Archivi tag: gentiloni

OLD-NEW FINANCIAL APPROACHES FOR EUROPE

Walther Rathenau, the author of “The New Economy”

When people say that, after Coronavirus, nothing will remain the same, they refer first of all to economy.According to us, this must go much further, first of all inb the financial sector.

Indeed, we seealready now, in many directions, some signs of change, though balanced by the eternal conservatism of our establishments. From one side, digital currencies are altering already now several aspects of traditional economies, especially as concerns digital payments in China, where digital has become, within the framework of the new web economy of the “BATX”, the prevailing means of payment. Their role has been powerfully enhanced by Coronavirus, because the digital network of Alipay has become the key instrument of virus tracking, and digital payments, not involving the physical handling of money, have been a powerful means of prevention, so to become mandatory in high risk situations like the one of Wuhan.

From another point of view, the whole structure of the economic philosophy underpinning the Euro has been eroded, first of all by Quantitative Easing, then by the ongoing generalized economic crisis, already present before Coronavirus, but worsened by the same. This has brought about the need to find out new thinking modes, which we will outline here, and on which we will revert in the forthcoming publications of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis.

The new Chinese Central Banl Digital Currency: a model worldwide

1.Central Banks Digital Currencies

On May 23, Partha Ray and  Santanu Paul have written, in the Indian newspaper “The Hindu”, a detailed article highlighting the crucial, and revolutionary, features of the new Chinese digital currency.

It is worth wile going through this report, for picking up information and ideas which would be useful also, and especially, for Europe:“While the world is grappling with the fallout of COVID-19 and speculating on how far China can be blamed for the pandemic, a silent digital revolution is taking place in China. On April 29, 2020, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the country’s central bank, issued a cryptic press release to the general effect: ‘In order to implement the FinTech Development Plan (2019-2021), the People’s Bank of China has explored approaches to designing an inclusive, prudent and flexible trial-and-error mechanism. In December 2019, a pilot programme was launched in Beijing. To intensively advance the trial work of fintech innovation regulation, the PBoC supports the expansion of the pilot program to cover the cities of Shanghai, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Suzhou, as well as Xiong’an New Area of Hebei, by guiding licensed financial institutions and tech companies to apply for an innovation test.’ “

In media reports, in the recent past, China has emerged as the capital of the crypto ecosystem, accounting for nearly 90% of trading volumes and hosting two-thirds of bitcoin mining operations. The People’s Bank of China tried hard to curtail this exuberance but achieved limited success.

The benefits of Central Banks Digital Currencies (CBDC) are:

-paper money comes with high handling charges and eats up 1% to 2% of GDP, which can be spared;

-by acting as an antidote for tax evasion, money laundering and terror financing, CBDCs can boost tax revenues while improving financial compliance and national security;

-as a tool of financial inclusion, direct benefit transfers can be instantly delivered by state authorities deep into rural areas, directly into the mobile wallets of citizens who need them

-CBDCs can provide central banks an uncluttered view and powerful insights into purchasing patterns at the citizen scale

A digital currency would be beneficial especially for Europe, which has a dramatical need to increase is own cash creation power without borrowing on international markets. The expertise of the PBoC could be transferred through cooperation within the framework of the new Investment Treaty, whose scope should be enlarged to various aspects of economic cooperation, alongside the path of the Italian Silk Road MOU.

An investigation carried out by the Bank for International Settlements shows that most Central Banks are working out hypotheses of digital currencies, but China is the pioneer, as in all other social innovations and technologies..

Rudolf Hilferding, the theorist of the State-monopoly capital

2.An inversion of attitudes between Europe and USA about strong and weak currrencies

The stress since the start of the Euro had been on the idea of “stability”, -whilst, on the contrary, the monetary policies of the FED and of the Bank of China were stigmatized as politicized and volatile-. Such stress has been reversed by the most recent attitudes of European Institutions.

The ECB had already had recourse, against its natural inclination, to Quantitative Easing, after that Abe and Obama had already made massive use of this instrument following to the Subprime crisis, so rendering it “politically correct”. At the occasion of the Coronavirus crisis, the ECB has made recourse again, more than before, to this instrument, so resulting to be the major source of emergency liquidity in favor of Member States. Now we have a further panoply of emergency and recovery funds, which do not comply any more with the preceding monetary orthodoxy, and that could, and should, open the way to the total reversal of past policies .

Now, it is US president Trump, that, for the sake of preserving the role of the dollar as the reserve currency by excellence, is extolling the virtues of stability, as compared with the weakness of Euro and of Yuan .

This necessitated abrupt change of the European financial policy, though maintained, uo to now, within a strict political and ideological control, cannot avoid to shadeimportant doubts on the traditional metapolitical grand narrative of Euro.

According such narrative, this currency was a cornerstone of the European integration because it embodied to the utmost extent the stability goal attainable by the preeminence of economy over politics, which purportedly was the civilizational achievement of the European Union, rendering it superior to any other political form in history (including the United States). This hegemony of economics corresponded to the ideal of “Douce Commerce” expressed by Benjamin Constant as the landmark of representative constitutionalism, which, by this way, was supposed to set the concrete bases for the “Eternal Peace”, which, according to Kant, would have been grounded on the preeminence of merchant values on the ones of glory a and honour, typical of old monarchies.

Europe could have achieved such goal of “Douce Commerce” because, as stated eventually by Juenger and Schuman, WWII would have shown to Europeans the necessity of avoiding wars, and, therefore, to find a peaceful organization of Europe. Such peaceful Europe would have required giving up strong national identities, and the related cultural atmosphere oriented towards war. This was even the characteristic which distinguished Europe from U.S. (for Kagan, “Europe coming from Venus, US from Mars”). According to this narrative, US hegemony constituted even a blessing, avoiding to Europe the burdens of war and allowing to it to carry out that historical experiment.

Following to a mix of marxist determinism and Rostow’s Development Theory, mainstream Euro ideology maintained that wars are a by-product of economic contradictions. In particular WWII would have been the outcome of Weimar inflation and Great Depression, which, by disenfranchising the German middle-classes, had created the psychological background for Nazi revisionism. By contrast, the new stability policies of the Federal Republic would have been the main instrument for preventing the falling back of Europe, and especially of Germany, into the “cultural atmosphere” of the Thirties (the “Destruction of Reason” described by Lukàcs), which had rendered the Axis possible.

The problem for these theorists is now that the present fall of the economic background set up with the Euro could make possible a disenfranchisement of middle classes parallel to the one of the Thirties and their orientation towards populism, which, at its turn, could make possible the rebirth of violent forms of empowerment (“Selbstbehauptung”).

Albeit the ideological Byzantinism of the above narrative is self-evident, there is something true in its reasoning. The end of the illusion of an unprecedented richness of Europeans, which has been so well cultivated in post-WWII Europe – by the ERP, by the mythologies of neo-realism and of dolce-vita, of welfare State and Occidentalism, had been seriously set in doubt by the 1973 Oil Crisis, by the crises of the Twin Towers and of Subprimes and by the comparative reduction of Europe’s GNP as compared with China and developing countries. The higher growth rate of such countries not having given up to their sovereignty and to a realistic orientation of their ruling classes have shown that Rostow’s Development Theory is not apt to explain the real economic trends of the world.

The need, by European Institutions, to follow , for salvaging European economy, paths alternative to monetarist orthodoxy, such as Quantitative Easing, monetization of debt, deficit spending, State aids, shows that there is no unavoidable trend in world economy, and that Europeans are free again to choose their economic destiny.

According to me, the case of Italy is the most perspicuous. Italy’s economy had grown at a very fast pace before and during the two world wars because the ambitions of the unified State had led it automatically towards expansionism and militarism. Eventually, the huge industrial structures and widespread industrial culture created for the needs of war had purposefully not been destroyed by the Allies because they would have resulted to be too useful after the war. The conversion of Europe from a war economy to a consumption society had brought about the so-called “Italian Miracle”. Unfortunately, since it was just an epiphenomenon of wars, such “Economic Miracle” finished less than 30 years after the war (in 1973, with the Oil Crisis), even if this abrupt end was masked by the increased salaries,inflation , the extension to middle classes of social benefits already accrued to blue collars, and a large dose of propaganda, by State, media, enterprises and trade unions.

Michal Kalecki, the inventor of “Military Keynesism”

3.A further step forward

Presently, the need for a realistic approach to the management of economy is felt more than ever.

At knowledge level, it must result clear that economy is a human science, and, as such, it is not an exact science. As a consequence, all of its theories, stories, approaches, solutions, are always very subjective.

Second, at meta-political level, the fact that war has not appeared, at least in Europe since WWII, in the traditional forms of direct and massive violence, does not impede that a “war without limits” is carried out every day under our eyes, with propaganda,mafia, excellent murders, military expenses, ethnic wars, terrorism, espionage, extraordinary renditions, humanitarian wars. A State which gives up to counter this kinds of violence carried out by other States or organizations against itself, its territory, its citizens, its economy, is damned to disappear within a short period of time.

At political level, this situation is opening up the possibility to discuss concretely each specific issue on a solid basis, showing which have been the mystifications and the mistakes of the past, the political distortions influencing still now a correct strategical approach, and in any case proposing alternative paths, apt to reverse the structural weaknesses of European economies.

It is loughly is that, when thinking of the “necessary reforms” of our economies, everybody thinks of the reduction of employment and social benefits, as well as a further minimization of the role of States.

Unfortunately, these processes, which have been the most evident causes of acceleration of Europe’s decline, are not the ones apt to reverse it. On the contrary, a serious “reform” should start from a thorough study (now possible thanks to Big Data), of what Europeans are really doing and of what the market really need.

There will be many great surprises.

Such study would bring us to ascertain that, today, the largest part of Europeans is not present on the labor market (because many women work at home, the number of pensioners is growing exponentially, young people do not start working before 20 years, there is a lot of unemployed and under-employed workers, sick persons and prisoners. Secondly, most people who are employed are producing things which are relatively not useful for European societies (such as the huge amount of commercial businesses, which now are almost bankrupt, or the production of luxury cars, which have no market, or military bureaucracy, deriving from the existence of 40 different armies), whilst, on the contrary, products and services which are badly needed, either for homeconsumption (such as education, research, industrial restructuring services, maintenance of territories), are not produced by anybody.

Today, the European market, left to itself, is not able to match society’s needs with workforce availability. Europe must set up, first of all, the Big Data which will be able to map this situation and provide for a general plan for the next 7 years, during which people will be trained, financing will be provided, enterprises will be restructured, employees will be hired, in such way that all necessary activities will be carried out by somebody, and that everybody finds an occupation corresponding to his skills.

All this has not very much to do with Keynesianism, which is just one of the options within the prevailing American- type liberalism. We cannot call it “corporatism”, nor “State command economy”, both having resulted, in the government practices of the XX century, to be just two alternatives compatible with Western globalization, all of them falling within the Aristotelian definition of “Chrematistiké”.

That “good government”should be an application, in practice, of the ideas of Aristoteles about “oikonomìa” as alternative to “chrematistiké”, or, in a more recent application, of the ones of Hilfereding, about “Staatsmonopolistischer Kapitalismus” or of Kalecki, about “military Keynesism”.

The overall scheme of tEuropean recovery interventions

4. A European NATO-like Emergency Service

The problem of the European post-Coronavirus interventions is that the very complex structure of the European Union renders its intervention slow, ineffective and not transparent.

In fact:

1)each action has to go through:

-a proposal phase (through Member States, and Commission);

-a decision-making phase (ECB, Council, Parliament)

-an implementing phase (Financial markets, Governments and Parliaments)

-an administrative phase (Ministries, Regions, banks);

-a jurisdictional control.

b)Each phase imply lengthy negotiations with egoistic interests, which hinder emergency interventions (Member States, Central Banks, political parties, Ministers, enterprises, professions, regions, cities):

-disputes about the nature of the aids;

-US interferences;

-instrumental polemics;

-media manipulations;

-personal ambitions;

-organised crime;

-unconscionable citizens’attitudes;

c)it is impossible to understand really what happens (Byzantinism of European regulations; uncomplete nature of compromise regulations; need of national implementing activities;fraudulent implementation):

-the swinging attitudes of financial markets;

-the upredictable impact of the financial compact;

-the ever changing decisions of parliaments, goverments, regions and mayors.

The EU authorities would have liked to be able (as Josep Borrell dreamed), to send armored convoys with European flags to bring first aid to victim popuilations. On the contrary, whilst Chinese, Russian, Cuban and Albanian aid arrrived physically and officially within a few days from the requests of the relevant governments, European aid has nort yet arrived, and will never arrived with military medica and with European flags.

Under these conditions,how to be surprised that most Italians consider China as the most friendly country?

This constitutes an objactive drawback of the European system. Ursula von der Leyen, David Sassoli,Josep Borrell, Paolo Gentiloni and Dubravka Suica must work harder on that, creating a complete system of European enìmergency intervention, if necessary as a joint intergovermment project, like NATO, with own dotations, own personnel, equipment, stock, commandment, without being bound to discuss everything with everybody.

LETTER TO EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Marisa Matias

Christian Ehler

Magdalena Adamowicz

Maria Carvalho

Vlad Marius Botos

p.c:

David Sassoli

Ursula von der Leyen

Paolo Gentiloni

Thierry Breton

Dubravka Suica

Margrethe Vestager

Vera Jourova

Maros Sefkovic

Turin 24/4/2020

Ladies and gentlemen,

I permit myself to address to you as members of the Committee of the European Parliament “Industry, Research and Energy”. Your commission is scheduled for April 28 for the discussion (and possible approval in first reading) of two proposals, concerning a revision of the regulation governing the EIT, and its re-financing for the period 2021-2027.

Such situation does not seem to me  very logical. In fact, after the Coronavirus crisis, everything has changed in the world, so that  preceding policies should be in any case modified. As President Ursula von der Leyen has said “…because this crisis is different from any other, so must our next seven-year budget be different from what we know. We will need to frontload it so we can power investment in those crucial first years of recovery”

“We have to deliver on a European budget that is able:

– To invest in digital start-ups.

– To explore the potential of artificial intelligence.

– To anchor Europe’s position as the world’s leading research region.

– To offer young people a better future in all parts of Europe.

– To address the root causes of migration.

– To allow us to demonstrate solidarity in cases of humanitarian or natural catastrophes.

– To allow to build the European Union of Security and Defence.”

Against this background, what sense do make a new regulation and of a new agenda for technology which had been initiated, under completely different circumstances,  before  the Coronavirus crisis, and which are discussed during the same, without waiting for the new pluriannual budget of the UE?

The Coronavirus crisis will leave Europe in such difficult situation, that all priorities must be reassessed.

Secondly, the Conference on the Future of Europe should decide first of all about a thorough technological transition of Europe, which up to now is not satisfactory at all, because the gap between Europe, from one side, and the US and China, from the other, is growing and growing. By the way, in a document diffused very recently by the European Parliament (Annex 1) ,it is said that  the investments in R&D in China have bypassed the ones in Europe since 2013. Under these circumstances, it is very unlikely that Europe may be a global player wihin 7 years, if we do not change dramatically our technological policy.

The approach followed up to now, where new technological developments in defence, aerospace, digital, biology, transportation, environment, communication, organisation, are so much dispersed as to result ineffective , has to be reconsidered thoroughly, with the idea of a sole planning organisation, common to EIB, Commission, Council, Member States, Regions, Companies and Cities, which may concentrate this huge effort of the next few years, for challengng, from one side, DARPA, and, from the other, “Made in China 2025”.

For this purpose, we  are publishing just now the book “The European Technology Agency, with a proposal of Associazione Culturale Diàlexis for the Conference on the Future of Europe”(Annex 2), which we hope will be read and considered in time by European legislators, since it includes a coordinated study, comprehensive of an articulated proposal for the Conference. We are sending the book to members of parliament and relevant commissioners, urging them to consider its arguments and the proposals contained in it. Finally, we are also preparing a second book, devoted to a debate among intellectuals, politicians, European Movements  and  civil society, on technological humanism in Europe after coronavirus. We hope we will receive contributions from everybody, in time for influencing the ongoing debates. Of couse, we think, in foist instance, of the addressees of this communication

We will follow up the matter during the next few months, for checking that the political agenda will keep into account the coordination among coronavirus crisis, structural European crisis and the new multiannual budget. This attention will also be at the centre of our commemoration of the 70  Years of the Schuman Declaration and of the 2500 years of the battles of Thermopyles and Salamina, from 9 may up to the first days of September.

We hope that these events will generate a cultural movement transforming the attitude of the European establishment, which will be much more focussed on a coordinated and urgent technological change.

We would be honoured by any reaction on your side, and we remain available for any form of cooperation.

Thanking  you in advance for your attention,

We remain,

Yours Faithfully

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

The President

Riccardo Lala

Asssociazione Culturale Diálexis Via Bernardino Galliari 32, 10125 Torino  TO (Italy) ++39 011.6690004    +39 335. 7761536   www.alpinasrl.com  

RESILIENZA DELL’ EUROPA: “SURE”

Alte Briefverschlussmarke aus Papier, welche seit ca. 1850 von Behoerden, Anwaelten, Notaren und Firmen zum verschliessen der Post verwendet wurde.

Finalmente, dopo almeno un mese d’indifferenza, l’Europa sembra risvegliarsi, cercando di fornire risposte comuni ai terribili colpi infertici dalla pandemia.

Secondo il commissario Gentiloni, il proposto fondo SURE (Support to mitigate unemployment risks in emergency) raccoglierà risorse sui mercati emettendo bond con tripla A, quindi a tassi bassissimi, che darà poi, ai Paesi che ne hanno bisogno, prestiti con scadenze a lungo termine.

Questa “cassa integrazione europea” proposta dalla Presidentessa von der Leyen è certamente un’ottima trovata per mettere d’accordo tutti. E’ sostanzialmente un prodotto della politica interna tedesca, molto sensibile, come ormai tutti e dovunque, ai nominalismi. Invece di chiamarla “coronabonds”, o ”MES”, termini (“Schlagwoerter”) che facevano infiammare troppo gli animi, la chiameremo “cassa integrazione”. Del resto, già quando era ministra tedesca per gli affari sociali, la von der Leyen aveva cambiato il nome al sussidio di disoccupazione, la cui denominazione gergale, “Harz IV”, ricordava troppo il cancelliere socialista Schroeder.

Qui la differenza è che i “coronabonds” proposti da Italia e Francia miravano a finanziare il debito degli Stati più deboli, lasciando a questi ultimi la libertà di disporne a piacimento, mentre il nuovo strumento aiuterebbe equanimemente tutti gli Stati, e sarebbe destinato a una finalità chiara ed evidente. Basti pensare che in questi mesi il solo settore dell’auto ha già perso, in Europa, 1 milione di posti di lavoro.

 

Ulrike Guérot: La nuova guerra civile, Alpina, 2019

1.La storia dell’ “Europaeisches Arbeitslosengeld” (“Europaeische Kurzarbeit”)

L’idea di un “sussidio di disoccupazione europeo” era nato qualche anno fa all’ interno dell’estrema sinistra tedesca (die Linke), era poi stato formalizzato nel 2018 dal ministro socialista Scholz, era stato lodato nel libro di Ulrike Guérot, pubblicato l’anno scorso da Alpina, “la nuova guerra civile”, e, infine, era finito nel programma di governo della Commissione von der Leyen, che aveva ottenuto il voto favorevole del Parlamento Europeo. Insomma, dovrebbe essere una soluzione di attuazione relativamente facile, visto che i governi l’avevano già approvata e il Parlamento votata.

Il progetto prevederebbe addirittura l’obbligo, per gli Stati Membri che ancora non l’avessero, d’introdurre, nel proprio ordinamento, quest’ istituto. Una rivincita culturale dell’Italia. Dopo tante decennali critiche alla Cassa Integrazione, la Commissione è giunta ad affermare che questo istituto si era rivelato provvidenziale, nel 2008, proprio in quei Paesi, come l’Italia, che ce l’avevano. D’altro canto, che cosa fanno i decreti di Conte, se non introdurre una sorta di “cassa integrazione per tutti”, e che cosa chiede l’opposizione? Semplicemente di accelerarne l’accredito bancario.

La Guérot aveva paragonato, nel suo libro, molto pertinentemente, la “cassa integrazione europea” alla Reichsversicherungsordnung (Decreto imperiale sulle assicurazioni) dell’ Impero Germanico, del 1911,  che ha costituito, fino al 1992, la base del diritto sociale tedesco, -e, per estensione, dell’ “economia sociale di mercato”-, di cui mi ero occupato nel 1971 presso l’ ANMA di Torino, come di  diritto vigente a tutti gli effetti, salve le norme divenute nel frattempo incostituzionali (“vorkonstitutionelles Recht”).

Si tratterebbe di un’integrazione europea, su fondi propri della Commissione (in parte già esistenti), con contributi e garanzie degli Stati membri, a supporto dei Paesi in particolare difficoltà: visto l’andamento dell’epidemia, la Presidentessa ha citato espressamente l’Italia e la Spagna. Tuttavia, fra i primi a fruirne ci sarà proprio la Germania, dato che, tra una cosa e l’altra, il mercato dell’auto e l’export in Cina si sono inchiodati, e il ministro  Altmaier sta addirittura pensando di nazionalizzare qualche grosso gruppo. Secondo il ministro del lavoro, in seguito alla quarantena, 470.000 imprese hanno fatto domanda della cassa integrazione, contro le 1.300 domande mensili degli anni passati.

Il provvedimento sarà limitato nel tempo, ma sarà prorogabile. La maggior parte dei politici europei pensa (giustamente) che un sistema di aiuti europei per il rilancio dell’economia agli Stati membri in difficoltà debba durare per l’intero esercizio pluriennale 2021-2017. Tutti citano ovviamente il Piano Marshall, ma si tratta di una citazione stucchevole, perché, come aveva spiegato bene Milward, il Piano Marshall aveva un  diverso obiettivo: quello d’ integrare l’Europa occidentale nell’ economia di un’altra potenza, l’ America, e i Governi europei lo avevano “dirottato” (almeno parzialmente) verso loro diverse finalità (risanare i rispettivi bilanci), con una resistenza occulta, ma non per questo meno efficace. E, come ha notato brillantemente Gentiloni, era stato adottato ben 2 anni dopo la guerra, non avendo quindi nulla a che fare con il rimbalzo economico postbellico.

Qui si tratta invece, -finalmente- di un aiuto reciproco fra Europei per reintegrare nel mercato del lavoro i disoccupati o i sottooccupati (che tra l’altro non sono certo solo colpa di un mese di quarantena). Quindi, contrariamente ai “corona bonds”, non  è un finanziamento dei deficit di bilancio, bensì un fondo di scopo, per altro ben mirato, che non lascia discrezionalità agli Stati membri. E’stata sostanzialmente accolta la tesi del Governo italiano: il MES sarebbe stato inapplicabile, perché qui non si tratta di prestare dei soldi a un Paese in bancarotta, bensì di concedersi reciprocamente un supporto dinanzi a una catastrofe ad oggi ancora non misurabile. Non ci sono paesi ricchi e paesi poveri, anche perché, in cima alla lista dei Paesi in difficoltà c’è, nonostante la scarsa mortalità per Coronavirus, la Germania.

La  mia preoccupazione è che, con l’ansia di mettere toppe alle nostre economie, passino  come sempre in cavalleria gli ambiziosi progetti di Macron e di Altmaier per un’autonomia tecnologica europea. Tra l’altro, proprio la presidente della Commissione era stata eletta il 16 luglio 2019 con un programma comprendente la Conferenza sul Futuro dell’Europa, che avrebbe dovuto permettere all’ Europa, tra l’altro, di recuperare tutto il terreno perduto negli scorsi decenni rispetto al resto del mondo. La conferenza avrebbe dovuto partire il 9 maggio, ma, ovviamente, non partirà. Così, un altro anno è passato inutilmente, e il futuro non viene progettato, né si permette ai cittadini di dire la loro. Infine, la Commissione aveva adottato, il 19 Febbraio, un sostanzioso anche se, a mio avviso, insufficiente pacchetto di progetti per un’Europa digitale.

A mio avviso, i progetti discussi l’anno scorso, parzialmente sviluppati nel pacchetto del 19 e ampiamente commentati da think tanks e personaggi politici, possono, ed anzi debbono, essere comunque realizzati nel corso del prossimo bilancio settennale. Anche perchè le caratteristiche tipiche dell’ attuale epidemia: ruolo centrale delle statistiche, distanziazione sociale, telelavoro, diagnostica elettronica, controllo sanitario sul contante, pagamenti elettronici, hanno fatto fare, all’ economia cinese, tali  nuovi balzi tenologici in avanti rispetto a tutto il resto del mondo, che l’ Europa non può semplicemente permettersi di non fare praticamente nulla in quel campo. Il mondo non sta fermo ad aspettare i nostri comodi.

  1. »Nous sommes en guerre »

Intanto, non solo tutti gli Europei dovrebbero condividere i costi della pandemia, ma addirittura la lotta alle pandemie dovrebbe diventare un compito dell’Unione, nell’ ambito della politica esterna e di difesa comune, perché essa confina con un evento bellico. Non per nulla Macron ha dichiarato “Siamo in guerra” (e tutti l’hanno ripetuto). Ma si va in guerra senza un comandante in capo? E, infatti, gli Stati membri sono arrivati tutti impreparati perché non c’è nessun caporale che li strigli quando non fanno il loro dovere. E qui nessuno l’ha fatto. Secondo i protocolli stabiliti dall’ Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità, e perfino dalla NATO, dovrebbero esistere piani dettagliati, ospedale per ospedale, medico per medico, su cosa fare in caso di emergenza. Nei magazzini, civili e militari, dovrebbero esserci stati miliardi di mascherine.  E invece, almeno in Italia, molti di questi piani non sono stati neppure scritti, e neanche la Francia e la Spagna avevano le scorte. Infine, tutti hanno dovuto usare le attrezzature regalate da Russi e Cinesi, spesso approvvigionandosi presso fornitori non autorizzati, con richiami di materiale per qualità scadente. Solo ora  stiamo avviando una produzione nazionale. Unico Paese in regola, la Turchia, che, rispondendo all’ appello lanciato dai due Paesi attraverso la NATO, ha fatto omaggio a Italia e Spagna di qualche tonnellata di attrezzature mediche autoprodotte dall’Esercito Turco: unico fulgido esempio di “preparazione industriale bellica”, con cui si è complimentato perfino Stoltenberg.

Pensiamo che cosa sarebbe successo se, come sostenuto da molti complottisti, si fosse trattato veramente di una guerra batteriologica. Il potenziale nemico l’avrebbe vinta subito senz’altro. Quand’ ero ufficiale nella fortezza di Casale, una volta abbiamo fatto la prova della mobilitazione generale. Bene, sono stato rimproverato per il fatto di essere passato armato sulle mura della fortezza “perché qualcuno avrebbe potuto pensare che stavamo facendo un colpo di Stato”. Se affrontiamo così i problemi di una mobilitazione generale, contro il nemico o contro un morbo, certo perderemo tutte le battaglie.

La prova schiacciante di quest’ impreparazione è l’esito grottesco delle grandi manovre NATO “Defender Europe 2020”, “le più grandi manovre in Europa dopo la IIa Guerra Mondiale”, che avrebbero dovuto coinvolgere 37.000 militari, essenzialmente americani, ma anche di tutti i Paesi europei. Bene, ancora pochi giorni fa, poco dopo ch’ erano già arrivati, in Germania, 5000 Americani, l’esercitazione è stata cancellata alla chetichella, anche perché sono risultati positivi al tampone il comandante generale delle forze americane in Europa, Tenente Generale Christopher Cavoli, il comandante supremo polacco Jaroslaw Mika, il generale italiano Salvatore Farina e l’ispettore della Bundeswehr, Tenente Generale Alfons Mais, tutti dopo essere stati alla riunione del 6 marzo a Wiesbaden sulla prevenzione dell’ epidemia fra le truppe. Dopo di che, l’epidemia si è diffusa più che mai in Italia, e poi anche in America.

Queste grandi manovre sono state altamente istruttive: se una divisione americana tentasse veramente di raggiungere il Baltico, potrebbe essere fermata in mille modi, ma, in primis, con le (certo, vietatissime) armi batteriologiche. Quindi, neppure gli Stati Uniti (né la NATO) sono attrezzati adeguatamente contro le pandemie.Un’ulteriore conferma delle valutazioni del Presidente Macron sulla “morte cerebrale dello Stato”.

Robot-dottore usato a Wuhan contro il Coronavirus

3.Come coordinare gl’interventi d’urgenza, la Conferenza sul Futuro dell’Europa e il bilancio 2021-2027?

Il vero problema è che l’Europa, così come l’Italia, sta accumulando una serie di problemi insoluti, sì che sembra sempre più difficile risolverli. E, tuttavia, il fatto stesso che, da un lato, si stia mettendo in sicurezza questa fase transitoria con la “cassa integrazione europea”, e, dall’ altro, tutti convengano che gli altri problemi vadano risolti globalmente nel medio periodo, fa finalmente sperare che verranno assunte decisioni ponderate.

L’errore che un po’ tutti hanno commesso fino ad ora è stato quello di concentrarsi sugli aspetti quantitativi: gli USA hanno stanziato 1.200 miliardi di dollari per il rilancio dell’economia  dopo il coronavirus, di cui una parte in “helicopter money”, cioè contanti  dallo Stato ai cittadini per far girare l’economia. Lo stesso meccanismo è stato adottato in Cina dalle comunità locali.

Il programma SURE copre 100 miliardi di Euro. La Proposta della Commissione al Consiglio lo definisce come segue:

“SURE will take the form of a lending scheme underpinned by a system of guarantees from Member States. This system will allow the Union to:

(1)     expand the volume of loans that can be provided by the SURE instrument to Member States requesting financial assistance under the instrument;

(2)     ensure that the contingent liability for the Union arising from the instrument is compatible with the Union budget constraints.

For the approach to serve the intended purpose, Member States must provide credible, irrevocable and callable guarantees to the Union in line with the respective shares in the total Gross National Income of the Union. The system of guarantees will avoid the need for up- front cash contributions from Member States while providing the credit enhancement required to ensure a high credit rating and protect the resources of the Union budget.

In addition to the provision of Member State guarantees, other safeguards are built into the framework in order to ensure the financial solidity of the scheme:

  • A rigorous and conservative approach to financial management;
  • A construction of the portfolio of loans that limits concentration risk, annual exposure and excessive exposure to individual Member States, whilst ensuring sufficient resources could be granted to Member States most in need; and
  • Possibilities to roll over debt.”

La “cassa Integrazione Europea” (SURE) non è l’unico provvedimento d’urgenza adottato per rimediare la crisi del Coronavirus, perché la Commissione sta dedicando, all’ emergenza Coronavirus, molti fondi residui in base al bilancio 2014-2021:

-una Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative:37 miliardi attraverso il Fondo Sociale Europeo

-1000 miliardi di garanzie alle banche dallo European Investment Fund  per finanziamenti alle piccole e medie imprese;

-lo European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, fino a 179 milion  di Eiuro per il 2020, per sostenerer i lavoratori disoccupati;

-lo EU Solidarity Fund, da allargarsi alle crisi sanitarie per  800 milioni di Euro  per il 2020.

 

E’ evidente che ci dovrà essere una seconda fase dedicata alla ricostruzione, in cui serviranno nuovi fondi, che però, essendo spalmati su un bilancio settennale, incontreranno meno difficoltà di reperimento.

A mio avviso, è comunque un errore valutare questi programmi in base agl’importi stanziati (quasi fossero “helicopter money”). Infatti, la maggior parte degli attuali fondi europei non sono utili, per una serie di motivi:

-non sostengono le attività essenziali (come la cultura europea, l’autonomia e la crescita digitale e in generale tecnologica, il turismo, l’esercito e l’intelligence europea, la difesa del territorio), e favoriscono invece, “a pioggia”, attività create spesso solo per mantenere inutili strutture burocratiche o per dare ossigeno ad attività senza futuro;

-sono troppo macchinosi, richiedendo un’ingente attività preparatoria senza ritorni economici;

-sono troppo manipolabili dalla politica;

-per i motivi di cui sopra, spesso non sono spesi, o addirittura non sono neppure richiesti, soprattutto nel caso dell’Italia.

Vista l’arretratezza tecnologica sempre crescente dell’Europa e la rapidità con cui le grandi potenze stanno occupando le aree strategiche della crescita tecnologica (intelligenza artificiale, computazione quantica, blockchain, finanza digitale, biomedica), i prossimi passi dell’Europa debbono essere immediati. I nuovi fondi debbono essere spesi per finanziare questi nuovi settori, non quelli maturi, né tanto meno quelli obsoleti. I capitali e il personale vanno indirizzati a spostarsi verso i nuovi settori.

Inoltre, i nuovi investimenti che andiamo a proporre dovrebbero distinguersi per il loro carattere qualitativo, non già quello quantitativo. Dovrebbe esserci una regia europea unica e forte per tutto l’avanzamento tecnologico nel Continente, eliminando le duplicazioni e le dispersioni; dovrebbero unirsi le tecnologie civili e militari; dovrebbero favorirsi le aggregazioni europee; dovrebbero privilegiarsi le qualità umane: educazione, eccellenza, responsabilità, volontariato, senza pensare che con il denaro si possano ottenere i migliori risultati, com’è dimostrato dalle enormi risorse di abnegazione dispiegate da medici, infermieri, volontari, forze armate e forze dell’ ordine in occasione della crisi sanitaria, mentre la politica, le  burocrazie sanitarie, le amministrazioni locali e l’imprenditoria sanitaria privata, tutti assieme, si erano resi responsabili della solita impreparazione, con il conseguente drammatico contributo di vite umane.

La produzione libraria del 2020 di Alpina Diàlexis sarà dedicata a questi obiettivi, e alla proposizione, nell’ ambito della Conferenza sul Futuro dell’Europa, di un’Agenzia Europea per la Tecnologia.