The West must reduce its productive dependence on China

Biden’s advent to the US presidency, which coincided with the second phase of the pandemic, only highlighted the real need for greater independence from Chinese products for the autonomy of the American productive fabric, in particular, but of the whole West in general. . The question is now ancient: the shift in production, including strategic products, conditioned only by the desire to lower labor costs, has determined a dependence on the Chinese country, which has never been regulated by Western countries, attracted by deregulation to favor the easy earning of businesses. Beyond the social costs and the impoverishment of the Western productive fabric, the question has always been very present to governments, which have however been attracted by the availability of Chinese investments to compensate for the loss of jobs, knowledge and, above all, autonomy operational of industrial production. This imbalance had to emerge sooner or later and the arrival of the pandemic situation was the trigger, which made a review of the current state of affairs no longer postponable. A practical example was the suspension of production, in some American car factories, due to the lack of spare parts from China and then, how can we forget, the absolute shortage of surgical masks in the first phase of the pandemic, precisely because the production of these medical devices had been completely moved to territories outside the West. Biden’s strategy has identified six strategic areas on which to operate the review of production and then of supply, these are products related to defense, public health and biotechnology, telecommunications technologies, energy, transport and food production and the supply of agricultural raw materials. . The choice appears obvious in order to have operational and decision-making autonomy to be practiced on one’s own territory and for allies. Of course, the latest political and commercial tensions have imposed this path, but even a summary analysis can allow us to affirm how this process is overdue for the world balance and to recover the gap produced up to now by the previous situation. The strategy of the American president is completed by the desire to collaborate, first of all in these six strategic areas, with European, Latin American and Asian allies. This is a reversal of the trend, with respect to the isolationism carried on by Trump, which unwittingly supported the Chinese dominance of industrial production; however, the problem of delocalization does not seem completely overcome: in fact, the legitimate involvement of countries with low labor costs risks moving production from China to other countries, which, moreover, do not have Chinese production knowledge. The path to be faced must be supported by the states to bring essential productions back to the western borders first, but this is not enough, it is also necessary to proceed on the path of a new more complete industrialization, which must also include productions considered less essential, but complementary and able to ensure even greater autonomy. Certainly one cannot think that every member of the Western allies can recreate a completely autonomous productive fabric on its own territory, but this strategy must be conceived and implemented at the level of a global alliance, taking into account, however, the peculiarities of local industrial fabrics, which increase its autonomy by being able to count on a production quality of the products to be assembled at least equal to that of China. The process, therefore, is not short and not easy and involves substantial financial and knowledge transfers to the new production partners, whose reliable reliability must, however, be verified, not only in terms of alliance, but of sharing political principles. about respect for human rights. In fact, a lot is played out on this issue on the comparison of Western countries, with the US as the main interpreter, the comparison with China, which leads to the need to prevent any blocks of production parts necessary for Western industry. Naturally, the boundary between commercial necessity and political rivalry has become increasingly blurred and Beijing’s desire to increase its political weight will be a determining factor for relations with China, which must be marked by greater diplomatic etiquette, without however to withdraw from the distinctive western qualities, first of all human rights even outside the perimeter of the western alliance.

Football and human rights: the case of the victims in Qatar

There is a moral problem that affects international football: the organization of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. According to an investigation by the “Guardian” newspaper, the victims among the workers who work on the construction of the stadiums have already reached 6,500. On the sad accounting, there are no comments from athletes and managers, who are silent about a massacre in their service. The working conditions, inhumane bordering on slavery, which concern unprotected workers and moved exclusively by need, should be sufficient to mobilize the billionaires who will be the protagonists of the game meetings, which will take place on structures built on the blood of workers from Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Philippines and Kenya. These workers are deprived of every right, even the right to resign, because their passport is withdrawn and the hygienic conditions in which they are made to live are themselves a cause that contributes to the increase in the number of deaths. The average of two victims per day could even be an underestimate, because the authorities do not allow the circulation of news and provide the official figure of just 37 victims due to accidents at work. Of course the strategy of not wanting to include among the dead those who died from heart attack, stress, heat and other pathologies, even if directly connected to the activity on construction sites, reduces the total bill, but the scarce consideration of foreign workers, sacrificed to carry out the football event remains a big stain on the entire international football movement. It should be remembered that, however, the constructive effort concerns not only the construction of sports facilities, but also a whole series of infrastructures that will be used for the practical development of the world championship, such as roads, airports, integrated communication systems and hotels to welcome the delegations of the teams involved in competitions. If Qatar’s denials may appear obvious in the logic of a country that is not a democracy, the behavior of the leaders of world football appears less coherent, however, already warned by an estimate, moreover outdated, of 2013, carried out by an organization international union, which spoke of a forecast of 4,000 victims; just as the football associations are silent: an incomprehensible and unjustified silence, if not from the financial vision of the return on investment of a world championship played at those latitudes. 2022 is very close, but a justified reaction, in an ideal world, could be the boycott of athletes and nations to a world championship spoiled by such a heavy starting situation: a reaction that could be understood and understood by the large part of the fans. and football fans. In the meantime, the international management could, at least, carry out an inquiry into the real working conditions of those who have hitherto been employed in the construction of an event, which could backfire precisely against world football. Sponsors should also evaluate their support for these world championships, consumer sensitivity has greatly increased in the face of certain issues and the response of viewers may also suffer a decrease, which could have explanations consistent with reactions to this state of affairs. In any case, sport should not be mixed with such low-level practices for the respect of human rights.

Sanctions against Russia as a political method of the European Union

The European Union intends to apply for the first time the legislative provision inspired by American law, which allows violations of human rights to be targeted without any geographical limitation. The recipient of the assessments resulting from the application of the legislation will be Russia, which will be hit by a regime of sanctions precisely because of the violation of human rights due to the activity of the Moscow government. Brussels’ response is intended to be a reaction to the Kremlin’s provocations regarding the repressions of the protests that took place in Russian squares and the treatment recently reserved to the European High Representative during his visit to the Russian capital. If the contingent facts, which provoked the European reaction are those mentioned above, also the European desire to define the next relations with the Russian country has contributed with a significant weight, on the reasons that have provoked the determination of the Union to issue sanctions against Moscow. What is underway between the European Union and Russia is certainly not a peaceful confrontation, determined by Moscow’s refusal to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, both in a general and a particular sense, especially if it refers to the treatment reserved in a blatant way. to the most famous dissidents; however the measures that will be adopted will be very limited and will affect a limited number of senior officials of the Russian country, without touching the highest state offices. Obviously, it is more of a political act than a truly sanctioning one, a sort of signal towards the next behavior of Moscow, a direct warning against the Kremlin but also to demonstrate the support for the American policy of the new president, which has made central its policy is the struggle in defense of human rights, which must be understood not only on a general level, but also as an instrument of political pressure against the main adversaries: Russi a, in fact, and China. A greater evaluation of the European measure will, however, be better evaluated when the representatives of the twenty-seven countries will issue the detailed list of officials who will be affected by the sanctions. European countries are aware of the need not to irreparably compromise relations with Moscow, since the continuation of dialogue on issues such as climate change and the nuclear deal with Iran remain central issues in their respective political agendas; furthermore, the geographical proximity still requires greater caution in the respective relations; hence the need for conduct as uniform as possible among the twenty-seven European states, to avoid divisions, which could constitute opportunities to exploit, not only for Russia, but also for other possible adversary countries. These factors help to understand the choice of a soft approach on a theme that has nevertheless become central to European politics, but whose application must be weighed in relation to contingent situations and especially, in this phase, the need must prevail. maintaining diplomatic contacts, precisely as a fundamental tool for resolving disputes. It appears evident that the present difficulties are obstacles to these processes, among which the first of all is the substantial interference in the internal affairs of the Russian state, however in the international model, which is emerging with increasing force, the need for respect for human rights has assumed an ever greater importance, which goes beyond its own particular importance to invest much broader issues, such as respect for political and ethnic minorities, up to becoming a factor of commercial and industrial equalization in an increasingly globalized world. The Chinese example, which advocates a commercial globalism, with all the advantages of the case, cannot be separated from respect for rights, also understood as a factor capable of avoiding the distortions of production pursued without respect for workers, both in rights and in the protections, and in the adequate wages, which can alter the forms of competition, through the lowering of the cost of labor achieved both with an instrumental use of the non-respect of rights, understood both as a political means and as a production tool. The two dimensions are not unrelated and often intrinsically added together and for this reason the Union must use the favorable political moment of the presence of a US president particularly sensitive to the subject, to become a protagonist in the defense of rights.

The Atlantic Alliance seeks reorganization after the Trump presidency

With the Trump parenthesis closed, the Atlantic Alliance seeks internal reorganization, especially financial, to be able to return to being a major player in a world scenario deemed highly unstable. The situation that offers the establishment of the Biden White House appears particularly favorable to stimulate a different approach on the part of the members of the Atlantic Alliance, after the real risk of a downsizing of the main Western defense system with the previous president. . The first proposal that should come from the Secretary General will be to increase the organization’s budget, a solution that only apparently follows what has long been pursued first by Obama and then by Trump. Both Biden’s predecessors failed to do so because the request was for a simple contribution increase, without incentives and fees for European states. The novelty of the new proposal is based, first of all, on a contribution rate fixed on the gross domestic product of each individual country; the total amount will have to finance a common fund from which to draw for the financing of the missions, up to now, however, financed by the coffers of each individual state. Thus, a mutuality would be introduced that would favor greater integration and more consistent participation in the activities of the Atlantic Alliance: this approach would represent a particularly important innovation also with a view to greater sharing of objectives, eliminating organizational difficulties. A greater distribution of costs would allow greater operational participation of each individual state and could allow the carrying out of periodic tests capable of identifying and correcting the weaknesses of the western defensive system. Increasing joint exercises, thanks to overcoming the cost obstacle, would mean greater operational integration between the armed forces of the member countries, also allowing interchangeability, which, according to forecasts, could become an essential element for the supervision of the theaters of operations. . After the cold war where the enemy was only the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, the evolution of international politics has presented a variety of scenarios that the United States alone can no longer control alone. An increasingly important role will be that of guarding the infrastructures of each member, which in new conflicts, even undeclared ones, increasingly represent potential tactical and strategic objectives, where to strike by opponents. In this perspective, private capital involvement is also considered, precisely because industries with their knowledge represent sensitive objectives. To pursue all these factors, a strengthening of Article 5 of the transatlantic treaty is also envisaged, which provides for mutual defense in the event of aggression: it is understood that for greater security, even beyond the military one, the request for an increase in the budget can be understood as legitimate. There is a potential contraindication to this ambitious plan: the European will for a common force, which, although it must be integrated into the Atlantic Alliance, should also have, at the same time, an independent character; this was thought precisely in conjunction with the Trump presidency, which seemed to want to put aside, or at least reduce, the Atlantic experience. The problem is not only of military integration but of spending on armaments, which Europe has decided to allocate to continental industry, avoiding spending on US industries. Beyond the good intentions of the Secretary General, the themes of the debate cannot deviate from the intentions of where the spending on weapons will be made. Any maintenance of the European will, however, will have to provide for an essential integration of the armament systems, which involves patents and building licenses. The fact remains that the starting assumptions, especially political ones, are extremely positive and this could decisively help overcome the present differences of a practical nature to the advantage of a more shared planning to achieve the set goals of the defensive purposes of the Atlantic Alliance.

The difficult relationship between the European Union and Russia

Relations between the European Union and Russia seem close to a breaking point, even if the situation appears far from irremediable, as demonstrated by the conflicting statements of the Russian foreign minister, threatening against Brussels, and those of his spokesman, who has, in part, denials. The current state, which is very problematic, between the two sides, is due to the repressive response by the Russian police towards the demonstrations that took place in the squares of the Russian country by the opposition. The Union’s harsh criticism of the Kremlin has provoked a strategy by Moscow which aims to anticipate possible official moves by Brussels. To the concrete possibility that Europe wants to impose new sanctions on Russia, the Moscow government could counter with the total breakdown of diplomatic relations. The threat reveals Moscow’s state of absolute fear of sanctions that could affect key sectors for the Russian economy and highlights its diplomatic weakness, which follows an increasingly serious internal crisis. The possibility of a unilateral renunciation of relations with Europe appears as an extreme attempt to avoid an isolation that would be the result of new sanctions on the European side; this factor is also combined with the need to demonstrate international power and weight, which appear to be in decline, especially in the continental scenario. For Putin it appears essential to regain positions abroad to strengthen his position at home and this understanding could be compromised with an international condemnation not only in words, but pursued with concrete facts such as new sanctions, which would be added to those already present. In reality, the Russian threats have highlighted how the European institutions found themselves unprepared for Moscow’s reaction and reacted with concern but also with resentment towards the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Security of the Union, due to a contradictory conduct in the recent visit to the Russian capital. The criticism of the High Representative is justified for the lack of a more decisive attitude in the talks with the Russian foreign minister, which has made clear the perplexities about the assignment; however, without the Russian threats, probably these criticisms would not have emerged in such a clear way, to the point of determining the request for resignation by some European countries. Moreover, Putin’s threats have had the effect of an official European position aimed at averting the breakdown of diplomatic relations, a solution most desired by the German state. The result of the head of the Kremlin, however, should be provisional, it seems impossible, in fact that Europe limits its sentence to Russian repressions without following concrete facts, also due to the presence on the international scene of the new American president, who has claimed a greater role for the US in respect of rights. Coordination between Washington and Brussels cannot but pass for a condemnation of Moscow, but it is legitimate to think that at this juncture the White House is leaving the initiative to Europe, which must stabilize its positions of autonomy painstakingly acquired during the Trump presidency. Biden’s intention is to leave political autonomy to the Union in order to establish an equal relationship within the framework of collaboration and common defense, which, among others, has one of its main objectives in Russia. The European task will therefore be to maintain its firmness against Russian repression, without neglecting a diplomatic solution that is satisfactory for both sides, but which must not be subordinate to the threats from Moscow.

Biden does not change American policy towards China

As widely announced in the election campaign, the new American president, Biden, has kept his promises, from the beginning of his mandate, on what level relations with China will take place. The first practical test was the first telephone conversation with the Chinese head of state, Xi Jinping, where the new tenant of the White House expressed all his concerns about Beijing’s behavior both in domestic politics, with repeated violations of human rights, politicians and civilians, who in foreign policy, where China has repeatedly demonstrated, through an aggressive policy, an ever greater will to exert influence in the international context. This line that Biden has adopted does not seem to differ, if not for the different methods of expression, from that held by his predecessor: the choice seems obliged by the difficult relations that continue between the two countries due to the conflicts in commercial and geostrategic matters. Some passages of what was the first conversation between the two politicians, after Biden’s election, were also cordial, as is due to the protocol, but the official statement from the White House at the end of the interview highlighted the concern US for the unfair economic practices in Beijing, the repressions in Hong Kong, the repeated and serious violations of the rights of the Muslim population of the Xinjiang province and the threats to the autonomy of Taiwan. This is a set of arguments that constitute a particularly voluminous dossier for the American administration, which represents a not very surmountable obstacle to normal relations with the Chinese country and which confirms all the difficulties already experienced by Obama and Trump; moreover Biden, having already held the role of vice president, knows these issues well, just as he has known the Chinese president equally well since 2011. Specifically, Biden’s statement that he considers safety, health and lifestyle a priority of the American people and in relation to this to undertake to cooperate with China in relation to how much this satisfies the interests of the USA and its allies, must be read as a sort of warning to Beijing, also due to new relations with the usual allies of the United States, whose relations with Trump had deteriorated. By giving priority to normal transatlantic ties, Washington seems to want to warn the Chinese country that partnerships with Europe for the People’s Republic will never be the same. Biden wants to go back to filling those gaps created by Trump that had allowed China to insinuate itself into relations with European states thanks to its great financial capacity and, if Europe is the first goal to be recovered for the United States, it seems impossible not to think that this direction will also be followed for Asian and African countries, in the former American action will be necessary to contain Chinese expansionism, especially in what it considers its own space of natural influence, in the latter to limit a presence that is already badly tolerated, a detail that allows for a non-secondary insertion space. On the side of bilateral trade relations, precisely because of all these considerations and the negative evaluations about Chinese trade conduct, it is practically certain that the US will maintain trade sanctions against Beijing, at most these sanctions could be used as an exchange to obtain the change of Chinese attitude on specific issues on which it will be possible to deal, in any case problems regarding Chinese conduct in trade and industrial licenses, certainly not matters considered untraceable by Beijing such as the Taiwan question. But on this front there is no room for negotiation even for Washington: one of the first steps of the new American administration was to receive the representative of Taiwan in the USA, a fact that was an unequivocal signal for the Chinese, as well as a novelty. in relations between the two countries. It is precisely on Taiwan that there is the greatest closeness of views between Democrats and Republicans and this constitutes a further argument of importance in the American evaluation of the Taiwan question and determines the argument that could be the most important for understanding the evolution of relations between the USA. and China.

United States Returns to UN Human Rights Council: Biden Political Statement

The new American administration continues its program of interruption with respect to the policy of its predecessor, with the aim of bringing the United States back into the global dialectic of international relations, with a central role. Abandoning the isolation that Trump imposed on his own nation has become the first and most urgent goal for the new president’s diplomatic policy. This is the context in which Washington’s return to the UN Human Rights Committee, which had been abandoned because it was accused of a persecutory policy against Israel, is placed; in reality, although this motivation was at the basis of the decision, the perception was that the administration of the White House at the time, had also taken the opportunity not to enter into conflict with states to which it had approached and which practiced the violation of human rights in an ever more blatant way. According to the new US president, the importance of the committee’s action is to be a preferential channel for ascertaining the violation of human rights wherever they occur on the globe. In this regard, the US Secretary of State stated that the lack of American leadership within the committee has created a power vacuum, which has been beneficial to authoritarian countries. For the new American president it is essential that the United States makes the defense of democracy, human rights and equality stand out as central to its international activity and the activity of multilateral bodies, such as the United Nations responsible body, will be fundamental. to this end, also for the common action with the American allies. In these intentions there is a clear program that should relaunch close collaboration with traditional allies, especially those in Europe, but not only, which have been neglected and moved away from an isolationist and short-sighted policy, such as Trump’s. The recovery of the value of the alliance with Europe appears central, especially at an emotional and ideal level, on the relaunching of the centrality of the themes of democracy and respect for rights at a global level is a priority both from a political and from a political point of view. programmatic, because it also constitutes a link of a higher caliber to be contrasted with the proximity that has been created between the old continent with China, and in part, also with Russia, determined precisely as a reaction to the removal desired by Trump. Having the support of the European Union and the British on these issues represents a sort of return of the Atlantic bloc to counteract Chinese expansionism and Russian activism, which are the most immediate emergencies to deal with. The novelty of recognizing the importance of a body such as the United Nations Human Rights Council is not unexpected, but it still represents a strong signal that the new American president wanted to give along with the very clear statements about the absolute lack of sentiments Democrats of the Chinese leader, the protests for the attitude of Moscow that has suppressed the demonstrations against President Putin and the withdrawal of military support to Saudi Arabia in the war against the Yemeni rebels. It is obviously a political program, which will concern the political, military and economic relations, which the Americans intend to undertake with the illiberal states and their international strategies: a completely different approach from the previous one, of which, however, it will have to retain some purposes, such as the relationship with Beijing. Biden has assured that he does not want any kind of conflict with China, but a relaxation of the already difficult relations left by Trump appears impossible, precisely because of the basic approach that the new American foreign policy has adopted. If the discrimination of respect for human rights becomes fundamental, a serene relationship with China will be impossible, so the repercussions on the respective geopolitical interests will become inevitable, such as the protection of the Pacific sea routes, the protection of states threatened by Beijing and trade between the two sides, all potential reasons that could lead to a cold war state. Faced with this potential danger, it will be important to evaluate the response of the allies, especially the European ones, who have greater political weight: an opportunity for the European Union to effectively be the representative of respect for rights and to play this role with greater courage, especially in the face of the most serious violations, taking strong diplomatic initiatives, including through severe economic sanctions, knowing that from now on American support will not be lacking, if only for mutual interests.

The problem of the Irish border as a destabilizing factor

The controversial issue of the Irish border, in the context of the United Kingdom’s exit from the Union, was immediately the focus of concern on both sides; the question of restoring the border between the two states on the island of Ireland concerned and still concerns the historical problem of the conflict between republicans and monarchists and between Catholics and Protestants: having crossed the border was one of the decisive facts for the term of the conflict. The abandonment of London to Brussels would have meant as a logical consequence the restoration of the border between Eire and Northern Ireland, with all the consequences feared and averted since the peace treaty was signed; however, Brussels could not tolerate a preferential route to English trade, on both sides, through Dublin. The solution was to establish customs controls in two Northern Irish port facilities so as not to include Belfast within England, also avoiding the wording Great Britain because Northern Ireland is located outside the Brexit treaty. A solution that the previous London premier had strongly avoided, but which Boris Johnson could only accept in the face of requests from Brussels to speed up the negotiations. In fact, the Irish Sea is the border with the European Union and commercial practices between the two sovereign parties must be carried out on that border. From a practical point of view, the mistake made by Europe to protect itself against the prediction of quantities of vaccines, then immediately returned with the recognition of the mistake by Brussels, has only exacerbated an already very critical situation, which has registered problems for the food supply and towards perishable products and animals, due to the length of bureaucratic procedures. These difficulties have led to critical issues for supermarket chains struggling with scarce and insufficient supplies. There was also the perception that the British premier wanted to exploit the situation created by these difficulties to cross the border of the Irish Sea, proposing to the ministers of the two Irish nations to agree on customs procedures to speed them up, which provoked the reaction. European Union, which materialized with the threat of legal action, which would surely have seen London defeated. All this situation has led to a serious state of tension, fueled by pro-British political movements, but also by unionist ones, which has resulted in threats to customs officials, so much so as to determine the resolution of the withdrawal, for now temporary, of customs personnel of both sides. It should be remembered and emphasized that the decision to create the border on the Irish Sea was a measure that the Northern Irishmen only had to accept, without any democratic modality, undergoing an organizational management, which had social repercussions and which changed for the worse their living standards. Even in parliament, in London, part of the same conservative majority, which supports the British premier, is urgently asking for the renegotiation of the part of the agreement concerning the border on the Irish Sea or to renounce it unilaterally. For the English capital, although this was not a surprise, the high level of discontent was not expected, major problems were predicted by the attitude of Scotland or Wales, which, however, only seem postponed. The Brexit question has focused attention on England and its predominant reasons, but has not taken into account delicate issues on its periphery, which, in addition to practical needs, also affect political balances, which have been reached with difficulty and who must not undergo alterations in order not to return to situations with a high rate of social risk. If London has the bulk of the responsibility due to its actions that are not at all far-sighted and folded by a desire for timeless sovereignty, even Europe, albeit to a lesser extent, has appeared perhaps too perched on its positions and has not sought a modification to the negotiation capable of finding a synthesis capable of resolving a situation potentially capable of causing upheaval on the Irish island. Concern remains about the possible breakup of the United Kingdom, after Scotland and Wales, the hypothesis of a united Ireland is strengthened by the problems caused by Brexit and London risks remaining confined to the limits of England: a worrying factor for Western equilibrium.

France discusses the law against radical Islamism

The discussion that starts in the French National Assembly on cultural and religious separatism seeks to strengthen the secularism of the state while pursuing, at the same time, the result of creating a regulation of religious cults and, in particular, the impact that the Muslim religion, especially the more radical one, he produced on French society. The issue is deeply felt on French soil and involves fundamental issues, such as religious freedom, the containment of the social isolation of the suburbs, which has often produced natural religious terrorist phenomena, the control of radical preachers, capable of aggregating social discontent and direct it against the scaffolding of French society, through the criticism of institutions. It is a set of phenomena that clash mainly against the founding values ​​of the French republic, such as tolerance and secularism, framed in a context of democracy, often in contrast with the radical ideas expressed by the Muslim communities. Certainly the Islamic objective is not explicitly declared by the will of the bill, however the relations between the state and the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish communities do not register problems such as to justify a law on cults and religious associations, where the strengthening of the principles of the Republic; this need is directed towards the Islamic religion, so much so that it becomes a need to be regulated with extreme urgency. Perhaps, indeed, on these issues we are already late, considering that the episodes of urban violence, which marked the first quarter of 2020 and the fundamentalist attacks of last September and October, were only the most recent events of a oldest phenomenon. In the meantime, we want to hit proselytism by the more radical imams, to allow us to contain, first of all, the possible separatism from French society and the establishment of areas where loyalty to France and its laws becomes suspended, if not really rejected. The basis of this reasoning is the awareness that for the guides of the most radical mosques there is a belief that the prevailing law is Islamic over that of France, making the transgression of the principle of territoriality of current legislation objective; it is a sort of self-referential extra-territoriality that is inadmissible for any sovereign state. The path chosen is that of a strict judicial, police and economic control, foreign funding is essential for the survival of these organizations outside the constitutional framework and their persecution is the logical consequence; the closure of places of worship that do not comply with state regulations and the arrest of individuals who do not comply with the provisions will be the deterrent measures provided. The protection of the victims of these radical associations is another fixed point of the intentions of the bill: episodes such as social hatred expressed through the internet will be punishable, to avoid tragic consequences as happened recently in France against teachers challenged for their methods teaching contrary to the most extremist Islamic ideologies. The more moderate imams said they were in favor of the bill, finding the intention of the legislator to coincide with the will to eliminate radical groups and allow Islam to be presented as a religious form that respects French laws. The comments of the members of other religions are more nuanced, who, even if they see a potential interference of the institutions in the religious sphere, cannot but agree with the desire to eliminate a concrete policy for democratic life. On the other hand, the legislator does not prohibit any cult, but aims to contain only some potentially very harmful effects for society. It goes without saying that France, with such a law, opens the way for supranational regulation, within Europe, to combat a dangerous phenomenon of separatism and affirmation through violence, which seems destined to grow without adequate countermeasures, even if for now the French emergency is well beyond the situation that is registered in the rest of the European Union, however the growth of radicalism has repeatedly reserved unwelcome surprises that it is advisable to anticipate, without, however, damaging the freedom of worship exercised within the laws in force and in compliance with society as a whole.

After the change of president, China warns the US

Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke at the inaugural meeting that opened the virtual version of the World Economic Forum. The speech of the leading exponent of China focused on the need to avoid a new cold war, without however explicitly mentioning the true recipient of the message: the new president of the United States. To achieve this, the Chinese president confirmed his defense of multilateralism, the economic one certainly not that of rights, greater global cooperation to be tested at the current moment of the pandemic and stressed the need for a greater importance of the role of the G20 association. to govern and direct the global system of the global economy, especially in the complicated phase of recovery from the crisis caused by the health emergency. The head of state of China did not contradict himself by presenting his dirigiste vision on world government, deeply centered on economic aspects at the expense, as is normal, of issues related to civil and political rights. A message that Trump, net of the conflicting interests of the two countries, could also have appreciated; however, for Biden there are strong contrasting elements of which Xi Jinping is well aware: if the previous tenant of the White House did not like the excessive Chinese presence on the international scene, supported by a great rearmament, Biden has a different attitude towards rights , which is the most contrasting aspect for Beijing. The Chinese president seems to want to anticipate this danger with the warning not to try to intimidate or threaten his country with sanctions or measures aimed at opposing China’s economic development, which could lead to situations of confrontation or even a more structured conflict, a sort of new cold war capable of blocking the global economy. This is certainly a threat, but also a very feared situation in a country where the problem of growth is always experienced with great apprehension. Compared to four years ago, Xi Jinping tries a different approach with the newly inaugurated president of the United States: if for Trump the initial message was of collaboration, with Biden there is a warning not to follow the isolationist and arrogant policy of his predecessor. . The reading that is drawn is that the Chinese president is moving on two levels: an internal one, to demonstrate to the Chinese people his will to affirm the country in the international context and an external one to emphasize the growth of China, which no longer accepts a subordinate role towards the USA. The role that Xi Jinping has built for himself, that of defender of the open economy, without trade barriers, for investments and technological exchanges, is no longer credible, despite trying to reiterate the correctness of these reasons, in contrast, however, with the coherence of a nation that has made the low cost of labor as an element of strength of its productive force, however without any legal guarantee and therefore a factor of unfair competition, the non-respect of intellectual property and patents and the non-reciprocity of exchanges , altering the investment market with unfair practices towards poor countries. Even the last part of the appeal of the Chinese president represents an evident contradiction: in order to foster growth, the need to abandon ideological prejudices in respect of the cultural, historical and social differences of each country is recalled, without however mentioning the repression of the dissent, a common practice in China and Hong Kong, and repeated attempts to cancel traditional and religious peculiarities as happens in Tibet and towards Muslim Chinese. Paradoxically, Xi Jinping’s statements may constitute a programmatic agenda for Biden to settle with China, on the other hand, already in the election campaign the new president did not seem to want to take a position too different from Trump towards Beijing, if these statements are to follow an opposite behavior, as it seems reasonable to think, for Biden the confrontation with China will be a topic constantly on the agenda: in the short term it will be important to change the tone of the confrontation, even if the themes cannot vary it will be necessary to avoid dangerous confrontations, which could degenerate; it is necessary to remember the centrality of alliances and the strategic framework in the Eastern Pacific for Washington, as a source of possible conflict, however the initial period will have to serve to build a dialogue without the US retreating from the need to defend democratic values ​​and indeed, are the strongest defenders: this will be the starting point for relations with China after Trump’s departure.