Categoria: English version

One of the effects of coronavirus, in addition to the health emergency, is the increase in poverty and the consequent food shortage for several countries, which, despite a situation of poverty, had not yet been hit by food shortages. The magnitude of the problem concerns the number of people who have been affected by the food shortage: a growing number that already amounts to several million people. The United Nations food agency, which has assisted 97 million people in 2019, plans to help 138 million people by 2020. As we can see, it is a huge dimension, whose growth coincided with the shift of the pandemic from the rich to the poor countries of the world. The current absence of the vaccine prevents us from managing a situation that borders on chaos and that could degenerate, at local level, into unrest but that could affect the world globally through a massive increase in migration. Especially in this second case, the rich countries would be invested, which have shown a poor aptitude for managing the problem also due to the onset of nationalist movements, whose main purpose is precisely the refusal of immigrants. The global contraction of wealth is generating a progressive closure that feeds the increase in inequalities, a phenomenon that also affects rich countries, but which has the greatest repercussions among poor ones. Food assistance no longer includes only the poorest nations, where populations were already victims of food famines for climatic reasons and due to the presence of armed conflicts, but now also concerns nations that had economies slightly above that of subsistence or which they were going through an early industrialization phase. The economic blockade imposed by the pandemic has resulted in the contraction of the ability to find primary goods, food, causing increasing malnutrition, which must be fought first of all for health reasons and then for social and political reasons, including international politics, such as it is seen. The United Nations agency operates, with its support projects, in 83 countries, but needs continuous funding whose needs grow hand in hand with the increase in infections. At this time, to support the effort of the United Nations agency, funding of 4.9 billion dollars is needed only for the next six months; the appeal for the raising of this sum was launched above all towards the rich countries, which would have all the political convenience to support this initiative, but who will have to overcome the internal resistance often represented by right-wing and populist formations. The data to reflect on is that by the end of the year people who will need food support could reach 270 million, with an increase of eighty-two percent compared to the period preceding the advent of the pandemic; moreover, since 2016, the repercussions of the economic crises, climate change and wars have recorded a 70% increase in those who suffer materially from the effects of the decrease or absence of the availability of food. It is understandable that in such a scenario, the fallout from the pandemic has produced an acceleration in the growth of hunger in the world. Currently the health consequences of the pandemic have the greatest effects on the theme of food shortages in the territories of Latin America, where in urban areas, not in the countryside, the loss of a large number of jobs combined with the drop in remittances from emigrants has resulted in a high need for food assistance. It can be understood how an economy that is tending to subsistence poses future problems also for the rich countries that had large market shares in these territories, for their commercial products. But, for the future, the African continent is worrying, on the eve of the monsoon season, the agricultural sector is already compromised by the invasion of locusts and the situation of the pandemic appears to be growing, despite the problem of finding secure official data. The increase of 135% of African people who are in a critical food situation requires an effort by western countries that can no longer be postponed, but to be effective it will only have to be a first step of a larger project, based on international cooperation for ensure effective food independence for African countries.

China is afraid of Hong Kong’s democratic pressures, a fear that affects both the former British colony and the rest of the country. For Beijing it is essential to be able to have political stability in order not to have repercussions on the economic and social levels. The fear of emulations over a territory grappling with vast areas of dissidence, has accelerated the approval of the new national security law, which thus comes into force almost on the occasion of the twenty-third anniversary of the passage of the former colony under the sovereignty of Beijing. It matters little if the pacts with London were different: the much vaunted formula of one country, two systems, ends with the promulgation of this law. In its about seventy articles there are all the legal formulas to crush any democratic ambition. The 162 members of the legislative part of the Chinese parliament, the National People’s Congress, have unanimously approved the law in tribute to the wishes of the leader of China, who now has all the legal coverage to be able to act against those who demand democratic reforms and against whom is opposed to the government in charge, clearly pro-Chinese. The law expresses the sentence of life imprisonment and also the possibility of being judged no longer in Hong Kong but on Chinese territory. It is clear how the intention is to impose a preventive deterrence against dissent. China continues to consider the Hong Kong issue as an exclusively internal factor, comparing the situation of the former British colony with the same need to crush the resistance of the Chinese Islamic populations or even the Tibetan issue. We must recognize what is obvious: the seriousness of the lack of human rights guarantees is the sad common fact, which many states should reflect on, before accepting Chinese funding too easily, however Hong Kong is far from a mere matter internal as Beijing claims, the cession treaty, which China signed, until 2047 provided for the application of the one-state two-system model, contravening this also leads to a defect towards the United Kingdom, the other signatory to the agreement. The first effect, which must be framed in a retaliatory move towards Beijing, was the action of the United States, which began to withdraw the special status that Hong Kong has enjoyed since 1992 and was granted by Washington to promote trade, especially financial. The Chinese state has always used the former colony, precisely by virtue of this status, to carry out its commercial and financial transactions abroad and these prohibitions affect Beijing in a particularly delicate sector in a difficult moment. This has increased the tension between China and the USA, while the Chinese country has been urged by several parties to find a solution capable of maintaining its international commitments; while the United Nations has expressed concern about the violation of human rights. The United Kingdom has long been assessing the granting of three million British passports to Hong Kong citizens who qualify for them; the possibility of becoming British citizens has also been maintained with the passage of the former colony, thanks to the recognition of the status of citizen of British dependencies. The new legal path, developed by the English premier, provides that the visa can be extended from six to twelve months. Potentially this means that Chinese authorities could arrest British citizens and subject them to legal proceedings and penalties even outside of Hong Kong. This could trigger international disputes capable of developing very serious diplomatic conflicts and with consequences that are difficult to predict. Other very harsh reactions have come from Taiwan, which is a party because China considers Formosa to be part of its territory, Japan, South Korea and the European Union. Despite this, China is willing to sacrifice financial advantages and run the risk of difficult relations with London, to eradicate dissent and guarantee authoritarian political stability. It is another example of how China is moving, an example that no western but also African state should keep in mind when entering into contracts with Beijing. The fate is to deal more and more closely with a country where respect for rights and democracy is not contemplated: it is an interlocutor who is not reliable.

The question of annexation of some Palestinian territories enters a very delicate phase and risks becoming a trap for its main supporter, the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The implications are, of course, of an internal nature, but the already very important international relevance is destined to grow, while there are also possible social repercussions on the Palestinian inhabitants of the annexed areas. Internationally, the greatest risk is that relations, albeit unofficial, laboriously built with Sunni countries, will undergo a negative turn, a development that is highly dangerous for the maintenance of the unofficial alliance built against Iran. Tehran remains the main danger for Israel and the support of the Gulf monarchies is necessary not only from a political point of view but also from a military one. However, international opposition is not limited to Sunni countries, even the ambassadors to the United Nations of China and Russia have expressed their opposition to the possible annexation, thus reaffirming their closeness to the Palestinians. Of course, it is also a political calculation that includes aversion to the United States, but not only. For Moscow, close to Syria and therefore Iran, it is a question of making the international scene complicated for Tel Aviv. The position of the European Union, with some exceptions, is then well known and for Israel the policy of annexation could only mean political censorship and trade sanctions. On the other hand, the Israeli country does not appear compact at this appointment: if the right-wing parties and the movements close to the settlers support the Netanyahu plan, there is a vast front of opposites present in the civil society of Israel due to the evaluation of the reasons of opportunity and convenience, which of declared political opposition. A need to hurry the annexations would also be dictated by Trump’s uncertain stay in the White House, in fact in case of defeat of the outgoing president, a totally opposite consideration of the problem by the Democrats is considered highly probable. On the Palestinian side, apart from the obvious threats from Gaza, which would see a greater commitment of the army in the repression, with a further negative impact on the image of the country, the real risk is the implosion of the Palestinian Authority, caused by the inability to defend territories from annexation; a loss of authority, which can also result in the loss of an interlocutor, who despite the distance, can still guarantee a work of fundamental mediation at a time when there is strong resentment from a large part of Palestinian society, but also where it is registered the possible liking of the Palestinians residing in the annexed colonies to take on Israeli citizenship. In reality, this possibility is not at all guaranteed, especially if the line of creating a country strongly identified with Jewish values ​​should prevail. For all these reasons, respecting the set date has become difficult, even if solutions with less impact have been thought of, such as a symbolic annexation capable of reaffirming sovereignty, already effectively guaranteed by the presence of the army, on the colonized territories. In agreement with the United States, Netanyahu has decided to suspend the annexation of the colonies to have a more favorable moment. The slowdown of the issue seems to be shared also by the American ambassador and therefore by the Trump administration, which has promoted a rapprochement between the Israeli premier and the defense minister, the leader of the white blue party, who in two years will take the place of the head of the government. The recent statements by the head of the ministry of defense have expressed their willingness to postpone the date of annexation on the grounds of the pandemic state that is passing through the Israeli country; these claims irritated Netanyahu who had called the defense minister with no say in the matter. It is understandable how the Israeli leader wants to make the annexation, also as a reason for distraction from his judicial misadventures, however the danger of a new political instability has alerted the USA, which has favored the extension of the deadline and a meeting between the two leaders of the government parties. At the moment it seems that the worst enemies of the annexation are not the Palestinians but the Israelis themselves.

If Europe is slowly emerging from the emergency of the pandemic, the problem of disinformation campaigns, spread through the network, coming from other states, continues to be present and represents a destabilizing factor within a population that is not in able to filter the large mass of information available. Essentially the phenomenon can be divided into two main parts: the first concerns non-institutional propaganda, which is expressed through the action of companies formally not expressions of governments, but which their work makes functional to the national institutions of origin, although these do not officially recognize them. The second strand, on the contrary, refers precisely to characters who hold institutional positions and do their work of disinformation through official channels. The first group includes organizations, above all, Chinese and Russian, which carry out real disinformation campaigns with the aim of influencing and directing European public opinion towards favorable provisions in Moscow and Beijing. The lack of official channels provokes the Russian and Chinese governments from formal accusations, because these sources are officially disregarded by the executives accused of being the instigators of the false news. In addition to the intention to improve its image internationally, the main intentions are to compromise the democratic debate by favoring the most extreme positions and therefore increase the division present in European societies, where the greatest consequence has been the birth of sovereignty and the anti-Europeanism, which resulted in the most significant consequences produced by the false information campaigns. After all, even before the pandemic, the incessant action of the hackers had developed above all on the occasion of the election appointments to direct the vote towards solutions deemed more favorable for undemocratic states. The pandemic offered an even easier way to try to influence public opinion, especially regarding the alleged real responsibilities of the times, ways and causes of the spread of the infection. The Chinese attitude, in this sense, has raised several concerns about the origin of the infection and its effective containment, especially in the initial stages, which has caused a defensive attitude of the Beijing government, often implemented with dubious tactics. These actions must be framed in broader policies that can be considered as real acts of hostility towards countries where democratic orders are in place and therefore potentially harmful to regimes that have problems with internal dissent. Attempts to occult destabilization must make those who are members of the European Union reflect, both at the individual nation level and as a whole, on the real loyalty of states that attempt to boycott them. This must apply both politically and commercially, because entering into ever closer agreements with non-loyal countries can facilitate the job of introducing organizations that attempt destabilization. For Brussels, the conditions have now been created for implementing forms of cyber defense at Community level, which require more substantial budgets. Prevention must be at the source, that is, in contrast to these organizations, since adequate education of internet users is almost impossible for age groups already over forty years of age and can only be undertaken with careful training aimed at older age groups Young people. However, the high average age of the European populations and the scarce habit of discerning the news, which has come with an increasingly pushed use of new technologies, also at the working level, constitutes a facilitation of the penetration of false and misleading news. This condition also facilitates false news that comes from institutional profiles, the most striking examples of which are the US President, Trump and the Brazilian one, Bolsonaro. Often the internet user does not distinguish personal opinion from false news and what, in the end, is only an opinion, becomes misleading information. The theme here is to use institutional channels to provoke repercussions also on foreign states; the contrast to these operations, in some ways, is even more difficult because the only possible contrast is to ensure an official response that is contrary and punctual, capable of involving the same audience. The game concerning the network and the search for countermeasures to disinformation are played on these plans.

The Libyan war shows no sign of stopping. Despite the Egyptian proposal, by a government that is part of the cause of the conflict, of a truce, the fighting continues and the current situation seems to be favorable to the forces of Favez al-Serraj and the government of Tripoli. The Libyan National Army and its leader Khalifa Haftar are losing ground. In reality, the Egyptian attempt must be framed in the logic of the Libyan conflict, which has become a sort of proxy war, behind which different interests are hidden and even superior to the actors directly involved. Turkey has lined up alongside Tripoli, always in a frantic search to create its own area of ​​geopolitical influence and Qatar, which moves to counter the interests of its opponents in the Persian Gulf, while to support the Libyan National Army there are Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Cairo’s main interest is to extend its hegemony in the Libyan part bordering the Egyptian country; but the advance of Tripoli is frustrating this aspiration and the unsuccessful attempt to seek a truce with the aim of gaining time demonstrates how Egyptian aspirations must be reduced. The Libyan one promises to be a defeat also for the western states, especially for Italy, which would see their influence diminished in a strategic area of ​​the Mediterranean, both for energy issues and because Libya is the door where the major flows pass of illegal immigration to Europe, a potentially very high power in terms of blackmail and capable of influencing the delicate balances existing between the countries of the European Union. The special observation is Turkey, which after having failed Erdogan’s project to recreate the Ottoman influence zone, tries to take on a primary role in the Mediterranean capable of giving it relevance as a medium regional power. Seen from a European perspective, Turkish initiative appears dangerous, because, first of all, if it is associated with the current American logic of detachment from the Mediterranean, Ankara would have the opportunity to exercise its role without Washington’s counterweight. It should be remembered that Turkey’s political and military action is characterized by an unprejudiced use of Islamic fundamentalists and radicals, as seen in Syria; also in Libya the presence of these paramilitary formations constitutes the main support for the government of Tripoli, which indicates a way of doubtful value for the security of European investments and as regards the possible management of migratory flows. For now, in addition to the Libyan National Army, the military militias that survived the fall of Gaddafi, which have been the main cause of Libyan instability, have been defeated. But to better frame the general situation, the role of the USA and Russia must also be considered; the former, already with the Obama presidency and then with that of Trump, which was its continuation in a foreign policy without changes, preferred to focus on fighting China in the Pacific regions and only a new president could reverse this trend by giving back to the Mediterranean its importance in the world chessboard. On the other hand, Moscow has shown that it wants to fill the void left by the Americans and continue to exercise its role in the Mediterranean area already started with the policy implemented in Syria. The affinity between Moscow and Ankara has been revealed precisely on Syrian soil, favored by the similarities of Putin and Erdogan, which is ready to replicate itself on Libyan soil with a division of the areas of influence, with the main purpose of ousting the European nations. So, if the USA voluntarily left the southern shore of the Mediterranean, it was not so for the Europeans, that with a non-unitary policy and characterized by the inability of a practical and political management of the facts of Libya, they will be the real losers, even if not the only ones, as seen for Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which by proving themselves less capable than Turkey have revealed their military and strategic weakness, replicating the Syrian defeat. However, the Arab countries had the intent, like Ankara, to increase their influence and will not be expelled from an area from which they had settled, albeit with mixed fortunes, since the end of the Second World War, as will happen for Europeans. The great wrong of the European Union was that of not engaging in the first person, but only with impromptu and ineffective initiatives and, above all, not being able to have a shared objective and not understanding that the garrison on the southern shore of the Mediterranean had to be a garrison to be maintained at all costs to guarantee continental energy protection and preserve Europe from migratory blackmail.

The evolution of the facts concerning China, related not only to the issue of internal dissent and the relative repression, but also those of Hong Kong, which have obtained greater relevance from the world press and the complicated relationship with Taiwan and the related international implications, they pose dangerous issues for global stability, starting with relations between Beijing and Washington, which have deteriorated sharply. If on the Chinese domestic front, the non-respect of civil rights is more tolerated, even as regards the repression of Chinese Muslims, the problem in Hong Kong seems to be more felt in the West. The Chinese attitude of aversion to a two-country (political) system theorem must be framed precisely in the need to nip domestic dissent, removing the example of pluralism on Chinese soil. This objective is now considered a priority also with respect to economic results and international relations. The US assesses sanctions against the Hong Kong financial system, which in the short term may have serious effects on the possibility of operating on the financial front, within the American market, however the Chinese government has long since initiated a weakening of Hong Kong in the general picture of the financial importance in favor of other squares which are more under the control of the central government. Beijing’s obstinacy in its attitude towards Hong Kong reveals that it has now sacrificed its operational capacity within the financial world to exercise as much control as possible. This also means that Beijing is willing to evaluate a potential negative impact on its economy by the West. For the risk it is calculated: only the US of Trump, who is in the election campaign, can try to exert pressure on China, while from Europe, for now nothing has come but a guilty and irresponsible silence. However, the Hong Kong issue, even in all its seriousness, is of less impact than what Taiwan can become. China considers Formosa an integral part of its territory and has never made a secret of being able to also consider reaching the military option to assert its power in a concrete way. The US has always maintained a link with Taiwan in an unofficial way, but in recent times, considering the country as strategic for naval traffic and essential from a geopolitical point of view, it has increased contacts, repeatedly provoking the irritation of China. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, Washington has chosen an approach based on economic sanctions, but a similar behavior by Beijing in Taiwan could not allow a similar approach; the United States could not be passive in a Chinese showdown. For now the situation has stalled but those who confront each other are two similar leaders, who have made sovereignism and nationalism their strengths and both do not seem to want to give in. There would be a third actor who could affect the economy of dialogue if he had the strength of his own foreign policy and the belief that he wanted to defend rights at any cost. American action, in fact, does not move to guarantee universal rights not respected by Chinese action and order, but by an exclusive protection of US interests: an attitude that disqualification makes Washington’s role in the world arena less relevant . This void, if not on the military level, could be filled at a political level by Europe, which could invest in credibility, a dowry to spend later on other levels as well. However, it would take a capacity for courage capable of going against the Chinese economic power, but starting from the strength of having the awareness of being the largest world market. A sanction policy towards Chinese products, practiced to counter the failure to respect civil rights and the repressions carried out in Hong Kong, could act as a brake on Beijing’s current policy. This could also serve to obtain, thanks to targeted European tax policies, an autonomy from a wide range of Chinese products whose production could be brought back to continental soil favoring a new industrial development. It is clear that in the initial phase immediate economic advantages should be renounced, which could be recovered from the fallout of the effects of taking on a new political role as a world leader. It would be a very interesting development.

The pandemic slowed the fighting in Syria and this helped the two sides, the Damascus regime and the rebels, to start a resumption of peace negotiations to end a conflict that has been going on for more than nine years. The United Nations, through the current mediator, have announced a meeting in Geneva as soon as health conditions will allow it. This means that both sides intend to jointly resume the path of dialogue. This could also favor the resumption of the journey of the Syrian Constitutional Committee, the body made up of representatives of the Assad government, members who support the rebels and members of civil society, which must build the conditions for a potential electoral consultation. Currently an agreement between Russia and Turkey maintains the suspension of hostilities, which has been more or less maintained. The positions of Moscow and Ankara, with the first supporters of the Assad government and the second of the Islamic rebels, side by side with a view to containing the Kurdish forces, will be fundamental to understand how a possible path of peace can be developed. The actors in the field also include Iran and Hezbollah, the Syrian democratic forces, supported less and less intensely by the United States and the Kurdish population, which with its militias played a fundamental role against the Islamic State, but, which after abandoning US support, they moved closer to the Syrian regime, based on common interests against Turkey and its allied militias. The dream of a free and independent Kurdish state, frustrated by Washington’s change of attitude to keep within the Atlantic Alliance a member not as faithful as the Turkish country, ended. A resumption of the peace negotiations is also a hope for a population suffering from a very precarious health, hygiene and economic situation, even before the pandemic, whose victims reported, however, were only sixty-four. A further variable that will weigh on the development of the negotiations will be the relations that Moscow and Washington will want to establish on the subject. It must be remembered that the United Nations is reporting under its authority a negotiation, which had gone beyond its scope, replaced by the Astana negotiation process in Kazakhstan, wanted by Moscow and Tehran, in support of the regime and Ankara representing only a part of the rebels . The intent of the Astana negotiation was limited to maintaining the boundaries established by the position of the forces on the field, but without any political content capable of allowing a stable future structure of the Syrian country. That is, there was no legitimacy guaranteed only by the patronage of the United Nations. Certainly this is functional to Moscow’s concrete and practical interest in guiding the investments necessary for the reconstruction of the country through funds insured by Russia itself and from funding from international cooperation. Of course, the main political goal of the Kremlin is to allow Assad to maintain power, in the role, however, of Moscow’s subordinate in every sense and the economic means to pursue this goal must replace that guaranteed by the use of weapons, again better if with the approval of the United Nations. In any case, a peace on which it is legitimate to have doubts is better than the continuation of an already too long war; what is sorry is the role of the United Nations that comes to seal a state of affairs unwanted and not shared by the Glass Palace, the fearful and opportunistic American attitude and also not grateful to those who fought on the ground in its place. However the conclusion of the Syrian war goes, as long as it exists, it will not leave any improvements for the people of the country, nor for the international balance, nor for the spread of civil and democratic rights.

Under the impulse of Paris and Berlin, which are confirmed as the two leading members of the European Union, the future of Brussels is outlined through an investment policy with loans at low interest rates. The budget should be around five hundred billion euros in favor of the countries most affected by the pandemic and, therefore, with heavy economic repercussions. This investment, which will be limited in time, seems to go in the opposite direction to that which has so far distinguished the European Union, marked by an exaggerated adoption of policies of financial rigor. From a political point of view, if this is true, it will deal with the declaration of war against the reasons of sovereignty and anti-European movements. The intention is to create a new cohesion between states, which must then have practical consequences in social cohesion within the states and between the peoples of different nations. What you want to have are long-term effects, starting from the immediate intervention, with effects that create new virtuous dynamics. According to the two leaders, French and German, the European response, albeit with some setbacks, has made it possible to intervene through concrete medical aid, but has also highlighted contrasts already present; the example of those states that have closed national borders indiscriminately applies to all. This contributes to the declared will to arrive also at the modification of the treaties. If this could favor the affirmation of the founding European values, it will be sad, but we will have to thank the pandemic event. One reason that seems to be at the basis of this huge allocation is to find independence in the production of some sanitary materials, which have proved essential, but that the manufacture has been allocated abroad for mere reasons of lower costs. This has led to a lack of sovereignty, this true and proven, of Europe as a whole due to the need to depend on other countries and, therefore, to be subject to the lack of direct management of these materials. Bringing the production of various goods back to Europe is the first step towards guaranteeing autonomy which is above all political. The result of this allocation could disappoint those countries that asked for higher amounts, however there were however several national trends that were not in favor of this financing: the final result says that it went clearly against these wishes, which would have seriously compromised the prospects of European union . One of the consequences that must be achieved is to encourage the creation of leading European industries, able to compete globally with similar Chinese or American groups, but to do this it is not enough to inject large quantities of liquidity into the system, but also build a different legal approach with the change in competition law within the continent. To do this, Merkel and Macron judge the role of their countries as a driving force compared to the other twenty-five, this may not appeal to other partners, especially important ones, but it must be specified, that at the present time, some leading European nations are failing to express a united vision on the European role, because they are crossed by even deep contrasts; these countries, which have, however, a great potential for joining Europe, can take advantage of the driving effect of the financial allocation, and then go on to play a role comparable to that of Berlin and Paris today. The conflicts to be overcome and overcome are others, those that come from countries that compress the freedom of the press and civil rights, which favor anti-Semitism and all those measures that do not favor democratic life and which consequently deny values European and are practically outside the union, at least in a moral sense. The financial investment serves to recover the trust of the European population, through a redistribution of wealth achieved through the availability of work and easy access to health, education and safety; thus the nationalistic pressures are defeated, which coincide with the affirmation of illiberal positions incompatible with European ideals. Also in this sense it is hoped that the treaties will be revised in a sanctioning sense towards those states that do not comply with European regulations. The intent, therefore, is right, the starting point seems correct: if the results that will follow in practice, respond to these approaches, we can say that we have finally achieved a concrete result for Europe, after so many years of disappointments.

The effects of the pandemic will not only be the current ones, which are still ongoing and which are primarily of a health nature. With the mere lowering of the contagion, which is certainly not eradicated, however, it is necessary to analyze the effects, which are already underway, at an economic level, not only of the local type but with a broader, macroeconomic view. One of the heaviest effects expected concerns thirty million people, who would see their condition worsen until they enter the state of extreme poverty; this estimate, which concerns above all the African continent, involves a multitude of consequences, which go well beyond the fundamental moral aspect. Such a widespread condition of poverty framed in the current globalized context will not fail to affect migratory flows, the greater ease of recruitment by terrorist groups and the problems connected with finding and distributing food resources. It is clear that western countries, especially those bordering the Mediterranean, will soon be subjected to more intense pressure, which will reflect on relations between states and the dynamics within them; moreover, these problems will add up to the drop in gross domestic product that the richer countries are already suffering from. The average forecast is for a decrease of around five percent, but for some countries this decrease will be even greater. It is understood that the possible consequences combined by external and external factors must be addressed with policies capable of proceeding in parallel and without being left to the competence of individual states, which must be mitigated by supranational organizations capable of greater ability to maneuver. This does not mean de-authorizing the sovereignty of individual states, which must preserve their peculiarities, but concentrate the greatest onerous effort, in terms of practical organization, in larger organizations, however controlled by individual nations. Health check alone, certainly essential, alone is not enough to ward off economic and therefore social crises; protection of jobs and incomes is essential and therefore spending power, especially starting from the weakest individuals in the social whole. This consideration invests globally the need to contain, in a first phase, the phenomenon of inequality, and then extend the measures to try to mitigate it as much as possible. This is an enormous effort, which, unfortunately, is not shared universally, both by political forces and by governments, but which could have practical effects both from the point of view of internal and international politics. In the long term, that is, by 2030, estimates foresee the possibility of an increase in extreme poverty for 130 million people, causing an increasingly high, as well as permanent, state of tension. According to United Nations economists, measures of great fiscal and monetary stimulus used indiscriminately would risk being deleterious, without selective use, capable of containing the phenomena caused by inflation. An injection of great liquidity not oriented towards production orientations would risk being functional to stock exchange speculation without creating widespread value. Investments allocated following the pandemic must be oriented towards productive activities capable of creating work and therefore income to be redistributed in the widest possible way to allow the economic and social effects of the health crisis to be mitigated. Now this is true in the most advanced and complex societies, but it is still more decisive in developing countries, which must not see compressed that economic growth trend that allows to increase average per capita incomes, still too close to survival incomes. . What needs to be understood is that beyond certain limits it is no longer possible to compress the incomes of poor countries, because this causes political repercussions capable of compromising already unstable equilibriums, which are reflected in the global economic and social sphere. The pandemic, which has brought so much mourning and poverty to the world stage, must also be an opportunity to rethink the allocation of global resources in order to encourage an overall socially sustainable development plan capable of ensuring a level of redistribution. capable of affecting inequalities, to invest in the search for a minimum level of wealth to be guaranteed for all.

If among the great powers, at least for the moment, the hypothesis of a conventional war seems averted, the confrontation between opponents is shifted to alternative methodologies, certainly less bloody, but which, if framed in the current context, can have serious consequences. Beyond the rude and commercial struggles, which also represent moments of high tension, the issue of cyber attacks on foreign countries or supranational organizations is the real current emergency of confrontation between states. Attacks on healthcare facilities and research centers have multiplied with the recent pandemic, primarily to steal information on the progress of research for vaccines and drugs against Covid 19. The extent of these attacks on the United States could jeopardize the functioning of the American healthcare facilities, for which we understand the great concern with which these cases are followed. The US has accused mainly Chinese and Iranian hackers of these repeated attacks, however the dangers also come from Russian personnel, as has already happened in electoral competition cases. Angela Merkel’s recent outburst against Moscow’s cyber interference has shown how incorrect cyber behavior can damage positive attitudes in real countries that are the protagonists of incorrect practices. The problem was also noted by the Secretary of the Atlantic Alliance after the repeated cases of computer sabotage, which the Brussels institution had to suffer and against which it had to be protected. What emerges is that if there is no formal and official alliance against the United States, and in part also against its allies, the action of Moscow, Beijing and Tehran seems to be moving unequivocally in the context of the cyber war. The intent became clear especially on the occasion of elections: the action of hackers promoted actions to favor sovereign and anti-system parties in a functional way to particular interests, which tended to divide supranational alliances and facilitate the maneuvering space for movements that have the intention in their political program to contain the influence of supranational organizations. The case of repeated attempts to boycott parties in favor of greater European integration and, therefore, indirectly to the European Union itself, signals the plan to obtain a division of states to have a bilateral relationship and therefore with less contractual power, compared to agreements to be stipulated with Brussels, which is functional in Moscow, but not only. The control of computer networks thus assumes a fundamental value in a general framework where the direct use of weapons is now seen as the last viable option. The technological development of the 5G network becomes central to this reflection, on which China developed large investments to sell and spread its infrastructure to the rest of the world. But beyond the simple construction of equipment, a profound reflection must be made on the Chinese will to transform the Internet network towards new, more stringent and controllable parameters in open contrast with the standards of openness, freedom and pluralism, which have characterized the use of the network since its inception. The Chinese approach is conditioned by a vision that coincides with the political vision that Beijing has of individual freedoms and rights: in this respect, the new network that China has so far proposed does not provide the guarantees of current pluralism, compressed by excessive use. of control and censorship. If these conditions became the current standard, the issues of hacker intrusions would be overcome by a sort of technological legality given by the new setting of the navigation parameters. Certainly this could be tempting also for other governments, even in the western area, but bartering a greater internal control with the possibility of being subjected, from an IT point of view, to a single power must make a deep reflection on the purchase of technologies operate built to be ready to be set up in specific ways. Seen with this in mind and with the many precedents, the American pressure to develop its own equipment for the 5G network and the attempt to impose the refusal of Chinese equipment on its western allies is acceptable. But Europe should be able to play its own independent role, also from a purely constructive point of view, of 5G technology and above all be able to impose the will to maintain the current standards of freedom to use the world internet.