Archivi categoria: Geopolitica

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

Geopolitics and Philosophy

Part I

 

It is essential to clarify from the outset the following: this discussion treats philosophy and geopolitics as if they were monolithic entities, which they decidedly are not. Therefore, let us immediately define our points of reference: the geopolitical perspective referred to here can be termed “geopolitical humanism,” found in key journals and think tanks; philosophically, it aligns with the thought of Hegel.
Further clarification is necessary: unlike philosophical orthodoxy, which is quick to excommunicate those who engage with thoughts of others through a “cut and sew” approach—selecting the admirable elements, adding parts, and discarding the rest to construct their thesis—we elevate such excommunication to a virtue. We adhere to the teachings of Alexandre Kojève who stated, “I was relatively unconcerned with what Hegel himself intended to convey in his book; I delivered a course on phenomenological anthropology using Hegelian texts, only expressing what I deemed to be the truth, disregarding what seemed erroneous in Hegel.”
We prefer this approach, extracting the valuable contributions of Hegel, the unparalleled genius from whom numerous thinkers and geopolitical analysts have inevitably drawn insight.
With this premise set, let us begin at the beginning. Geopolitics has become a ubiquitous term. Used either appropriately or inappropriately, praised or obstructed, it is undeniable that it has made significant inroads into public opinion, intellectual circles, and even the academic realm. For many, the explanation for its success is readily articulated: the proliferation of crises and chaos, the reshaping of the international order, and the emergence of new challenges among major powers raise questions to which geopolitics provides answers. However, this response is not adequate. We should first ask why similar success has not been observed for political science and international relations, or why economics, which once seemed sufficient to describe and predict the world’s course, is not appealed to in the same way.
Naïve critics of geopolitics—often belonging to the aforementioned disciplines—superficially attribute its success to media overexposure. This explanation is fundamentally flawed. It suggests exposure as the cause of success rather than its effect and fails to explain why the same principle does not apply to all disciplines that have enjoyed similar visibility.
Reducing the success of any discipline to the mediation of knowledge does a disservice to both humanity and scholarship. This mistake is due to a logical fallacy that imagines the worlds of media and civil society developing in parallel—as if the former is not included in the latter, as if it is not a representation of it.


The success of geopolitics can be explained differently. It addresses the distinctly human need (and often criticized) to understand the world’s full expressive range. The necessity to comprehend the entirety through a holistic approach; to know the whole from every possible angle. Geopolitics is not merely a specialized knowledge but a catalyst of knowledge, and its explanatory power (and thus its appeal) lies precisely in its ability to facilitate dialogue between specific knowledges to achieve a comprehensive representation of the whole. “Truth is the whole. However, the whole is merely the essence completing itself through its development.”
When geopolitics critiques economism, for instance, it is merely cautioning against the fallacy of specialized knowledge. Economics is not excluded from geopolitical analysis; rather, it is not elevated to the role of a deus ex machina of reality.
The need for philosophy and geopolitics arises when history ceases to progress inertly; when the present begins to show its age. When the Aufhebung is underway, humanity feels the need to drive change. It is at this juncture that these disciplines become indispensable: philosophy allows us to understand our own time through thought (as Hegel’s owl of Minerva, which takes flight at dusk, when the phase is just completed) and geopolitics, incorporating this understanding of the previous phase, seeks to determine the next phase based on this awareness.
Truth is the whole because the concrete is the entirety, while the abstract is the partial. Deceived by decades of scientism, we have internalized the notion that, contrary to fact, the concrete is found in the part, in the specificity, in the irreducible multiplicity of diversity which would negate any totality because such a totality would obliterate all heterogeneity “like a gunshot.” This ontological principle correlates with the methodological one, which finds its raison d’être in the experimental method: to isolate the part from the whole to understand its specificity and, from this, attempt to deduce universal laws. This stance is suitable for the natural sciences, but in human affairs, it can only contribute, not dominate. In the impersonality of nature, indeed, an accurate abstraction of the part from the whole can rightly be considered a faithful representation of the Whole itself, if it reproduces its properties. However, humanity has an ontological surplus that prevents such an approach. Consciousness and volition are inseparable from the place and time in which they are immersed. It is not feasible to isolate individuals, study them in a laboratory, and from them derive universal laws that would hold for the past and the future. Thus, contrary to common belief today, the concrete is the whole because only when immersed in the entirety does it reveal its true nature; while separation from the context, the construction of the “case,” and the partiality of observation lead to mere abstractions. These are not falsehoods, but the plausible, hence the non-true. It is clear, then, that the totality of being can only be grasped with the totality of knowing, that is, through knowledge that observes being from various angles and through reason that synthesizes the parts, recognizing them as participants in the determination of the Whole.

 

 

 

 

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

A Philosophy of Geopolitics

Part II

 

The neglect of substantial plurality precedes a deontological approach to historical action that denies any normative significance to any semantics of interest. The choice of “semantics” is deliberate: what we commonly encounter is a widespread aversion to a normative sense that is embodied in a subjectivity, or in a design, preceding the specific meaning conveyed by any particular historical interest. Every productive impulse, and thus every theoretical justification for it, which finds its essential basis in a specific historical reality, is systematically stripped of any normative prerogative, hence any ethical character, the right to be included in a properly ethical discourse. Looking back, what might appear as an externality in a discourse of self-understanding of the historical subject is in fact a natural corollary: how to establish an ethical claim on a postulated reality? If the very existence of a particular historical reality is accidental, incidental, and almost necessarily an obstacle to any anthropological optimism, how can its value be recognized in a sense that is inherently intersubjective and often universally so? Moreover, while it might be strong to claim, thinking of Aristotle, that every ethics is an “ontoteleology”, the thought of ethics cannot be divorced from the thought of its field of application, particularly the subject that realizes it within that field. What, then, is the ethics, or rather, the field of ethics, that the thought of our epoch suggests to us? Perhaps by filling the argument with the typically Western content of entrenched rationalism, we are directed towards an ethically normative sense of truth. Truth must command: in this preliminary and purely abstract sense, the postmodernists have offered a truly effective critical reading. Ultimately, despite some voluntarist deviations, the West and Western thought have based their philosophy of praxis on analysis, on the (presumed?) ethical power of fact, of truth. The ups and downs of ethical intellectualism? Perhaps it is more accurate to speak of its depowered version, lacking the psychological assumptions universally imposed by the Socratic precedent. In any case, we are inclined to conceive of political action as directly emanating from the “right principles” (here too, we refer to Sieyes) and their more or less precise possession. “Auctoritas, non veritas, facit legem” is typically suspended as the cynical muttering of the darkest of philosophers, or occasionally applied as an interpretative lens to the status quo of countries that do not enjoy our certification of civilization. We prefer the faith-based, justificatory reference to a meta-historical, and thus meta-empirical, reality that would inevitably crown a political praxis consistent with it, thereby reversing the order of causes, which requires a deontological code as the luxury afforded by fulfilling one’s key strategic duties.
If political action results from the accessibility or, conversely, the obfuscation of political principles, it nonetheless means that there is a gradation among political realities that populate history. We indeed have a thematization of subjectivity, but only from these premises, which provide just enough space for a transient subjectivity, oriented towards its own obsolescence. Thus, the nation-State, protagonist of the modern saga despite hasty announcements of its demise. The State remains, however, only a significant example of a broader cultural text that develops around the theme of subjectivity. Kant’s famous response to the question of what Enlightenment is—man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity—illustrates a historical sense of subtraction, of clarification, of a fundamentally deconstructive and fundamentally cognitive work. Years later, a thinker aligned with quite different positions, Joseph De Maistre, will lament the historically deconstructive, diabolical significance of those philosophes, whom he never distinctly separates from the political protagonists of the French Revolution. Rightly so. The first revolution to be exported was not the Bolshevik one, but the French revolution; the ideological meaning of this export is to restore man to himself, against the powers of the old order that hold him hostage. Modernity delivers us a formally transient subjectivity, as a vector that ferries man outside of history. The specific content of this form is a pedagogical, educational content. It is futile to enumerate the ideal of civilization that guided the Age of Empires. However, with the reductio ad Americam of the West, this imaginary has been replaced by that, quite sensible, of the global policeman. A minimal discontinuity, certainly, but perhaps still imprecise. The fundamental ideological cipher remains not so much to punish but to educate, often combined in the illusion that imposing a minimal moralia will steer the course of things towards the inevitable arrival of the other at oneself. A “Foucauldian” policeman, who imposes discipline only because he is interested in the educational and productive sense it embodies. A policeman who can produce a discipline that stands on its own, well aware of the right principles that sustain it. A policeman who, therefore, has a historical task that on paper remains transient, occasional.


Geopolitics embodies a profoundly different epistemology. Truth finds its place only in the mapping of reality, but it plays no leading role. Or rather, it plays no unifying, distinguishing role. It does not animate history. In the analytical practice, truth is dethroned, sidelined; mapping reality means identifying the conflicting interests that traverse it, maintaining a decisive agnosticism about the real possibilities of sacrificing them in the name of a rational, communicative type of pacification. For such an approach, everything is equally legitimate: emotion, symbolism, irrationality. Everything that exists in reality, concerning which, we repeat, the observer’s task is merely one of simple mapping. The meta-empirical approach is disavowed, belittled. The only truth is the effective truth.
The conditions for such a pure fidelity to historical matter lie in the recognition of the substantial nature of the subjectivities that comprise it. This fits within a broader approach that loses all meta-historical trust, all eschatological deformation. Beyond history, nothing. The historical fact derives its legitimacy from itself, and relations with history are finally pacified. The only law is the ability to impose oneself, hence the accusations of cynicism directed at geopolitics. This too is an epistemological approach: it is not an exact science to be contrasted with the pseudoscience of modern political philosophy and its sole surviving offshoot, the liberal variant.
Geopolitics presents at a unique moment the alternative to the dual problematic of subjectivity developed earlier. By recognizing an absolute value in the subjectivities that populate history, by disavowing any possibility of misinterpreting them as “mis-leadings” or of arranging them according to a hierarchy of legitimacy, it recognizes their plurality. Plurality and substantiality, therefore. The possibility of imagining a monistic meta-history vanishes, on the one hand because monism is a myth, and on the other because the demystification of this myth precisely passes through the idea of the perennial, plural, and conflictual fabric of history. That, in turn, presupposes the rejection of any “outside” of history: it is for this reason that geopolitics embodies the long-awaited overcoming of the post-historical posture that, rightly, all culturally sensible realities diagnose in Europe in general, and Italy in particular.
We repeat: the dualism between the current thought and geopolitics is not that between a pseudoscience and a science. Geopolitics is not the philosopher’s stone or a rigorous science: like all historical disciplines, it is rough and imprecise. Beyond its predictive outcomes, it is not premature to suggest the cultural import of the advancing epistemology it represents. Namely, not because, as a science, it will make its way by dint of scientific successes, but because, if it is true that the succession of worldviews is the result of the succession of historical periods, geopolitics may represent a vision more suited to the historical phase we are preparing to face. In the hope of confronting it with adequate concepts, for not knowing how to think reality is equivalent to not knowing how to inhabit it.

 

 

 

 

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

A Philosophy of Geopolitics

Part I

 

The increased prominence of geopolitics is readily observable, as evidenced by the substantial airtime devoted to this subject in recent television broadcasts. This resurgence is predominantly lexical, a development of significant import considering that our cognitive frameworks are shaped by the extent of our lexicon, as substantiated by Heidegger’s profound analyses. Notably, this lexical revival eschews Anglicisms, marking it as an exceptional trend. The question arises: is this surge in interest merely a temporal anomaly or does it signify a fundamental transformation in our cultural paradigm? To engage with this understated debate, it is indeed beneficial to contemplate the structural demands of our society that may be driving the rejuvenation of geopolitical discourse.
History was scarcely proclaimed to have ended when declarations of its resurgence began to surface, highlighted by events in 2001, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2020, and 2022, with terrorism, China, Putin, Israel, and intermittently Covid-19 being identified as central figures. These assertions aim to awaken Italy and Europe from the soporific embrace of postmodernity, yet they falter in pinpointing a definitive event that reawakens our historical consciousness. No event conveniently lends itself to a singular interpretation, and it is a fallacy of realism to assume a transparent epistemological clarity of historical occurrences. The real tragedy is our diminished capacity to ascribe historical and strategic significance to events, indicative of an atrophied historical sensibility. Cultural issues of posture cannot be resolved with expedient solutions, yet a gradual disintegration of the myth of post-history might be emerging. The concept of “longue durée,” largely overlooked by those preoccupied with the immediate, who confuse data for outcomes, could potentially disrupt our complacency.
We will not “return” to history; rather, we will come to recognize that we are still enveloped within it. This acknowledgment is fundamentally a cultural endeavour, wherein the future relevance and viability of geopolitics become pertinent. As a unique instance, and more crucially, as an indication of cultural reform rather than a revolution, this recognition will not be without discomfort. Moving beyond the simplistic reductions promoted by a certain brand of populist empiricism that champions fact-checking as a cure-all and views various disciplines as mere collections of data, we must accept that it is the modes of thought and the theoretical assumptions that orient our focus and interpretation of reality that constitute the spiritual core of a civilization. Thomas Kuhn might describe this as a shift in “paradigms.” The crucial question then becomes: where will necessary changes concentrate, and which cultural forms are currently impeding the development of geopolitics?
Understanding the methodology of prevailing thought, which we term “epochal thought,” involves outlining the self-concept it engenders. An epistemological reform, deemed essential for the advancement of geopolitics and as a precondition for it, must start with a comprehensive reassessment of the self-representation that underlies and influences our historical narrative. Every philosophy of history, and every historiographical philosophy, features a protagonist. In our case, this role is assumed by the “prehistoric individual” (distinct from “prehistorical”). This concept, vigorously discussed in various texts including the fifth chapter of the pamphlet “What is the Third Estate?” by abbé Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, occupies a central position in much of modern political philosophy. The prehistoric individual is described as pre-collective, pre-ideological, and sometimes pre-linguistic, yet almost never pre-economic. “Prehistoric” might be the most apt description, as this idea stems from the philosophical tradition of conjectural history, predominantly Enlightenment in nature. This tradition, while indirectly critiquing gaps in historiography, primarily explores the potential to identify the “nature” of humans, purportedly external to history. On one hand, this surpasses historiography for situational reasons; on the other, it subtly undermines it by replacing it with a methodology believed to more accurately address the question of human nature. This approach, deeply rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, aimed to remove the mystifying contingencies from the contemplation of a truer reality. The contemporary use of this age-old practice in modern political philosophy has led to the “accidentalization” of history. Much of the current philosophical and political discourse is essentially a commentary on the notion of the “end of history,” which is often misconceived as an event rather than a concept. Indeed, the end of history is perpetually imminent, given our prehistoric or, more precisely, ahistorical anthropological philosophy, which is inherently monistic. We routinely dismiss the qualitative distinctions that define history, which are its essence and dynamic force, as mere contingencies. It could be provocatively argued that modernity has left us with an anti-philosophy of history. The legacy of a de-objectified humanity, never the creator of its own nature, remains ensnared in the ceaseless stasis of its own inertia—a shadow more tangible than reality itself, blind to the distinctions crafted by human agency.

 

 

 

 

 

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

Introduction to Geopolitics

A Philosophical Reflection

 

Geopolitics, a term that evokes the image of global chessboards on which nations move and interact, represents a field of study that transcends mere territorial or political analysis. At its deepest core, it is a philosophical reflection on the nature of power, identity, and collective existence within the global context. This introduction aims to explore the philosophical dimensions inherent in geopolitics, prompting a more nuanced and reflective understanding of the events and strategies that shape our world.
Geopolitics is a multifaceted discipline that intertwines the fixed reality of geography with the dynamic ambitions of global politics, painting a broad canvas that illuminates the strategic manoeuvres nations deploy as they navigate power, influence, and survival on the world stage. This discipline not only considers how physical spaces—mountains, rivers, seas, and natural resources—dictate political possibilities and limitations but also how these geographical factors are leveraged in the quest for geopolitical dominance.
At the heart of philosophical reflection on geopolitics lies the question of power: what is power, who holds it, and how is it exercised on a global scale? Power, in this context, is understood not only in terms of military or economic capability but also as cultural, ideological, and informational power. Thus, geopolitics is configured as the study of power dynamics in an interconnected world, where the actions of one nation can influence, directly or indirectly, the lives of individuals on the other side of the globe.
Another fundamental aspect is identity. Nations, like people, possess complex and multifaceted identities, shaped by history, culture, and relationships with others. These identities play a crucial role in international politics, as they influence perceptions, national interests, and actions on the world stage. Geopolitics thus invites us to consider how collective identities are formed, clash, and transform over time, offering a lens through which to examine the conflicts, alliances, and negotiations that characterize international relations.
Finally, geopolitics challenges us to reflect on human collective existence in an era of globalization. In an increasingly interconnected world, issues of sovereignty, autonomy, and interdependence become increasingly complex and nuanced. Philosophical geopolitics invites us to explore these tensions, asking fundamental questions about the nature of the global order, international justice and human rights, and how we can build a shared future that respects diversity and promotes peace.
The philosophical exploration of geopolitics invites us to ponder deeper existential and ethical questions concerning power, territory, and human intent, drawing from the rich intellectual traditions of several key philosophers.


In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes posits that human life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” a state of perpetual conflict that mirrors the relentless competition seen in international relations. His notion that the fear of violent death necessitates the establishment of a powerful sovereign can be analogized to the ways States seek security and power in an anarchic international system.
John Locke is known for his thoughts on government, property, and the social contract. His philosophies are essential for understanding the legitimacy of State power and its roots in the management and ownership of land. Locke’s theories directly relate to how nations justify their geopolitical strategies and claims, emphasizing the importance of consent and rightful authority in the stewardship of resources.
Immanuel Kant proposed that geographical boundaries and the size of a political body affect the governance structure and its representation of the people. His views in Perpetual Peace suggest a subtle acknowledgment of geopolitical constraints and opportunities, articulating a framework where peace can be systematically envisioned and pursued through international cooperation and shared norms.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” underscores a fundamental drive in human behaviour that extends to the behaviour of States. Nietzsche’s ideas illuminate the underlying motivations for geopolitical actions, where nations are seen as entities in constant struggle for dominance or survival, driven by a deep-seated will to assert and expand their influence.
The integration of these philosophical perspectives offers a deeper understanding of the strategic behaviours exhibited on the global stage. Whether it’s in the distribution of critical resources, the strategic placement of military bases, or the formation of powerful alliances, the philosophical underpinnings of geopolitics highlight the inherent conflicts and negotiations that define international relations.
By considering these philosophical views, we gain insights into the enduring nature of power struggles, the ethical dimensions of territorial disputes, and the continuous impact of geographical realities on political decisions. These perspectives not only enrich our understanding of current geopolitical dynamics but also help us foresee how shifts in power and geography might shape the future global order.
This broader, more nuanced approach to geopolitics, enriched with philosophical inquiry, encourages a more comprehensive reflection on the reasons nations act as they do and the possible paths towards cooperation or conflict. It challenges us to critically assess the driving forces behind geopolitical strategies and to contemplate the long-term impacts of these actions on global peace and stability.
In conclusion, approaching geopolitics from a philosophical perspective allows us to go beyond superficial analysis of global events, prompting us to question the very bases of our coexistence on the planet. It challenges us to think critically about power structures, identity, and interdependence, thus providing the tools to better understand and, perhaps, positively influence the complex dynamics that shape our world.

 

 

 

 

Un cortocircuito filosofico che alimenta la guerra

 

di

Gabriele Zuppa

 

 

Ci sono delle categorie, delle questioni fondamentali che stanno alla base di ogni discorso, l’ignoranza delle quali porta a degli errori che non sono legati alla situazione empirica particolare, ma a qualsiasi situazione – all’analisi stessa delle situazioni possibili…

Continua a leggere l’articolo

 

 

 

 

Europa e Cina sotto le lenti dei filosofi di ieri e di oggi

 

di

Andrea Cimarelli

 

Odi et amo. È forse questa l’espressione che meglio di tutte riesce a cogliere la natura del rapporto tra Occidente e Oriente, per lo meno per come lo si percepisce da Occidente. Tutto, e il suo contrario, contemporaneamente. Come nella dottrina dei contrari di Eraclito, questi due momenti del mondo vivono una perenne contrapposizione – ieri più geografica e culturale, oggi economica e politica – all’interno della quale però, in sporadici punti di contatto, hanno saputo scoprirsi molto più simili di quanto non potesse sembrare…

Continua a leggere l’articolo

 

 

 

Empires and Nations: convergence or divergence?

 

by

Krishan Kumar

 

 

It has long been the conventional wisdom that nations and empires are rivals, sworn enemies. The principle of nationalism is homogeneity, often seen in ethnic terms. Nations strive to embody, or to produce, a common culture. They express a radical egalitarianism: all members of the nation are in principle equal, all partake of the common national “soul”. Nations moreover are intensely particularistic…

Continua a leggere l’articolo

 

 

 

L’impossibilità dell’unificazione europea e il superstato tecnico

 

di

Maurizio Morini

 

Sono molti i libri nei quali Emanuele Severino ha scritto sull’Europa e sulle prospettive dell’unificazione europea. Spesso si tratta di raccolte di articoli pubblicati sul Corriere della Sera dove il filosofo bresciano commentava periodicamente fatti e vicende della politica nazionale e internazionale. Fin dagli scritti riassunti in Gli abitatori del tempo del 1978 e poi in Téchne, il saggio sulle radici della violenza apparso l’anno successivo, è sembrato subito chiaro che…

Continua a leggere l’articolo

 

 

 

Il ruolo del Mediterraneo nella geopolitica e nella geostrategia

 

Parte XII

 

Conclusioni

 

Si può concludere che il “Mediterraneo allargato” continuerà a rappresentare, sotto il profilo geopolitico e geostrategico, il paradigma dei contrasti e dei conflitti, che si manifesteranno sul teatro globale. La stabilità dell’area mediterranea, inoltre, dipenderà anche dal successo, o meno, delle politiche di consolidamento della democrazia e della cooperazione economica allo sviluppo, che la sponda Nord e, in particolare, l’UE riusciranno a realizzare, in un nuovo spirito di collaborazione paritaria con le democrazie nascenti. In linea teorica, gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno concordato sulla necessità di appoggiare, senza indugi, i processi di pacifica transizione politica, che si sono manifestati nel Nord Africa e nel Vicino Oriente, e sulla revisione, in senso migliorativo, delle politiche mediterranee di cooperazione e di sviluppo. Bisogna riconoscere, tuttavia, che, dai confronti in atto, tra gli Stati membri UE, si va affermando, non tanto una radicale ed innovativa riforma delle politiche mediterranee, tanto attesa, quanto un’opzione di miglioramento, di rafforzamento e di aggiornamento delle stesse (rafforzamento della PEV; trasformazione dell’UPM, superando il conflitto fallimentare tra il secondo pilastro – collaborazione politica e di sicurezza – e gli altri pilastri – collaborazione economica e culturale), senza la modifica della logica esistente. Non prevale l’applicazione, con rigore e coerenza, del criterio della condizionabilità, del criterio di sostegno preferenziale del settore privato dell’economia e del criterio della minore interferenza negli orientamenti politici e religiosi, che si affermeranno, tramite libere elezioni. In particolare, mentre si preannunciano continue ondate di immigrazione clandestina, ancora non si afferma, in sede comunitaria, l’urgente necessità di individuare una comune e coerente politica della mobilità e dell’immigrazione nell’area mediterranea. Sul tema dell’immigrazione, legale e clandestina, permane una visione fortemente conservatrice, per cui si manifesta più la disponibilità ad aumentare le risorse finanziarie per fronteggiare l’assistenza ai migranti, piuttosto che la reale volontà di definire una politica europea dell’immigrazione, che venga sostenuta non solo dai paesi di frontiera della sponda Nord del Mediterraneo, ma da tutti gli Stati membri dell’UE. Questa incertezza dell’UE condiziona anche una visione unitaria su come affrontare altri teatri di crisi, come la Siria. Allo stesso modo, l’UE non sembra sufficientemente pronta ad affrontare ed a risolvere le questioni che si pongono, con l’emergere di nuovi importanti attori della scena internazionale, come la Cina, l’India e i paesi del Golfo. Sarebbe necessaria una radicale riforma delle politiche mediterranee, una nuova logica, che inquadri il “Mediterraneo allargato” non come un’area separata dalle altre aree, specie quelle immediatamente adiacenti. Non è più possibile separare il Mediterraneo dal Medio Oriente, anche perché crescente risulta, sulla regione, l’influenza dell’Iran, del Qatar, degli Emirati Arabi Uniti e del Kuwait. La nuova politica euro-mediterranea, a mio giudizio, dovrà essere non solo migliorata, ma riformata radicalmente, tenendo presente le interrelazioni con il Medio Grande Oriente.

 

 

Il ruolo del Mediterraneo nella geopolitica e nella geostrategia

 

Parte XI

 

Una radicale riforma delle politiche mediterranee dell’UE

 

 

Prima di accennare alle possibili linee di una radicale riforma delle politiche mediterranee della UE, può risultare utile approfondire le ragioni di fondo di quel disagio sociale, che ha determinato la crisi di alcuni regimi autoritari del Nord Africa. La precarietà delle condizioni economiche investe vastissimi strati sociali e colpisce tutte le generazioni, con una particolare gravità le più giovani. Le famiglie si sono impoverite e i giovani sembrano non aver altra prospettiva che sfidare, su un gommone, il Mediterraneo per emigrare, anche clandestinamente, anche a costo di perdere la vita. Se il tasso della disoccupazione giovanile nel mondo è del 14,5%, nel mondo arabo arriva al 30% ed incide al 51% sulla disoccupazione totale. E, paradossalmente, la disoccupazione della gioventù araba colpisce di più i diplomati ed i laureati.  Questa situazione è destinata ad aggravarsi, anche in Algeria, che, pur beneficiando delle risorse energetiche, a differenza dei paesi petroliferi del Golfo, non produce sviluppo economico e sociale (disoccupazione giovanile al 46% e, sul quella totale, fino al 70%). Non mancano attese ed aspettative di miglioramento del clima sociale, per effetto della svolta che sarà impressa dai regimi democratici, che hanno sostituito quelli autoritari caduti, ma nessuno si può aspettare, a breve, un’inversione netta di tendenza, in materia di sviluppo economico, di lotta alla corruzione e di epurazione delle classi dirigenti responsabili del “sacco cleptocratico”. Riusciranno i responsabili delle nuove democrazie arabe ad imporre le riforme politiche necessarie ed a migliorare le condizioni economiche e sociali oppure, come ammoniva Alexis de Tocqueville, saranno travolti o si trasformeranno, anch’essi, in regimi oppressivi? Naturalmente, l’UE non può rimanere a guardare, anche perché il ruolo dei paesi della sponda Nord e delle organizzazioni economiche internazionali risulta determinante. Le discussioni, tra i membri UE, su come riformulare e su come rafforzare la politica euro-mediterranea, hanno almeno indicato i principali obiettivi da conseguire: 1) l’istitution-bulding: trasformazione democratica e consolidamento delle istituzioni; 2) un più forte collegamento operativo nella cooperazione con le popolazioni; 3) una crescita economica sostenibile ed equa. Altro discorso riguarda le modalità per perseguire questi obiettivi trasversali e che passano per: il criterio di differenziazione dei partner; il criterio di condizionabilità per le incentivazioni, chi dimostrerà di saper ben fare, riceverà di più (more for more); il criterio dell’estensione a tutti i partner dello statuto avanzato e il criterio del rafforzamento del dialogo politico, multilaterale e bilaterale, non solo con i governi, ma anche con le espressioni della società civile, anche per non cadere, di nuovo, nella trappola del sostegno a regimi autoritari, concepiti come bastioni della minaccia terroristica islamista. I fondamenti della riforma delle politiche mediterranee dell’UE sono: la promozione della democrazia e il sostegno ai processi di transizione nel Nord Africa, con politiche coerenti a tali obiettivi; il miglioramento qualitativo del sostegno economico, con una particolare attenzione al rafforzamento dei sistemi di istruzione e di formazione e alle aspirazioni socio-economiche delle popolazioni (un lavoro, un reddito, infrastrutture sociali); il bilanciamento delle iniziative di sviluppo tra i governi, che spesso si sono appropriati delle risorse a fini di arricchimenti personali, ed i privati e, laddove esistenti, le espressioni della società civile; il perseguimento diretto del benessere delle popolazioni, con programmi mirati; una politica unitaria dell’UE in materia di immigrazione e di immigrazione clandestina; il finanziamento e l’assistenza finanziaria per progetti infrastrutturali, anche privati; la realizzazione di una governance multilaterale dell’area mediterranea, conflitto arabo-israeliano e processi di transizione in atto, permettendo. Il ruolo della UE nel “Mediterraneo allargato” dipenderà anche dal futuro della NATO e dal rapporto tra l’UE e gli Stati Uniti. La trasformazione, cioè, della “pax americana” nella “pax cum America”, la quale, secondo alcuni autorevoli studiosi, sarebbe possibile solo se l’Unione Europea riuscisse a raggiungere un livello di coesione politica e una volontà di ricorrere, quando necessario, all’impiego della forza militare, tali da potersi trasformare in un partner credibile, affidabile ed efficace degli Stati Uniti.