Many journalists and political experts describe Giuseppe Conte, the current Italian Prime Minister, as an “invisible or silent Premier”, but it is a mistake.
Conte is, in fact, a perfect mediator between the two deputy-Prime Ministers having great and often excessive visibility. Hence he develops rules and regulations reconciling two policy lines which are often potentially “divergent”. Silently, but very effectively.
As often confessed to the journalists who interviewed him, his model as Prime Minister is Aldo Moro.
Aldo Moro, however, was the real director of the intelligence Services and he made them do extraordinary things, while it took the current government over one month only to appoint the President of COPASIR, the Parliamentary Committee on intelligence Services.
Aldo Moro was iron fist in a velvet glove, but we hope that the power and government experience will turn Giuseppe Conte into a knowledgeable statesman.
The tension created by the Five Star Movement and the Northern League in power is evident everywhere, including the recent appointments for the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, and will characterize also the future feuds within the government for the Italian railway company, Ferrovie dello Stato, and for the Italian airline Alitalia.
Giuseppe Conte always tries to find convergence and usefully mediate between two naturally selfish political groups.
The “Second Republic” was born from the destruction of every kind of Italy’s autonomous and independent foreign policy, especially in the Mediterranean basin. Hence both the great business choices and the Italian global strategy are decided elsewhere – as and even more frequently than it happened in the aftermath of World War II.
Giuseppe Conte is aware of these structural limits and manages them smartly.
He knows foreign languages and he is harsh when needed, as was the case with President Macron, but he is also good-mannered. This is far from being negligible, given Italy’s recent political experiences.
Moreover, the Prime Minister is overtly Catholic- albeit not in Prodi’s style -but he has no ties with any confraternity within the Church.
In a world characterized by sloppy and superficial “secularism”, it is reassuring to have a Prime Minister who maintains to be not only a Catholic, but also devoted to St. Pio of Pietrelcina.
Hence there will be a close and new relationship between the Government and the Church – a relationship that has always been essential to enhance the impact and strength of political choices, for which the Vatican is a very effective multiplier.
Even Bettino Craxi knew that, without the Vatican, Italy’s role would be played down excessively.
After the harsh words of a few days ago, Giuseppe Conte showed his willingness to negotiate – with the 5 Mediterranean EU countries – a “reasonable” distribution of migrants among the various European countries.
Obviously we cannot always call everyone when a ship full of migrants reaches the Italian coast or rather remains outside Italy’s ports.
Prime Minister Conte’s idea, which he has already expressed to President Juncker and President Tusk, is to create a permanent crisis Cabinet, led by the European Commission, which can mediate between the various EU Member States.
Europeans will discuss it for a while, but later nothing will be done about it.
Prime Minister Conte, however, will have outlined the reasonable and balanced Italian proposal.
For Italy the Dublin III Treaty is the enemy to defeat. Nevertheless, this old agreement signed on January 1, 2014, places all obligations onto the EU country of first landing or arrival, thus currently putting only Italy under pressure.
Moreover, if it is ascertained that the migrant is entitled to international protection, he/she shall remain in the State that declared him/her having this status, without any possibility of movement within the European Union.
In the framework of the current government’s foreign policy, in the future Prime Minister Conte will see General Haftar, the man opposing Fayez al-Sarraj’s government in Tripoli, so as to organize – in the foreseeable future – a “Conference on Libya” in Rome with all those who have a direct interest in the now destroyed African State.
Good idea. In the future, however, we shall avoid Italy’s ambiguous game between General Haftar and Fayez al-Sarraj, so as not to shortly become an enemy of both parties and unreliable for both sides.
Probably it would be better not to have tensions with General Haftar, but rather become al-Sarraj’s main counterpart and point of reference – without forgetting, however, Italy’s primary oil area in Libya, which is currently under General Haftar’s domination.
As lawyer, Prime Minister Conte is also opposed to self-defence as proposed by the Interior Minister.
Not freedom to shoot, but rather to avoid making those who shoot for self-defence purposes be subjected to the “ordeal” of proceedings at various instances.
It is also worth recalling that Prime Minister Conte has never maintained he wants to leave the Euro – quite the reverse.
Many people also suspect that the idea of the Economy Minister, Giovanni Tria, to turn to China for the future purchase of Italy’s public debt securities has indeed been suggested by Giuseppe Conte.
It should also be recalled that he has an excellent personal relationship with President Trump, who described him as “formidable” in an interview with Fox News.
We do not know whether, in the future, the economic policy and the foreign policy of Italy’s current government will be in line with US isolationism and protectionism.
Certainly some sort of protection would be good also for Italy, but possibly not vis-à-vis China, which is one of its future partners.
Moreover, also with his request for more defence spending by NATO’s European countries, President Trump has clearly shown to have little interest in the EU and Europe.
The agreement with President Putin, which will possibly result from the first meeting between the two Heads of State held on July 16, will probably see the bilateral dismantling of missile positions on the Eastern European border, as well as a future conference on Ukraine.
The United States will withdraw from Syria after an agreement with Russia for splitting the various areas of the country, albeit always under Assad’s control.
Obviously the US covert operations in Ukraine and Syria will stop rapidly.
However, while the European Union is irrelevant and has a childish and virtually non-existent foreign policy, this is certainly not the case with the Mediterranean basin.
For the US President, the Mediterranean is important for three reasons: Israel’s security and survival; Iran’s closure to the Mediterranean, which is hard to imagine with Bashar al-Assad in power, and finally the quick end of war in Syria.
After all, when Prime Minister Conte spoke about Israel he has always explicitly supported the State and its current policy.
In his opinion, Israel could become the primary partner in the Mediterranean, both from the economic and from the defence and intelligence viewpoints.
Hence it is mostly likely that Giuseppe Conte, the silent Prime Minister, will become very important for Italy’s future.
Europe tells Biden “no way” to Cold War with China
Amidst the first big transatlantic tensions for the Biden Administration, a new poll shows that the majority of Europeans see a new Cold War happening between the United States and China, but they don’t see themselves as a part of it.
Overwhelmingly, 62% of Europeans believe that the US is engaged in a new Cold War against China, a new poll just released by the European Council on Foreign Relations found. Just yesterday US President Joe Biden claimed before the UN General Assembly that there is no such thing and the US is not engaging in a new Cold War. So, Europeans see Biden’s bluff and call him on it.
The study was released on Wednesday by Mark Leonard and Ivan Krastev at the European Council on Foreign Relations and found that Europeans don’t see themselves as direct participants in the US-China Cold War. This viewpoint is most pronounced in Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Italy, according to the study. The prevailing view, in each of the 12 surveyed EU member states, is one of irrelevance – with respondents in Hungary (91%), Bulgaria (80%), Portugal (79%), and Austria (78%) saying that their country is not in a conflict with Beijing.
Only 15% of Europeans believe that the EU is engaged in a Cold War against China. The percentage is so low that one wonders if there should even be such a question. It is not only not a priority, it is not even a question on the agenda for Europeans. Even at the highest point of EU “hawkishness”, only 33% of Swedes hold the view that their country is currently in a Cold War with China. Leonard and Krastev warn that if Washington and Brussels are preparing for an all-in generational struggle against China, this runs against the grain of opinion in Europe, and leaders in Washington and Brussels will quickly discover that they “do not have a societal consensus behind them”.
“The European public thinks there is a new cold war – but they don’t want to have anything to do with it. Our polling reveals that a “cold war” framing risks alienating European voters”, Mark Leonard said.
The EU doesn’t have the backing of its citizens to follow the US in its new Cold War pursuit. But unlike the views of the authors of the study, my view is that this is not a transatlantic rift that we actually have to be trying to fix. Biden’s China policy won’t be Europe’s China policy, and that’s that, despite US efforts to persuade Europe to follow, as I’ve argued months ago for the Brussels Report and in Modern Diplomacy.
In March this year, Gallup released a poll that showed that 45% of Americans see China as the greatest US enemy. The poll did not frame the question as Cold War but it can be argued that Joe Biden has some mandate derived from the opinion of American people. That is not the case for Europe at all, to the extent that most of us don’t see “China as an enemy” even as a relevant question.
The US’s China pursuit is already giving horrible for the US results in Europe, as French President Macron withdrew the French Ambassador to the US. The US made a deal already in June, as a part of the trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia, and stabbed France in the back months ago to Macron’s last-minute surprise last week. Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations argues that it is Macron that is actually arrogant to expect that commitments and deals should mean something: “Back in February, Macron rejected the idea of a U.S.-E.U. common front against China. Now he complains when America pursues its own strategy against China. What’s French for chutzpah?” What Boot does get right is that indeed, there won’t be a joint US-EU front on China, and European citizens also don’t want this, as the recent poll has made clear.
The US saying Europe should follow the US into a Cold War with China over human rights is the same thing as China saying that Europe should start a Cold War with the US over the bad US human rights record. It’s not going to happen. You have to understand that this is how ridiculous the proposition sounds to us, Europeans. Leonard and Krastev urge the EU leadership to “make the case for more assertive policies” towards China around European and national interests rather than a Cold War logic, so that they can sell a strong, united, and compelling case for the future of the Atlantic alliance to European citizens.
I am not sure that I agree, as “more assertive policies” and “cold war” is probably the same thing in the mind of most Europeans and I don’t think that the nuance helps here or matters at all. Leaders like Biden argue anyway that the US is not really pursuing a Cold War. The authors caution EU leaders against adopting a “cold war” framing. You say “framing”, I say “spin”. Should we be in engaging in spins at all to sell unnecessary conflict to EU citizens only to please the US?
“Unlike during the first cold war, [Europeans] do not see an immediate, existential threat”, Leonard clarified. European politicians can no longer rely on tensions with China to convince the electorate of the value of transatlantic relations. “Instead, they need to make the case from European interests, showing how a rebalanced alliance can empower and restore sovereignty to European citizens in a dangerous world”, Mark Leonard added. The study shows that there is a growing “disconnect” between the policy ambitions of those in Brussels and how Europeans think. EU citizens should stick to their sentiments and not be convinced to look for conflict where it doesn’t exist, or change what they see and hear with their own eyes and ears in favor of elusive things like the transatlantic partnership, which the US itself doesn’t believe in anyways. And the last thing that should be done is to scare Europeans by convincing them they live in a “dangerous world” and China is the biggest threat or concern.
What the study makes clear is that a Cold War framing against China is likely to repel more EU voters than it attracts, and if there is one thing that politicians know it is that you have to listen to the polls in what your people are telling you instead of engaging in spins. Those that don’t listen in advance get the signs eventually. At the end of the day it’s not important what Biden wants.
Germany and its Neo-imperial quest
In January 2021, eight months ago, when rumours about the possibility of appointment of Christian Schmidt as the High Representative in Bosnia occurred for the first time, I published the text under the title ‘Has Germany Lost Its NATO Compass?’. In this text I announced that Schmidt was appointed to help Dragan Čović, the leader of the Croatian HDZ party, to disrupt the constitutional structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina and create precoditions for secession of the Serb- and Croatian-held territories in Bosnia and the country’s final dissolution. I can hardly add anything new to it, except for the fact that Schmidt’s recent statements at the conference of Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft have fully confirmed my claims that his role in Bosnia is to act as Čović’s ally in the latter’s attempts to carve up the Bosnian Constitution.
Schmidt is a person with a heavy burden, the burden of a man who has continuously been promoting Croatian interests, for which the Croatian state decorated him with the medal of “Ante Starčević”, which, in his own words, he “proudly wears” and shares with several Croatian convicted war criminals who participated in the 1992-1995 aggression on Bosnia, whom Schmidt obviously perceives as his ideological brethren. The question is, then, why Germany appointed him as the High Representative in Bosnia?
Germany’s policy towards Bosnia, exercised mostly through the institutions of the European Union, has continuously been based on the concept of Bosnia’s ethnic partition. The phrases that we can occassionaly hear from the EU, on inviolability of state boundaries in the Balkans, is just a rhetoric adapted to the demands by the United States to keep these boundaries intact. So far, these boundaries have remained intact mainly due to the US efforts to preserve them. However, from the notorious Lisbon Conference in February 1992 to the present day, the European Union has always officially stood behind the idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be partitioned along ethnic lines. At the Lisbon Conference, Lord Carrington and Jose Cutileiro, the official representatives of the then European Community, which has in the meantime been rebranded as the European Union, drew the maps with lines of ethnic partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina, along which the ethnic cleansing was committed, with 100.000 killed and 1,000.000 expelled, so as to make its territory compatible with their maps. Neither Germany nor the European Union have ever distanced themselves from the idea they promoted and imposed at the Lisbon Conference as ‘the only possible solution’ for Bosnia, despite the grave consequences that followed. Nor has this idea ever stopped being a must within their foreign policy circles, as it has recently been demonstrated by the so-called Janša Non-Paper, launched a couple of months ago, which also advocates the final partition and dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such a plan is probably a product of the powerful right-wing circles in the European institutions, such as Schmidt’s CSU, rather than a homework of Janez Janša, the current Prime Minister of Slovenia, whose party is a part of these circles, albeit a minor one. To be sure, Germany is not the original author of the idea of Bosnia’s partition, this author is Great Britain, which launched it directly through Lord Carrington at the Lisbon Conference. Yet, Germany has never shown a will to distance itself from this idea, nor has it done the European Union. Moreover, the appointment of Schmidt, as a member of those political circles which promote ethnic partition as the only solution for multiethnic countries, testifies to the fact that Germany has decided to fully apply this idea and act as its chief promoter.
In this process, the neighbouring countries, Serbia and Croatia, with their extreme nationalist policies, can only act as the EU’s proxies, in charge for the physical implemenation of Bosnia’s pre-meditated disappearance. All the crimes that Serbia and Croatia committed on the Bosnian soil – from the military aggression, over war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide, up to the 30 year-long efforts to undermine Bosnia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – have always had a direct approval and absolute support of the leading EU countries. During the war and in its aftermath, Great Britain and France were the leaders of the initiatives to impose ethnic partition on the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now Germany has taken up their role. In such a context, the increasing aggressiveness of Serbia and Croatia can only be interpreted as a consequence of the EU’s intention to finish with Bosnia for good, and Schmidt has arrived to Bosnia to facilitate that process. Therefore, it is high time for the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina to abandon any ilussions about the true intentions of the European Union and reject its Trojan Horse in the form of the current High Representative.
Should there be an age limit to be President?
The presidential elections in Bulgaria are nearing in November 2021 and I would like to run for President of Bulgaria, but the issue is the age limit.
To run for President in Bulgaria a candidate needs to be at least 40 years old and I am 37. I am not the first to raise the question: should there be an age limit to run for President, and generally for office, and isn’t an age limit actually age discrimination?
Under the international human rights law standard, putting an age limit is allowed in the context of political participation under the right to vote and the right to run to be elected. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.25 interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that an age limit has to be based on objective and reasonable criteria, adding that it is reasonable to have a higher age requirement for certain offices. As it stands, the law says that having an age limit for president is not age discrimination, but is 40 actually a reasonable cut-off? National legislations can change. We need to lower the age limit and rethink what’s a reasonable age for President, and not do away with all age limits.
We have seen strong leaders emerge as heads of state and government who are below 40 years of age. Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, became Prime Minister at 34. Sebastrian Kurz, the Prime Minister of Austria, was elected at 31. Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, assumed her position at 37. So perhaps it is time to rethink age limits for the highest offices.
The US has plenty of examples where elected Senators and Congressmen actually beat the age limit and made it despite the convention. The age limit for Senator in the US is 30 years old. Rush Holt was elected to the US Senate at 29. In South Carolina, two State Senators were elected at 24 years old and they were seated anyways. The age limit for US president is 35 years old.
In Argentina, the age cut-off is 30. In India, it is 35. In Pakistan, it is 45 years old. In Turkey, it is 40 years old. Iceland says 35 years old. In France, it is 18.
Generally, democracies set lower age limits. More conservative countries set the age limit higher in line with stereotypes rather than any real world evidence that a 45 year-old or 55 year-old person would be more effective and better suited to the job. Liberal countries tend to set lower age limits.
40 years old to be a President of Bulgaria seems to be an arbitrary line drawn. And while it is legal to have some age limits, 40 years old seems to be last century. Changing the age limit for president of Bulgaria could be a task for the next Bulgarian Parliament for which Bulgarians will also vote on the same date as they vote for President.
Afghanistan and the Quest for Democracy Promotion: Symptoms of Post-Cold War Malaise
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the first step in a reduced American overseas force posture. Democracy promotion in...
UAE-Israel relations risk being built on questionable assumptions
A year of diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and Israel has proven to be mutually beneficial. The question...
Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power
Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport...
North Korea’s Nuclear Shadow: A Worrisome Expansion
Abstract: The nuclear news from North Korea remains clear and threatening. Ignoring both political warnings and legal prohibitions, Kim Jong...
Russia’s Blueprint For Success in the Middle East
As a tradition in the modern world the Middle East remains unstable. Continuous political turbulence in the region extinguishes all...
India’s view of “terrorism: at the UNGA?
At the recent United Nations’ general Assembly session, India was furious at mention of Kashmir by Pakistan’s prime minister Imran...
Prevent gender-based violence in humanitarian emergencies
Top UN officials met in the margins of the 76th General Assembly on Thursday, with a strong call to action...
Africa4 days ago
Money seized from Equatorial Guinea VP Goes into Vaccine
Development4 days ago
Demand for Circular Economy Solutions Prompts Business and Government Changes
Urban Development4 days ago
WEF Launches Toolbox of Solutions to Accelerate Decarbonization in Cities
Southeast Asia3 days ago
The Indo-Pacific Conundrum: Why U.S. Plans Are Destined to Fail
Defense3 days ago
Eastern seas after Afghanistan: UK and Australia come to the rescue of the U.S. in a clumsy way
Southeast Asia3 days ago
AUKUS: A Sequela of World War II and US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Americas4 days ago
Interpreting the Biden Doctrine: The View From Moscow
Middle East3 days ago
Turkish Geopolitics and the Kabul Airport Saga