” the Dragon? The heir of Degasbriand’s thought. A war and an epidemic? The European Union has moved well but we no longer believe that it is the United States that guarantees our security.”

” the Dragon?  The heir of Degasbriand’s thought.  A war and an epidemic?  The European Union has moved well but we no longer believe that it is the United States that guarantees our security.”

Beef Ticino. He had no doubts about one thing Alkyd de Gasperi: It was the European project to represent them antidote to war, there In response to the desire for peace from generation It was shaken by two world wars. Through the complex institutional construction that intuition was capable of The decades-long banishment of war from a continent has also made it one of the dominant notes in its history. But nothing happens once and for all: dramatic developments The war in Ukraine Today reveals all the fragility of European peace.

That’s why nineteenth Lectio degasperianascheduled for Thursday August 18, at 5 p.m., in Pivi Ticino and its title The return of war in Europe. De Gasperi after 70 years‘, one of the leading experts in international relations and political science calls which Sergio Fabrini To navigate current events and history, seeking answers to pressing questions posed by the international situation in the thought and work of the statesman from Trentino. Fabrini Professor of Political Science and International Relations and DrDirector of the Department of Political Science at Luis Guido Carli, Where it is founded and managed Government School from 2010 to 2018 And it was Director of the School of International Studies at the University of Trento from 2006 to 2009 As well as director of the “Italian Journal of Political Science” from 2004 to 2009.

Professor Fabrini, the war escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis was the result of another historical event, the pandemic, which constituted an additional important test for the European Union. What signals and responses have we received from Europe in this regard?

The European response first to the epidemic and then to the Russian aggression against Ukraine It was definitely efficient and responsive. In the first case, within a few months, the European Council approved The next generation of the European UnionBecause of its national repercussions. in case From Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the European Union was able to agree to a package of economic sanctions against Russia h To help Ukraine by transferring lethal weapons So you can defend yourself. However, these two decisions also demonstrated the difficulty of the European Union in addressing issues related to security: health first, then the military. In a short time we have seen Divisions between Northern Europe, more “economical”, and Central/Southern Europe, more supportive; Even in some villagesEastern Europeans questioned the conditionality of the rule of law. Regarding the situation in Ukraine, we see divisions between states that want to maintain support for the state that was attacked, sanctions against Russia, for a long time and others, including Germany, who are pushing for an economic solution in order to protect their faltering industrial structure. In short: We have responded to these two “crises,” but we do not have the institutional tools to give these responses continuity and consistency over time.

See also  US seeks help from China to stop Kim (in strategic quid pro quo) - Corriere.it

70 years after the signing of the treaty that established the European Defense Community, with the strong support of Alcide De Gasperi and never ratified, the topic of “securing” Europe in an “independent” way has returned to today.

problem Security was pivotal at the end of World War IIAnd it was especially so for men like De Gasperi, Adenauer and Schuman who went through this drama. Then security had a double aspect: in relation to the threats and imperial tendencies of the Soviet Union, but also to the internal threat of possible new divisions between European countries, particularly between France and Germany. Europe today found itself not having a security problem on its agenda: At the end of the Cold War, in a way, he was thought to be moving toward a postmodern world where trade, rules, and regulations would resolve conflicts between nations; So there is an essential difference between the leaders of that time, de Gasperi in particular, and the leaders of today. It was Draghi, whom I consider the most consistent heir to Degasprian thought, who firmly posed the problem of security European defense.

In this sense, today as then, the United States has played and continues to play a strategic role.

In the immediate post-war period The goal of the United States was not to remain in EuropeIt was The failure of the European defense community Which “forced” them to stay. The Boy As an organization can allow Rearmament of West Germany In a controlled manner, under international supervision. Even today we are facing the same problem: But The United States can no longer guarantee European security as it has done for more than seventy years. There is tremendous pressure on them to quit – remind them Trump’s positions And the coalition that supported it—and their international agenda changed, too: The critical problem now is China and the Asian world, see case Taiwan. Their need is to reduce the military commitment in Europe in order to focus its resources in Asia: it is this potential void to which Europe must find an answer.

Another aspect that has come under a lot of “pressure” in the past two years is global interdependence. In light of the great contemporary challenges, and the context that has arisen on the international chessboard, do you think it is necessary to rethink the concept of globalization?

See also  Other fronts of the Gaza crisis

It is necessary to start from reality: it shows us thatGlobalization is necessary but, as it was believed, it is no longer sufficient. The world has expanded not only at the commercial and economic level, but also at the cultural level: looking at the new generations, Today, a young man who does not know languages ​​and does not know how to move from one part of the world to another does not have the necessary mental experience to be able to deal with reality Work and career to be faced. We can say that there was a lot of naivety, and in many respects also lightness, in what we call globalization: when the epidemic arrived, for example, we discovered that Our pharmaceutical security was dependent on authoritarian states; When the Russian aggression erupted in Ukraine, we found out Our energy independence was dependent on many authoritarian states. We must certainly revise and rethink the concept of globalization more selectively: certainly not by returning to the Cold War, with its vertical divisions, but by redefining our development model in terms of, on some fundamental and strategic resources, democratic countries and Europe in particular should Being less dependent on authoritarian states.

We are at a historical moment when national pressures are re-emerging more and more on the European scenario. You mentioned that the concept of nationalism has evolved greatly over the years.

The Nationalism has a “historic” characteristic in our country: After World War II, with progress An integration project by men like de GasperiIt represented an “external” alternative to this process, supporting the interests of those who wanted to preserve national independence. So for a long time we have one The division between Europeanism that emphasized the need for interdependence, and nationalism that emphasized the need for independence. I think this conflict happened It concluded in 2016 with the Brexit referendum: When the victory of independence was celebrated, this also turned out to be aggravating rather than strengthening states, just think of The British health system, today among the worst in Europe. This result was understood by many nationalists from the East, Like Urban and Kaczynskithat from the West, like Le Pen and Salvini: They have tried, from that moment on, to criticize the EU from within, and to downplay the call to leave the union and the euro. This is where I tried The development of the concept of “sovereignty”: the nationalism that exists within the European Union, is trying to erode it from within and is therefore very dangerous.

In light of the differences and disparities that have emerged between the various member states in the long process of European integration, what perspective should Europe aim for in the coming years?

See also  United States: 16 years see a car sink and sink. Save three girls

It must necessarily be Europe “combination”. I think that all political projects and theories see them in the future as hypotheses The United States of Europe has no basis and is also dangerous: It contains the idea of ​​being able to define history from above and I think this “Jacobin” approach has produced, and can result in, more problems than cures. We should we should Recognize and evaluate the plurality of European experiences: The history of European countries is different, while we jointly need to increase our economic growth. today Europe is one of the richest continents in the world which, for many years, has not experienced conflicts between sovereign states Within the Continent: This is a great achievement of European integration that advocates of sovereignty struggle to recognize. What kind of Europe do we want then? This question finds different answers in different parts of the continent. in this book”incisionI tried to show that we should think “Big” Europe, capable of addressing major issues such as, for example, the energy issueA community that is able to involve all the nations that are part of the continent and that have some common needs. It will be necessary to have those institutions that ensure that “safety‘, a keyword that brings us back to a topic Lectio degasperiana From this year: joint defence, which does not mean coordination between governments but a common army; A common currency with a central bank – as it already exists – but with a common fiscal policy; Joint border control through supranational institutions and a federal center of gravity able to ensure the stability of the continent, for we must not take for granted that history always goes towards the good, and it may also happen that we encounter a history that is going in the opposite direction.

“Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the nursery of fire.” This quote by Gustav Mahler is the starting point for the August 2022 Degasperian Cultural Review, which includes the XIX Degasperian Lectio. What is, for Sergio Fabrini, the essential fire that we must all keep?

I have no doubts: individual freedom. This is the fire from which everything goes: if liberties are not guaranteed, there can be no justice. individual freedom It is the real fire that must be guarded and fed In this sense, the recovery of thoughts and reflection on Alcide De Gasperi can be very useful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *