committed suicide because of the crisis.

In the first half of 2016 the cases of suicide for economic reasons have been 81, involving both workers and entrepreneurs at the same time.

36.4% of the total number of suicides for economic reasons were committed by entrepreneurs who could no longer run their companies and pay their workers.

In 2015 the rate of entrepreneurs who committed suicide was equal to 46.1%.

There exists no elsewhere in Europe the same amount of entrepreneurs committing suicide. This means that the nice story told by Italian governments and Italian research centres on the “magnificent and progressive fate” – just to quote the verse that Giacomo Leopardi took from his cousin, Terenzio Mamiani, to ironically challenge his blind belief in the unlimited and extraordinary progress for the human race – .is only a beautiful fairy tale.

With a view to redressing the budget deficit, the Italian GDP should grow at least at a 1.3% pace for the next six months, thus enabling Italy to achieve a deficit-GDP ratio slightly over 2%.

Reverting to the new Gentiloni’s government, we need to recall the gaffes made by the current Prime Minister.

The abstention on the UNESCO Resolution denying the link between Judaism and the sacred sites of Jerusalem was presented by the then Foreign Minister Gentiloni as a success for the “yes” vote, with endless and irrelevant digressions and cogitations.

Not to mention an explicit desire to cede sovereignty to the EU shown in a twitter of 2012.

We have governments that have long wanted only to go on holiday and leave everything in the hands of the European Union, which is not necessarily our ally but also our competitor.

It is also worth recalling Gentiloni’s advice to Donald Trump not to change his policy on nuclear power, Iran and climate and how the President-elect reacted on these three topics.

Let us not forget, however, the most severe issues, such as India, which fooled us – when Gentiloni was Foreign Minister – on the exhausting and shameful matter of the two Italian marines.

Not to mention the tragedy of the Italian researcher, Giulio Regeni, in which the then Foreign Minister did not touch a ball, thus leaving even the Egyptian leaders speechless.

Finally not a gaffe, but a truth, namely the statement of the then Foreign Minister Gentiloni that there are also terrorists on migrants’ boats – a truth soon denied by him, for fear of the left representatives within the government.

It would take America to delegate our foreign policy to him, but this is not the case.

And indeed Renzi’s US myth looked like the replica of the well-known character of Nando Mericoni in the movie An American in Rome, a satire of Americanization starring Alberto Sordi.

We should also add the project for a “Syrian transition beyond Assad” – one of Gentiloni’s singular and far-fetched idea, given what is happening on the ground which, however, can be understood if we consider the great and sometimes funny servility of this government and the previous Renzi’s government vis-à-vis America.

And what about his crazy cry at New York’s Italian Consulate on September 23 last, when he concluded his speech by shouting “Go, Hillary, go” at the top of his lungs?

An allied country must not interfere in the affairs of a friendly State, let alone Renzi’s funding of Hillary Clinton’s election campaign – an unlawful and dangerous behaviour.

Gentiloni also expressed full solidarity with Turkish President Erdogan after the failed coup, not to mention Italy’s full support for Fayez al-Serraj in Libya, the politician the international community “chose” as new leader in Libya.

The fact is that al-Serraj rules just on his palace along the shores of Tripoli, whereas it would have been smarter to distribute our support to the major non-jihadist parties involved.

But now our foreign policy is in the hands of mere amateurs who serve others’ interest rather than our own.

There is no longer Italy’s national interest, but only the provincial and narrow-minded rhetoric of politically correct which is turned into foreign policy by these petty politicians.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs "La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa", he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d'Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: "A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of "Honorable" of the Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France

Continue Reading
Comments

Europe

US-EU possible soft tactic to contain Iran

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has created a new rounds of speculations about the three European major players’ (the UK, France and Germany) capabilities and abilities to keep the deal alive without the US.

Following the US President’s unilateral move to withdraw from the Iran’s Nuclear Deal, lots of diplomatic and political efforts have been made both by the European and Iranian officials to keep the internationally achieved deal alive.

Islamic Republic of Iran has announced that it will remain in the JCPOA just if the EU can guarantee Iran’s benefits and interests under the JCPOA in the absence of the US, otherwise Teharn will leave the deal, too.

Despite all measures taken and political promises made by the European sides to keep the JCPOA alive, over the past ten days many big EU firms and international companies have announced their decisions to stop their activities and operations in Iran including Total, Eni, Siemens, Airbus and Maersk.

Just couple of days after the US withdraw from the JCPOA, French gas and oil giant Total has announced that due to return of the US sanctions against Iran it has to pull out of Iranian Southern Pars oil field.

Italian oil giant Eni has also decided to abrogate its agreement with Iran to study oil and gas in Iran.

Maersk as the biggest shipping company in the world has announced that due to its vast activities in the US and to avoid possible US punishments, it will stop its activities in Iran.

Considering the limited capabilities and potentialities of the EU to challenge the US hegemony and also the fact that EU governments cannot force private sectors to work with Iran, it is not realistic to expect the EU to save the JCPOA.

As I mentioned in my previous writing, the possibility of job division between the US and EU to contain Iran should not be ignored.

All facts on the ground imply that all EU measures and promises to keep the JCPOA alive will only result in remaining of some small European companies in Iran. Big companies that can invest and transfer technology to Iran will leave Iran to avoid the US possible punishments. This possible soft and indirect US-EU tactic can help the joint goal of the US and EU to contain Iran.

By this tactic, firstly the EU can buy time and contain Iran so that not to leave the JCPOA. Secondly, the EU will pave the way for selling of its products and services in Iran’s market without investment and transferring technology. Thirdly, Iran’s incomes and revenues will be limited which Americans and the Europeans consider it as a good soft and indirect way to increase pressure on Iran to limit Iran’s regional influence and missile capability.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Internally weak EU cannot be strong international player

Payman Yazdani

Published

on

Commenting on the EU capabilities to protect its interests against the US unilateralism, Italian political science professor, Dr. Pastori Gianluca believes that an internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player.

The US president’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the US key European allies’ opposition has raised so many questions about the global weight of the EU.

Despite many promises from EU key states to keep the JCPOA alive without the US, many believe even if the EU decides to do so the block won’t be able to challenge the US President’s decision due to its internal disunity and limitations. The issue was discussed with political science associated professor of Milan Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Dr. Pastori Gianluca.

How can the EU protect the right of its companies working and investing in Iran? Is it feasible?

European companies have always had good economic relations with Iran and these relations have grown even stronger in the last few years. I do not think that this attitude will really change in the coming months. In the past, the US already adopted secondary sanctions against countries investing in Iran (e.g. with the ‘Iran and Libya Sanctions Act’ in 1996), but their impact on the behaviour of foreign investors was quite limited. At that time, even some US companies managed to bypass the sanctions operating through foreign branches. Moreover, US-EU relations are currently quite tense, also due to the US will to introduce tariffs on European export. For this reasons, I think that, while the European governments will take a low profile in face of new US sanctions, on the political level they will keep on supporting their national presence in Iran.

Despite being an economic superpower, the EU is not able to protect its interest against the US unilateralism in recent year. Why?

The main problem is that the EU still faces difficulties in transforming its economic power into political power. Traditionally, the EU has been quite effective in promoting and protecting the economic interests of its members but has been far less effective in the political filed. There are many reasons to explain this state of things. As an economic community, the EU exists since 1957, when the European Economic Community was established, while the political union is far more recent. Moreover, the different member states have different visions of the international system and different interests to pursue. Finally, many of them are very jealous of their own sovereignty in international matters and are not ready to submit this kind of matters to a meaningful coordination or – even more — to subordinate them to a common foreign and defence policy.

The EU officials have talked about independent EU over the recent years. Considering the existing facts and EU potentialities, how feasible is it? What are the obstacles to this end?

The EU is currently facing one of the most difficult phases in its history. Anti-European parties are gaining strength in several member states, while the results of the referendum held in 2016 on the exit of the UK from the Union (‘Brexit’) have shown that integration is a reversible process. In the long term, this is the main problem that the EU has to face to affirm its international role. An internally weak EU cannot be a strong international player. At the same time, the development of a strong international profile can help to re-launch the European project, showing to the member states that the EU can be helpful even in the political field. Worth noting, since 2017, several countries are striving to implement a more effective common security and defence policy, largely due to Donald Trump’s proclaimed will to reduce the US engagement in Europe.

First published in our partner Mehr News Agency

Continue Reading

Europe

Europe: National Sovereignty versus International Conquest, at Stake over Iran

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Europe now faces its ultimate ideological fork-in-the-road, which it has thus far ignored but can no longer ignore: They need to decide whether they seek a world of nations that each is sovereign over its own territory but over no other (and this would not be a world at war); or whether they seek instead a world in which they are part of the American empire, a world based on conquests — NATO, IMF, World Bank, and the other U.S.-controlled international institutions — and in which their own nation’s citizens are subject to the dictatorship by America’s aristocracy: the same super-rich individuals who effectively control the U.S. Government itself (see this and this — and that’s dictatorship by the richest, in the United States).

Iran has become this fateful fork-in-the-road, and the immediate issue here is America’s cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal that America had signed along with 6 other countries, and America’s consequent restoration of economic sanctions against Iran — sanctions against companies anywhere that continue trading with Iran. First, however, some essential historical background on that entire issue:

The U.S. aristocracy overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Government in 1953 and imposed there a barbaric dictatorship which did the bidding of the U.S. and allied aristocracies, by installing the Pahlavi Shah there, just as they had earlier, in 1932, installed the Saud King in Saudi Arabia — which land never ever had known democracy. As Wikipedia says of Ibn Saud, who became King in 1932, “After World War I, he received further support from the British, including a glut of surplus munitions. He launched his campaign against the Al Rashidi in 1920; by 1922 they had been all but destroyed,” with Britain’s help. Similarly, the U.S. and its British Imperial partner installed Pahlavi as Iran’s Shah in 1953. This was done by U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower. After the death of the anti-imperialistic U.S. President FDR, in 1945, the U.S. Government quickly became pro-imperialistic under President Harry S. Truman (whom imperial England’s Winston Churchill wrapped around his little finger), and then even more so under Eisenhower, so that during the brief presidency of Ike’s successor President JFK, the anti-imperialistic ghost of FDR was coming to haunt the White House and thus again threaten the conjoined U.S.-UK’s aristocracies’ surging global control. Kennedy was quickly souring on, and coming to oppose, imperialism (just as FDR had done) — he was opposing conquest and dominion for its own sake. So, he became assassinated and the evidence was covered-up, so that the CIA, which Truman had installed and which Eisenhower placed firmly under the control of America’s aristocratically controlled military-industrial complex, became increasingly America’s own Deep State, designed for global conquest (though using an ‘anti-communist’ excuse and cover for their real and ruling motive of global conquest and dominion).

When the U.S.-imposed Shah was overthrown by an authentic revolution in 1979, America’s continued alliance with the UK-U.S.-installed Saud family turned into a U.S.-UK alliance against Iran, which nation has ever since been demonized by the U.S. and UK aristocracies as being a ‘terrorist regime’, even though Saudi Arabia actually dominates global Islamic terrorism, and Iran is opposed to terrorism (except to terrorism that’s aimed against Israel). And everybody who knows anything on sound basis is aware of these established historical facts. But, actually, the U.S.-Saudi alliance is even worse than that: global Islamic terrorism was invented and organized by the U.S. aristocracy in conjunction with the Saud family starting in 1979 when Iran freed itself from the U.S.-UK dictatorship and restored Iranian sovereignty (even though in a highly compromised Shiite theocratic way, nothing at all like the secular Iranian democracy that had been overthrown by the U.S. and UK aristocracies in 1953). The U.S. and Sauds created Islamic terrorism in 1979 in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and ultimately used these terrorist proxy “boots on the ground” so as to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan — thereby draining the Soviet economy in the hope of ultimately conquering the U.S.S.R. and then conquering Russia itself, which the U.S. President GHW Bush on the night of 24 February 1990 made clear that the U.S. and its allies must do — he gave the European vassal-nations their marching-order on that date, and they have reliably followed that order, until now.

Russia, which the U.S. aristocracy craves to conquer, is an ally of Iran (which they hope to re-conquer). The basic principle of America’s aristocracy is repudiation of national sovereignty. That’s what the U.S. Government globally stands for today. Russian Television headlined on May 11th, “‘Are we America’s vassals?’ France vows to trade with Iran in defiance of US ‘economic policeman’” and reported that U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-imposition of U.S. economic sanctions against any companies that do business with Iran, is being resisted by all the other nations that had signed the Obama-Kerry nuclear accord with Iran, the “JCPOA” treaty: UK, France, China, Russia, U.S., and EU (which is led by Germany). The U.S. regime knows that if even America’s allies — UK, France, and Germany — hold together with Iran, to defy the Imperial actions punishing them for continuing with Iran even after the U.S. pull-out from the treaty, then the Western Alliance will be jeopardized, if not terminated altogether, and finally the Cold War, which GHW Bush had ordered the allies to continue even after the end of the U.S.S.R., and of its communism, and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance mirroring America’s NATO alliance, will finally end also on America’s side, just as it had ended in 1991 on the Soviet Union’s side. Such an end to the Cold War would possibly cause America’s military-industrial complex — and the stock values of mega-corporations such as Lockheed Martin — to collapse.

Thus, the U.S. aristocracy is afraid of peace replacing their existing permanent-war economy. All those trillions of dollars that have been invested in machines of mass-murder abroad, could plunge in value, if UK, France, and Germany, terminate the Western Alliance, and become individual sovereign nations who join with Iran — another individual sovereign nation — to say no to the Imperial power (the U.S.), and yes to national sovereignty, which sovereignty constitutes the sole foundation-stone upon which any and all democracies are constructed. No democracy can exist in any nation that is a vassal to some other (the imperial power). In a world where national sovereignty is honored, democracy would not necessarily exist everywhere, but it would no longer be internationally prohibited by an imperial power, which inevitably is itself a dictatorship, no real democracy at all.

On March 3rd, the 175-year-old imperial magazine, The Economist, headlined against China as an enemy in this continuing Cold War, “How the West got China wrong” and explained “the Chinese threat”:

“China is not a market economy and, on its present course, never will be. Instead, it increasingly controls business as an arm of state power. … Foreign businesses are profitable but miserable, because commerce always seems to be on China’s terms.”

The imperialistic view is that the international dictator and its corporations should rule — there should be no real sovereign other than this dictatorship, by the U.S. regime now, since America is today’s imperialist nation.

Perhaps Europe now will make the fateful decision, between international dictatorship on the one side, or else the supreme sovereignty of each and every nation on the other, to determine its own laws — and to require any corporation that does business there to adhere to its legal system and to none other: the supremacy of each nation within its own territory, not of any international corporations, not even of ones that are based in some international-bully country that says it’s “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that every other nation is “dispensable.” Russia won’t accept that. Iran won’t accept that. China won’t accept that. Will Germany accept it — the land of the original: “Deutschland über alles”? Will France? Will UK?

Americans accept it. The U.S. public are very effectively controlled by America’s aristocracy. A Yougov poll at the start of 2017 (the start of Trump’s Presidency) asked over 7,000 Americans to rate countries as “enemy”, “unfriendly”, “friendly”, “ally”, or “not sure”; and, among the 144 rated countries, Americans placed at the most hostile end, in order from the very worst, to the 13th-from-worst: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. Other than Saudi Arabia, which the U.S. Government treats as being its master if not as being its very top ally, and which is, in any case, by far the U.S. military’s biggest customer (other than the U.S. Government, of course), that list from Yougov looks very much like, or else close to, what America’s aristocracy would want to see targeted, as being America’s ‘enemies’. So, other than Americans’ including the top ally both of America’s aristocracy and of Israel‘s aristocracy, Saudi Arabia, on that list of enemies, the list was very much what the U.S. aristocracy’s ’news’media had been promoting as being America’s ‘enemies’. In fact, even though those ‘news’media haven’t informed Americans that 92% of Saudi Arabians approve of ISIS, or that the Saudi royal family financed and organized the 9/11 attacks (in conjunction with others of George W. Bush’s friends), Americans view Saudi Arabia hostilely. That’s acceptable to America’s aristocracy, because the Saud family’s hatred is focused against Iran, the main Shiite nation, and the U.S. public (have been deceive to) prefer Saudi Arabia over Iran. In fact, a 17 February 2016 Gallup poll showed that Iran was seen by Americans as being even more hostile toward Americans than is Saudi Arabia. So, America’s aristocracy have no reason to be concerned that their chief ally and second-from-top governmental customer, the Saud family, are unfavorably viewed by the U.S. public. Both in America and in Saudi Arabia, the aristocracy effectively controls its public. Thus, the American people think in the way that the American aristocracy want them to — supporting any conquest (e.g., Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-) that the aristocracy want to perpetrate. Of course, the way to achieve this control is by means of the windows through which the public get to see the world around them, which windows on the world are the nation’s ‘news’media.

On May 12th, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) reported that the American people are very effectively controlled to believe Iran to be America’s enemy and very dangerous to us. The headline was “Media Debate Best Way to Dominate Iran” and the article documented that the American people are being very intensively propagandized by the aristocratically controlled media, to favor aggression against Iran, and are being heavily lied-to, in order to achieve this.

So, though the American public will continue to support the American Government (despite distrusting both their government and their ‘news’media), foreign publics aren’t so rigidly under the control of America’s aristocracy; and therefore Europe’s aristocracies could abandon their alliance with the U.S. aristocracy, if they strongly enough want to. Their ‘news’media would obediently do whatever they’re told, and could begin immediately portraying the reality of the U.S. Government, to their people — including, for example, the reality that the U.S. stole Ukraine

, and some of the participants have even confessed their roles; Russia did not steal Crimea (and the Crimea-Ukraine issue was the alleged spark for the ‘restoration’ of the Cold War — which The West never actually ended on its side, only Russia did on its side).

An end of The Western Alliance (America’s empire) could happen. But it would require — from the EU’s leaders (and/or from Turkey’s Erdogan) — courage, conviction, and a commitment to national sovereignty’s being the foundation-stone to any democracy anywhere, and this change-of-political-theory would be something drastically new in Europe (and-or in Turkey), which is a region that has historically been staunchly supportive of empires, and thus supportive of dictatorships (ones that are compliant — foreign stooge-regimes). That would require a historic sea-change. Iran’s peace, if not Iran’s very existence (and maybe even world peace), might be depending upon this slender hope.

first posted at strategic-culture.org

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy