Categoria: English version

The exploitation of people worldwide affects over 40 million people, higher than the number of inhabitants of countries such as Canada and Poland or Iraq. It is a phenomenon that, for the most part, remains hidden and feeds the exploitation of child labor or the trafficking of human beings, employed as slaves in various productive sectors, not only in countries without any protection of rights, but also in western democracies. Certainly one of the causes of an increase in this phenomenon is the forced emigration of populations affected by wars, famines and the difficult political situation of the states of origin. These emigrations, which take place without any protection and protection from the rich countries, which often even oppose them in different ways, and from international organizations put people in a position of weakness left to themselves and easy prey to criminal organizations. So on the political, but also health, issue, a legal issue that affects everyone is grafted, because, in addition to promoting the exploitation of people, it promotes the growth of criminal organizations, which easily find a workforce at very low or zero costs. Of the 40 million people who fill the exploitation statistics, it is estimated that those under the age of 18, minors, are around ten million, a percentage, therefore, of 25%. This data makes the relevance of the phenomenon even more serious, especially if we consider that the employment that affects the majority of these minors is connected with sexual exploitation. The pandemic and the consequent lockdown, has created an increase in the demand for erotic content services, with consumption increasing by 30% in some European states; these services, deeply connected with cybercrime, employ more and more minors, with a prevalence of approximately 68% of the total, a figure however firm in 2016 for Europe, of female persons. That the figure of 68% of the total number of under-exploited minors has not been updated for four years represents an eloquent factor also as regards the possibilities and the will to contrast the phenomenon; it should also be remembered that the closure imposed by school institutions, albeit justified, has eliminated a factor of control and social prevention, which has favored the use of minors in employment in undeclared and illegal work. The pandemic has however accentuated an already present phenomenon, which has its bases in those ethnic communities where the financial revenues are based on illegality and which exploit the state of need and the absolute weakness, represented by the fact of being outside the own countries, victims. The aspect of child exploitation, although present also in the nationalities of the Union, logically has an origin connected with immigration, especially illegal immigration and the presence of movements opposed to foreigners, shifts the political attention that would be necessary for the protection of minors also due to the ever-decreasing investments in prevention and control, based on the network that local authorities can provide, which have had their central contributions reduced. Although the case of sexual exploitation is the most regrettable, for the obvious moral implications, the sectors involved are also others and also include commerce, catering and the tertiary sector. It is therefore essential that at European level preventive and repressive laws of the phenomenon are needed, but also a greater coordination of national police forces and, above all, a univocal attitude towards the migratory question, of which this phenomenon is part and is included. Tolerating in Europe, which should be the homeland of law, such violations means discrediting the entire legal system of the old continent. It is not easy to reconcile the different positions on migrants, but, at least, to take a unified position on the violations of childhood and adolescence, even those who come from abroad in a non-legal way, should represent a point on which the unity of views should be guaranteed. The issue also falls in the contrast to organizations that exploit human trafficking before, during and after the arrival of migrants, gaining from illicit proceeds and therefore increasingly strengthening themselves with greater economic revenues. Stricter legislation with higher penalties and prevention with adequate structures capable of intercepting specific cases will also be an investment against domestic and foreign underworld.

So the fate of the world is to live a new cold war, which is likely to last many years. But the analogies with the remote conflict between the US and the USSR are very few, apart from the comparison between a democracy and an undemocratic regime. From the economic point of view between the current Beijing and the Moscow of the years from the second post-war period until the fall of the Berlin wall, there are no similarities. Now China is playing a practically equal role with the USA on the economic scene, and indeed this competition is considered the real cause of the confrontation at a distance. Certainly there are problems related to the increasingly authoritarian turn of Beijing, with the intensification of the repression of Muslims, the increasing denial of civil and humanitarian rights and the struggle with dissent engaged in Hong Kong, carried out, inter alia, with failure to comply with an international treaty. But if the counterpart is represented by Trump and his American supremacy policy, especially in economics, these arguments, although valid and shareable, seem a sort of pretext to tighten the relationship with Beijing. Certainly the Chinese behavior is regrettable, made of provocations, of an increasingly consistent use of industrial espionage, of equivocal behaviors, as in the case of the pandemic that started precisely from the territories of China. Washington has exploited all this context, not acting as the first world power, trying to involve allies on a political level for an effective contrast based on programs and principles, but has given the impression of wanting to protect its economic supremacy for exclusive national advantages . Trump envies the Chinese president for his great autonomy and practically unlimited decision-making capacity and this does not make him the champion of the interests of the western field, also because he favors economic results over political ones, such as respect for rights, just like in Beijing. This is also the reason for the timid attitude of the Europeans towards the current administration of the White House, which, moreover, are geographically distant from the disputes that have most involved countries in the western field, such as Japan, Australia or even India in the against Beijing. On the contrary in the populations of USA and China there is a very disheartening common datum: in both peoples and in a symmetrical way there is an aversion to the other country (66% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion on China, balanced by 62% of Chinese who have the same opinion towards the USA), which represents an element that cannot be taken into consideration and also exploited by the respective administrations. One proof is that Trump’s contender in the upcoming US presidential election, Joe Biden, has already expressed his opposition to Chinese politics; the only hope is that it will shift attention from the economy to broader political issues. However, the contingent problem is that the two economies are strongly interconnected, in fact on both sides there is a need for raw materials and processed products that are produced by the opposing country; Trump adopted the strategy of trade tariffs (also imposed on allies) to reduce the trade balance gap with China, a short-sighted strategy, which did not take into account the United States’ global trade balance and which triggered similar Chinese countermeasures. Proceeding on this path does not suit either of the two contenders, but the military unknowns related to the geopolitical aspects remain, which are in close relationship with the maritime communication routes of goods in the Pacific seas and the confrontation on the growth of armaments. The current situation, albeit with a high level of danger, does not seem to be able to turn into an armed conflict, even if the potential opportunities for clashes are not lacking, but rather to settle on a non-traditional conflict based on the use of technologies to influence the respective opinions public, an increase in espionage and, possibly, the exploitation of low intensity local conflicts. If this may seem a good signal for world peace, but not for everyone, it is also true that it is the best situation to keep up the level of a war that can be defined as cold, with all the risks involved: from the return of the balance of terror and nuclear proliferation, up to heavy global repercussions on the economy, with rising prices and limiting the circulation of products and services and therefore the return of phenomena such as that of inflation. It is not easy to resolve this situation, especially considering the constant lack of rights in the Chinese country and Beijing’s willingness to export its model, a danger from which Europe must absolutely preserve itself.

The decision by Turkish President Erdogan on the Santa Sofia building, although sanctioned by the country’s constitutional bodies, has all the appearance of a means of solving internal problems, rather than preferring foreign policy and inter-confessional dialogue. Meanwhile, the signal is solely in favor of the most extreme part of Turkish radicalism and outlines the direction that Erdogan intends to maintain, both in domestic and foreign policy. The question is fundamental if framed in the real position of Turkey in the western field, both from the military point of view, with reference to the conflictual relationship with the Atlantic Alliance first of all, but also from the political point of view in general, with respect to the interests Westerners. Ankara has suffered the refusal of the European Union to be admitted as a member, but the motivation appears to be increasingly justified and fair by Brussels; Turkey, it should be remembered, was not admitted for the lack of essential requirements regarding respect for rights, but, while complaining about the iniquity of this decision, it did not approach European standards. On the contrary, he began a process of gradual Islamization of political life, which further compressed civil rights and placed the centrality of power on the person of the President. A substantially corrupt country, which suffers from an important economic crisis (which came after a period of development) and where power uses a classic scheme when internal affairs go wrong: to divert public opinion with alternative and foreign policy issues. It is not for nothing that Erdogan focused on fighting the Kurds, also supporting radical Islamic militias, who fought with the Islamic State and aggravating the relationship with the United States, most recently the Libyan adventure placed Turkey in open contrast with the Union European. The question of Saint Sophia seems to fit into this framework and this strategy, however the contrast, at least directly, is not with one or more nations, but with religious authorities that have relevance and importance which should not be underestimated. The open hostility of the Orthodox can have repercussions on relations that are not exactly cordial with Russia, was supplemented by the declaration of Pope Francis, who expressed personal pain. The Vatican had opted for a conduct inspired by caution, pending the pronouncement of the Turkish Constitutional Court and for this reason it had been made the subject of heavy criticism precisely by the Orthodox churches. The Pope’s action was probably postponed until the end to preserve dialogue with Erdogan on issues related to the reception of migrants, the management of terrorism, the status of Jerusalem, conflicts in the Middle East and even inter-religious dialogue, an instrument considered fundamental for contacts between peoples. The contact between the Vatican and Turkey has so far survived even the criticisms of the Armenian genocide that the Pope has expressed several times, however the question of Saint Sophia affects not only Catholicism but all members of the Christian religion and the consequences could be negative in the continuation of the same relations between Christianity and Islam, which by far outweigh the contacts between Erdogan and Pope Francis. It is not for nothing that the transformation into a Hagia Sophia mosque is viewed with concern by even the most moderate Muslims, who live in Europe. The interreligious factor should be the one of greatest concern for Erdogan, given that officially there has been no criticism from the USA, Russia (a factor to be carefully evaluated for the importance of the Orthodox community in the country and in support of Putin) and the Union European. The feeling is that this was dictated by the desire not to further damage the relationship with Turkey, despite everything still considered fundamental in the regional geopolitical balances. However, Hagia Sophia’s move seems to be Erdogan’s latest found to be able to use religion as a tool for political propaganda against a public opinion that no longer seems to support his neo-Ottoman policy, due to public spending. increasingly large, especially in military spending, but which does not bring significant improvements in the economic field to the Turkish population. If the support of the economy is lacking, also due to a steadily rising inflation, it may be possible that the sectors unhappy with the growing poverty become welded with that part of society that does not politically share the direction taken by the Turkish president, and on the contrary, it openly challenges it, opening a state of political crisis that is difficult to manage again with just repression.

The serious relations between the USA and China cannot fail to have repercussions on international balances, as, in part, is already happening; however, it is necessary to question what are the aspects and the effects and how these will affect Europe normally framed in the western bloc. The old continent, and in particular the European Union, are experiencing a difficult period due to internal tensions, caused by the rigidity of the Brussels institutions, the growth of nationalists and the presence of contrary positions, which culminated with the abandonment of the Kingdom Kingdom. The Union has always been a cornerstone of the Atlantic Alliance, but ties seem to have loosened with the Trump presidency. Even American economic policy, closed in on itself, has forced Brussels to search for other partners, outside of the usual choices. There is no doubt that the US has left a vacuum due to Trump’s isolationist policy, which has underestimated the effects of wanting to focus mainly on domestic politics, leaving out the fallout and the effects of the disengagement in foreign policy, precisely on the overall balance of the American position in the world. Beijing, despite all its contradictions, has been able to cleverly exploit this absence also because of a very large availability of liquidity. The economic crises of the most important market in the world, Europe, have been a great ally for China’s expansionist policy, because they have allowed it to establish outposts within areas where access was previously barred. There is little to say about the need and convenience of entering into business with Beijing, however the awareness of establishing ties with a dictatorship has never been examined too thoroughly just for mere convenience calculations. China has introduced a sort of economic soft power based on the ease of investments which the account will present at the right time; meanwhile it has gained almost uniform silence on the repressions of the Uyghurs, political dissent and failure to respect human rights. Currently the United States is not a reliable partner, however it cannot be compared to China, despite the clumsy and almost self-injurious management of foreign policy, the continuous bad figures of its president and also the lack of protection to which the American people have been subjected for the problem of the pandemic. Now for Europe the problem is not on which side to take sides, despite the inconvenience with the USA, it is clear, precisely as a consequence of the worsening of Chinese behavior, both in the case of Hong Kong, and in the persecution of dissidents abroad, which permanence in the western camp cannot be called into question; rather, for Brussels it is necessary to advance in gaining an increasingly important role as an international actor, capable of criticizing and sanctioning China’s behavior, but not only. Interrupting relations with dictatorial states such as Russia itself, which is already subject to sanctions or Egypt and Turkey, just to name a few, must become a priority, as well as a real political program. The first move must be to stop contacts with Beijing for the development of 5G technology, where it would be better to choose an alternative and internal solution to the Union, precisely because of the peculiarity and importance of communications. Taking an attitude of non-subordination to the United States in military matters is equally important for directly managing crises such as the Libyan crisis, which closely affects the whole continent. To do this, it is necessary to overcome the differences in economic matters and the path of European bonds seems to be an excellent start, to put pressure and even clear choices towards those states, such as those of the former Soviet bloc, which do not seem to have accepted European ideals (on the other hand, if the Union has also remained without the United Kingdom, it may very well give up nations that have only taken without giving), to move away from China, first of all economically, because, in the end, Europe is more essential for Beijing rather than the other way around. Being compliant or pretending nothing about human rights means endorsing these policies and these are choices that sooner or later will backfire on those who made them. The German presidency can be an opportunity to go in this direction: the German authority, especially in this new post-pandemic version, can aggregate the nations really interested, to go towards a common goal and increase the European role in the world panorama also as reference point for the protection and defense of human rights. It does not seem but it is also an economic investment.

The military confrontation between Iran and Israel and therefore the United States would continue, albeit not in the traditional way, but in the form of a cyber war. The latest incidents in the Islamic Republic seemed more like sabotage than fortuitous events. There are four serious events that have followed and raised the alarm level in Iran: explosions in gas deposits inside a military area of ​​the capital, an accident in a health facility, which resulted in 19 victims, due to the explosion of oxygen cylinders, a fire in a thermoelectric power station in the south-western area of ​​the country, preceded by a further fire in the assembly center of a nuclear centrifuge. If, in the first moments, the Iranian security apparatuses were leaning towards accidents, the latest developments could have changed the impressions of the investigators, leaving the causes of bad maintenance only the accident that occurred in the clinic. The Tehran government has chosen the path of caution and prudence, but some media outlets have already insinuated the possibility of Israeli-based cyber attacks. The precedents exist and are part of the development of the virus that damaged the Iranian nuclear program. Tehran is one of the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation program, abandoned by Trump, and according to the International Atomic Energy Organization Iran is not close to the nuclear weapon, despite the decision to reactivate some centrifuges and to design new ones. following the American withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal signed with the European Union, China and Russia. There are mysterious details regarding the fire at the site hosting the centrifuge assembly workshops: in fact, some journalists would have been warned in advance that a dissident organization, perhaps composed of military personnel inside the Iranian security apparatuses, would have carried out an attack. The presence of such an organization within the Iranian armed forces, however, seems unlikely, precisely because of the level of control present in Iranian society and even more in its military structures. To use this ploy may have been foreign powers, not to hide from the Iranian country, but to hide from international public opinion and not suffer public condemnation. On the other hand, it is concretely possible that the Islamic Republic is trying to get to the atomic weapon, both to balance the unofficial alliance between Sunni and Israeli countries, and to have a concrete tool to exhibit within its policy of expansion as a power regional. The sabotage actions should then be framed in a sort of psychological pressure to reduce the possibility of the presence of a new nuclear power in the Middle East region, with this explanation we would understand a potential Israeli action as a further action in an exchange of hostility with Tehran that is going for some time. Similarly, the provocation to Iran could foster a response, which would allow Trump’s United States to act sensationally during the election period. In any case, these are not one-way actions, even two months earlier the Israelis accused Iran of sabotaging aqueducts, altered through the computer, in controlling flows and purification and purification systems. However, it is a conflict fought in a hidden way, to escape the adversaries and international blame, which remains highly dangerous for the negative developments it can cause, but against which it seems useless to appeal in favor of a sense of moderation and caution , which does not exist in the practice and objectives of some governments.

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.