December 1st, 2011
1911-2011 MARSHALL MCLUHAN’S CENTURY
Guest Speaker: Derrick De Kerckhove
By Erin Swanson
Speaker Bio: Derrick De Kerckhove is the author of The Skin of Culture and Connected Intelligence and has worked with Marshall McLuhan as a translator and co-author. He was also the Director of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology from 1983 to 2008. Besides his interest in questions concerning communication, he supports new artistic developments that combine art, technology and emerged media communication. He is currently a professor at the University of Toronto.
McLuhan said that electricity would wipe out identity. Professor Kerckhove said that he argued with him on this point because today we build our identity and publish it instead of having it internalized. This changes the ground of identity and relationships. A new type of unconsciousness exists besides Sigmund Freud’s private and Carl Jung’s collective unconscious: the digital unconsciousness. An example would be Google, which is able to track your patterns of research and show different search results for different people even if they search the same topic. Electricity makes information transparent, such as Wikileaks.
November 28th, 2011
THE LEGACY OF THE ITALIAN RESISTANCE: A DISCUSSION ON PHILIP COOKE’S RECENT STUDY PUBLISHED IN 2011 BY PALGRAVE MCMILLIAN.
Panelists: Philip Cooke
Elena Aga Rossi
Luca de Caprariis
Federigo Argentieri
By Erin Swanson
On Monday, November 28th, the Guarini Institute screened a chapter from the History of Italy by Istituto Luce, as a historical background of the Resistance.
After the screening, Professor Argentieri introduced the evening lecture and the speakers, specialists on the Italian Resistance. Philip Cooke’s book, The Legacy of the Italian Resistance, provides an interpretation of the movement in the decades following World War II.
Dr. Cooke began the introduction of his study with an explanation of the book cover. The cover shows two street signs that are perpendicular to each other. One says “XXV Aprile” and the other “Via della Republica.” (The 25th of April is the symbolic date of Italy’s victory over fascism.) The aim of his book is to show how the Resistance influenced the Italian Republic over different periods of time. The books’ chapters are divided into the following periods; 1945-1948, 1948-1955, 1955-1960, 1960-1970, 1970-1989, and up to the present day. He incorporates different genres such as literature, short stories, songs, films and monuments that are about the Resistance and analyzes their perspective in each time period.
Instead of going chapter by chapter through the various time periods, Dr. Cooke showed the audience a few images that are part, or he wishes that were part, of the book. Many were snap shots from the film Rome Open City, which reflected the horrors of fascism and the strength of a few good men.
Dr. Cooke also pointed out a famous quote by Pietro Calamandrei - “Ora e Sempre Resistenza”. This is meant to show the strength and unity of the Resistance. (A question about how much the Resistance was actually unified was brought up later during the discussion of the book.) During his presentation, he also showed a poster that describes the Resistance as the “Secondo Risorgimento.” This has become a “hot topic” with scholars today, with the 150th anniversary of the Risorgimento. Dr. Cooke went on to describe graffiti as a way of showing a different point of view of interpretation the Resistance.
Elena Aga Rossi described the book as not only focusing on interdisciplinary topics but also incorporating the impact on Italian life. There became a problem of legitimacy as the war materialized and two competing Italian States emerged, the North vs. the South. This made it very difficult to have a clear historical interpretation of the resistance. The new Italian Republic found its legitimacy in the Resistance, therefore creating a myth that very few Italians were fascist or communist. This leads into another issue of the unification of the Resistance participants because there were communists, monarchists, liberals etc. The third issue that Rossi deemed important was the lack of credit given to the Allies, who in fact liberated Italy when they arrived on April 21st, not the partisans.
Luca de Caprariis agrees with Rossi on this point. He believes there is a problem with consensus both within the Resistance movement and those reading and writing about it years after. Caprariis kindly critiqued that although Cooke did analyze fascism, he did not provide a sufficient background of it. He also questioned the validity of comparing the Resistance as a Secondo Risorgimento.
Dr. Cooke answered these comments and critiques by saying that his book is not intended to be a reconstruction of the history between 1943 and 1945, or to answer questions of the Allies’ role. He explained that his book attempts to look at the nature of the debates that discuss the armed resistance topic. Dr. Cooke examined this one topic throughout the first and second republic, all the while not simply discussing various topics and then providing his point of view but rather showing different points of view; in his own words, “perhaps at the expense of other topics.” As for the unity of Resistance myth, he was grateful to Rossi for suggesting it but said he was not given space given by his publisher.
A very brief question and answer section followed with Father James McCann, Adviser to the Guarini Institute.
Asked About the role of professional historians when dealing with issues such as politics and memory, Dr. Cooke answered that in the specific case of Italy and the Resistance, there exists a general problem of communication between the general public and the historians. The historians will write books over 600 pages that people buy and put on their shelves pretending to have read them. As for the historian, the main issue is getting the archival text and then interpreting it. The texts are subjective so it is impossible for the historian to be objective.
October 12th, 2011
FESTIVAL OF DIPLOMACY: 10 YEARS AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS: THE PRESENT AND FUTURE OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Moderator:
Larry Gray, John Cabot University
Panelists:
Clara Albani Head, European Parliament Office in Italy
Federigo Argentieri, John Cabot University
Giancarlo Bosetti, Editor, “Reset”
Maurizio Caprara, “Corriere della Sera”
Maurizio Massari, Italian Foreign Ministry
Franco Pavoncello, President, John Cabot University
Roberto Toscano, Ambassador (ret.)
By Erin Swanson
On Wednesday October 12th, The Guarini Institute of Public Affairs took part in the Festival of Diplomacy that took place in Rome and Florence between the 8th and the 14th of October. The two cities were specifically chosen considering the 150th anniversary of Italian Unification, in a link that expresses the idea that “the Capital of the Kingdom to the Capital of the Republic is a way to remember Italian history.” Its aim was to “give an original view of Diplomacy and how it has affected human history.” The Festival’s goal was executed by having panels of experts from different fields, discussing the future of Diplomacy and the problems it faces today. This year’s topic was entitled “Diplomacy beyond Wikileaks”. (http://www.festivaldelladiplomazia.it/index.php?lang=en)
The panelists at John Cabot University discussed security and freedom in a post- September 11th world and also how technology, such as Wikileaks, has affected it. Professor Larry Gray made the opening remarks and introductions. The discussion began with Mr. Bosetti, who proposed the threatening issue of fighting terrorism by limiting freedom. He stressed that governments should not pass the limits of democracy in order to prevent terrorism.
Mr. Caprara pointed out that the difference between the attacks of WW2 and 9/11 was that the latter, “created waves in ordinary lives.” He elaborates with statistics on the “7.4 billion dollar” increase in security and with examples of increased airport security. Along with the security budget, he also discussed the importance of Wikileaks in demonstrating how many policies are created. It provides a good comparison and understanding, but “we are not using it enough.” Wikileaks could be an essential tool to make this world a safer place than it is now.
Mr. Massari (who was speaking with his own opinions and not representing the Italian Foreign Ministry) expressed his theory that the global war on terror is much less of a threat than we thought, that the effects of 9/11 have faded with time and that today there is much more focus on the economic crisis. In his point of view, Al-Qaeda are much less of a threat today than they were ten years ago, because they have been overshadowed by the Arab Spring. He still insists that, “we should not lower our guard,” but remember the economic constraints because it could be seen as a weakness.
President Pavoncello started his speech by quoting Benjamin Franklin with, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He expanded his thoughts on this quote by pointing out that obviously security has increased and as a result freedom has suffered. The Global War on Terrorism has had a tremendous negative impact, which has resulted in economic crises and military campaigns. In order to obtain security and avoid the elimination of freedom, “we need to stop looking for objects and start looking at people.” President Pavoncello ended with, “Osama bin Laden’s goal was to change the course of history. He succeeded.”
Ambassador Toscano served as Italy’s ambassador to Iran between 2003 and 2008. The Ambassador commented on the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington DC, and the question of Iran’s involvement. He admitted that he has more questions than answers but does not believe Iran to be above such a plot. At the same time, he also believes that Iran is too sophisticated and knowledgeable to get involved with Mexican drug lords. The Ambassador also commented on Wikileaks, claiming that it makes every diplomat terrified and advocating that diplomacy needs confidentiality. That is in his professional diplomatic opinion, but as a citizen and a scholar he is thrilled to have access to it. He also mentioned that the U.S Policy looks very “positive and professional.”
Clara Albani gave her thoughts on how the European Union has changed since September 11th. In 2002, the European Arrest Warrant was put into effect, allowing for any terrorist or criminal to be extradited if suspected of a crime by another Member State, so as not to allow criminals to conceal themselves in Europe. Ms. Albani explained that, “Prevention, protection, prosecution and response are the 4 cornerstones of the European strategy for combating terrorism, whose approach focuses on respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law.” She also said that the execution of this strategy to combat terrorism must constantly change in order to continually be effective.
Closing remarks were made by Professor Federigo Argentieri, with special thanks to Giorgio Botromucci, who coordinated the Festival of Diplomacy. By the size of the turnout and success of the Festival, it is obvious that the Italian public is very interested in international affairs concerning world peace. A war to impose democracy is terribly costly with many civilians killed. But he also wanted to stress that if a war is waged, it is a lesser evil than the indifference to tyranny.
October 4
th, 2011
THE UPCOMING CRISIS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Guest Speaker: Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal and Turkish Studies.
By Erin Swanson
On Tuesday, October 4th, JCU students, staff and the Board of Trustees gathered in the Aula Magna for a lecture on the current situation in the Middle East from Professor Barry Rubin. Professor Argentieri introduced the speaker and the evening’s topic; he addressed the current uncertainties caused by the “Arab Spring”, and posed many questions: “Is there going to be freedom and where are these regimes headed? Will they be headed towards a human rights-friendly regime or something else?” Barry Rubin answered the questions by addressing three main issues, which are solved in the United States but not in the Middle East.
The first is the question of identity. Do individuals consider themselves Arab, Muslim or simply citizens of their State? This year has been the most important in determining this distinction since the Egyptian Coup of 1952. There are currently three groups that are trying to create a new political order - Arab nationalists, Islamists (who have the biggest following), and the (less numerous) population supporting a genuine democracy.
The second question Rubin faced is “What has gone wrong? How has the Middle East fallen behind? And how to remedy this?” The response is different from each political platform. The Arab response was that they had been divided and needed to create one ethnic Arab state, organized along ideas borrowed from communist-type economies and fascist-type leadership behind one strong leader. During their rule, they promised to expel Israel, promised to unite, and promised to get rid of Western influence. None of this happened. In 2011, we find a “crumbling” of Arab Nationalists, but to whose advantage? Islamists turn to religion but they are divided over conservatism. Their explanation for the events is that they went too far away from Islam and their solution is to get away from Western influence and closer to the foundations of their religion. The democrats are the weakest and most complex of the groups. They have an Islamic identity and less money to create influence. They believe that the Middle East must “engage in modernity.”
Rubin used a metaphor to explain the failed politics of each group, comparing it to a person hitting his head against a wall. The Arabs have the same platform they always had, so they want to continue hitting their heads against the wall. The Islamists believe that the Muslim religion has not been prevalent enough in the platform, so they want to hit their heads harder against the wall. While the small democratic groups realize that the old political ways have not worked out so they want to stop hitting their heads against the wall.
The third issue Dr. Rubin presented is related to the organization of society. The Arabs desire a strong hierarchy, one that is dictated by the state. The Islamists want to organize society according to Sharia Law, while the citizens of the state, i.e. the democrats, want to create a new social order.
Among the topics covered in the Q&A was a question, posed by a faculty member, about Turkey and its future role. Dr. Rubin explained that many of his respected colleagues are worried about the Turkish economy. He says that the Turkish government is “consolidating power step by step”. The government just won the recent election and is going full speed ahead with its agenda. He also talked about how Wikileaks recently released a dispatch about the Foreign Minister holding a private meeting with close members of his party, saying that “they are the new Ottomans”, that there should be a single cultural space for the Middle East and that the Turks should be the ones to lead it. Barry Rubin called Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan a “loose cannon” and stated that the country is in serious trouble. He also warned the audience against Turkish-U.S. relations in that the U.S. government is not well informed or oblivious to the Turkish government’s agenda, as shown when the U.S. made Turkey the head of the Counter Terrorism Organization. Dr. Rubin reminded the audience that this is the country that opposed sanctions on Iran and sabotaged them, plus has more journalists imprisoned than any other government in the world. The White House does not understand that the Turkish government is a problem.
Another faculty member asked a question about the Turkish Military. The EU undermined the Turkish military and strengthened the Islamists in order to promote civilian rule and democracy. The military also know that the American government loves the regime in power. They know that if they were to try stage a coup they would not have support and would cause a civil war.
Trustee Frank Guarini gave a special thanks to Barry Rubin for coming to the Institute and sharing his knowledge with the John Cabot community.
September 5th, 2011
7/22 IN NORWAY: WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE EVENTS IN OSLO AND UTØYA?
Guest Speaker: Jon Bingen, head of analysis and research, SEFOSS
In cooperation with the Royal Norwegian Embassy to Italy and the Norwegian Institute in Rome
By Erin Swanson
On Monday, September 5th President of John Cabot University, Franco Pavoncello, and Professor Federigo Argentieri introduced the evening’s speaker Jon Bingen to the audience which included representatives from the Norwegian Embassy and the Norwegian Institute. President Pavoncello expressed his sadness and called for a political and philosophical reflection on this “absurd act” of terrorism in Oslo and Utøya. Professor Argentieri contested to Jon Bingen’s credibility on the events in Norway, along with his puzzlement over the question, “Why Norway?” How could a country that is known for giving the Nobel Peace Prize experience the biggest slaughter during peacetime in Northern Europe since WWII? Bingen’s presentation answered Professor Argentieri’s questions, beginning with a debriefing of the events that occurred on July 22nd.
In the first attack, a car bomb killed eight people and wounded 30, while completely destroying a government building where the Prime Minister works. Bingen says that the damage could have been much worse if the bomb had not gone off late on a Friday afternoon. The death toll at the summer camp in Utøya was much worse with 69 murdered and 69 wounded. Bingen explains the connection between the two events as a deliberate attack on Norway’s ruling Labour Party by Anders Behring Breivik.
Bingen illustrates Breivik’s character as a very intelligent but solitary person with “excessively high self-esteem” who is fascinated by video war games and conspiracy theories. One of the surprising details about his life was that his parents were active members of the Labour Party. Bingen has read Breivik’s 1,582-page manifesto, 2083, which describes his political philosophies of a dying Europe because of Islamic expansion. For him, July 22nd was a wakeup call for the European war of liberation and unification. Bingen’s interpretation is that it reads like something from a Dan Brown novel. His main theme is anti-Islam but in fact the text reveals that he knows very little about it. His education is most likely self-taught with a great reliance on non-credible internet sites. Bingen believes that there is a lesson to be learned from this.
Even though the Breivik incident is a rare but extreme case of terrorism, he is a warning and his acts are not inconceivable. Bingen believes the best solution to preventing another attack is to decrease youth unemployment. Unemployment is an important factor because it can promote youth and minority segregation and thus increase the danger of gang formation. Employment would get the youth away from the internet and expose them to multiculturalism. He explains that unions and the workplace forces them to communicate and work together, making it less likely to have such blind hatred that could result in another terrorist attack.
The lecture was followed by an intense discussion during which, among others, the main speaker was told that he nurtures views in which the possible remedies are too optimistic. Bingen replied that the inspiring principles of the Norwegian state have certainly been seriously challenged, but not proven wrong by the July 22nd tragedy, and to stand strong abiding by those principles in times of need is the most natural and effective reaction.
July 11th, 2011
Daniele Fiorentino: Their Finest Hour – The US and the Roman Republic of 1849
As part of the events celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Italian unification, the Guarini Institute invited prof. Daniele Fiorentino, a leading Italian scholar of US history, to share the results of his current research about the connections between the two countries in the period of the 1848-49 Roman Republic.
In that biennium, the presence of Americans in Italy was meaningful. As the “Grand Tour” was becoming a feature also for American learned youth, the international circulation of liberal ideas had its impact. Since the 1830s, the United States was able to have an eye on Italy also thanks to Pietro Maroncelli, an Italian patriot, who brought with him in the US “My Prisons,” a book written by Silvio Pellico. This enabled Italian liberal ideals and aspirations to circulate in the US. On the other hand, in this period, Italian intellectuals looked at the US and its federal system as a potential model for a new and unified Italy. A prominent representative of this current of train of thought was Carlo Cattaneo, an Italian patriot and a federalist.
Among other examples of the support many Americans showed for the Italian struggle for independence, stands the 1847 New York Tabernacle demonstration, which drew several prominent liberal politicians to publicly show their support to Italy’s claims for unification.
Transcendentalist Writer Margaret Fuller, fashioned herself a correspondent of the “New York Daily Tribune.” Once in Rome, she sent not only regular correspondence on the events unfolding in the Roman Republic, but contributed to its efforts. During the siege of the city she was appointed as supervisor of one of the Roman hospitals. Together with Cristina Trivulzio di Belgioioso she was one of the female protagonists of those events. The biennium 1846/1848 was a very difficult period also for the US, involved as it was in the war with Mexico, which ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 assigning to the U.S. the entire Southwest. In 1848, the US decided to send a representative to Rome who was expected to develop better relations with the Papal state. Lewis Cass Jr. was the new chargè who tried to act as a mediator but ended up sympathizing with the Republic. Moreover, Nicholas Brown III, US Consul in Rome since 1845, openly took the side of the rebellion. Although Mazzini did not like this figure, he ended up realizing the relevance of the support given by Americans in the months of the republican experience in the eternal city. Initially, the US adopted a policy of non involvement in European affairs and did not recognize the Republic, but eventually delegated to Cass any decision in this sense. In the last two months of the Republic, he changed his neutral position to an active one and thought that the US should recognize the Republic. He offered to mediate between Garibaldi and the French General, unfortunately when Secretary of States John Clayton finally answered Cass’ requests, stating he could act as he deemed proper it was too late; the Republic had already fallen.
Click here to view the powerpoint presentation.
May 25
th, 2011
About Greenpeace: Confessions of a Dropout
By Anthony Vanicek
On May 25th, many faculty, staff, and students gathered at John Cabot University to listen to Canadian scientist and author Patrick Moore. The event, “About Greenpeace: Confessions of a Dropout,” also included Antonio Polito, a columnist from
Corriere della Sera, who interviewed Moore about his latest book, recently translated into Italian as
L’ambientalista ragionevole (The Reasonable Environmentalist)
.
Patrick Moore was co-creator of Greenpeace, yet now believes the organization strayed from its core philosophy and beliefs about environmentalism 15 years after its creation, which caused Moore to leave. He believes that Greenpeace has failed to consider its agenda in economic terms. He further asserted that it has adopted an agenda that is “anti-science and downright anti-human.”
JCU Computer science professor Stefano Gazziano introduced Patrick Moore, noting that he is the only founder of Greenpeace to have a PhD in Ecology. Ever since the organization grew more radical, Patrick Moore had to defend himself against those who called him “eco-Judah.”
Antonio Polito: You say that Greenpeace strayed from you, but then you became a reasonable environmentalist, and discovered the value in sustainable development. You say that you understood that people coming from poor countries, where there is limited development, is perhaps the biggest environmental problem in our world. Can you explain to us what you mean by a “reasonable environmentalist,” and, what you mean when you say the problem with Greenpeace was not just its anti-development, anti-business, and anti-science sentiment, but also its anti-human element? There are some environmentalists that believe humans are distinct from nature, and that the problem is the fact that we have 7 billion people interested in living well. Can you explain what you mean in this respect, including something about your case for forestry?
In response to this question Patrick Moore emphasized the need for pragmatism, and the use of logic over emotion. One of the issues he has with his environmental directors in Greenpeace is that, as he put it, “they don’t like people. They perceive people as a disease on the earth that is spreading and killing nature, and the idea is the earth is dying because of the humans.”
The Earth, however, is still green and flourishing with life and biodiversity. Though the earth is getting a little warmer, this is a prospect like any other that will be good for some and perhaps bad for others. The idea that humans are evil and nature is good does not merit validity. Humans evolved from nature like any other species. The idea that humans are perceived as a rogue species is reminiscent of the fire and brimstone arguments, and an interpretation of original sin that environmentalists have adopted.
We can feed the Earth’s population, we have the ability to be intelligent and use technology in ways that do not damage the earth in the ways that they do now. Moore’s book gives significant attention to the fact that we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The environmentalists, however, refuse to accept solutions to the problem, and assert that we need to simply stop using gasoline. “How do we stop using fossil fuel to make our electricity to keep these lights on, to run our factories? Environmentalists say the solution is wind energy, while ignoring the fact that wind blows only 25% of the time. If we accept these solutions and build wind farms everywhere, we will not have money for a real solution.”
Polito: What are your views on forestry?
Moore’s views on forestry are given more attention in his book Trees are the Answer. Trees are indeed the answer to a great many questions of mankind from practical matters to aesthetic ones. Trees are the most important solar energy collectors in the world. Every year trees collect more energy than is used by civilization. Moore explains that the most environmentally friendly thing we can do is to both plant more trees and use more trees.
The view of Greenpeace is that we should simply stop cutting trees. Moore explains that this is an anti-environmental position to say this, because every time you cannot use wood, you must use more steel and concrete, both of which will require CO2 emissions to transport and to make. Wood, on the other hand, is the most important renewable resource we have in our world today.
Trees should only be cut as fast as they grow. The cutting of trees is unlike harvesting. In harvesting 100% of the crop is taken, whereas when logging 1/40th of the trees are cut down. The rest of the forest grows and produces a valuable renewable resource. Today the United States and Europe have forests that are growing. This is because as the value of the resource grows, the companies that need them, plant them. After all, it is in the interest of every paper company to maintain a healthy forest.
This is not the only renewable energy source that is opposed by environmentalists. Environmentalists also oppose hydroelectric energy. Greenpeace recently tried to stop the building of the 3-gorges dam in China. The 3-gorges dam is equivalent to 50 coal fire plants, which is what they would have built had there been no dam.
Polito: You say in the book that the environmentalist movement right now supports only 0.8% of the current global energy production because it opposes hydroelectric and nuclear energy. You changed your mind about nuclear power. This is related to the “Peace” part of Greenpeace. This point of view came about because of opposition to nuclear tests. You use to view Nuclear energy as something bad, but you have since changed your mind. Can you please explain why you have changed your mind about using nuclear facilities for energy, and whether Japan’s nuclear disaster at Fukushima, has effected your opinion at all?
This, Moore argues, is related to the atmosphere of the 1970’s, which encompassed a fear of anything nuclear. Greenpeace was able to use this sentiment in the beginning of its organization. There were many great points being made at the time: stop the bomb, save the whales, and stopping toxic waste from going into the air. These were decent campaigns.
However, Greenpeace erroneously associated nuclear energy and nuclear medicine with nuclear weapons. This is not valid, just as you would not ban fire, and mankind’s right to cook with fire, when it burns down buildings. Nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy, from an air pollution point of view. Although many people pointed to Fukushima as an example of the unsafe nature of nuclear facilities, Patrick Moore believes the fear to be unfounded. No one has died from radiation in Fukushima. People have erroneously called it a disaster, despite the fact that no humans were harmed; it was merely an expensive mechanical failure. Moore acknowledges that Chernobyl was different. The Soviet Union was able to get away with building a nuclear facility that should have never been allowed. He also cites a statistic from the World Health Organization, who after studying Chernobyl said that only 56 deaths resulted directly from Chernobyl.
Thus, in the history of nuclear energy, 56 people have died, rendering your life safer in a nuclear energy facility than in an automobile.
Polito: Are you advocating the case for nuclear power because you are concerned about fossil fuels. Also, at the same time you say that global warming is not as bad as it is made out to be. What do you mean by that?
The last chapter of the book is entitled “climate of fear” and is about the powerful convergence of promoting the fear of climate change. This does not mean promoting the concern about climate, or the interest in studying climate, but the fear of it. To be afraid of the earth’s climate is a powerful fear that has been instilled in us by elites in government, elites in the environmentalist movement, elites in academia, and elites in business. All of these sectors are benefiting by instilling this fear into the public. This fear is a powerful convergence of interests. It serves the politicians well to promise to save the children. Politicians take advantage of each human’s natural empathy. The accusation of one party towards another for putting gas prices above the future of the children is a powerful campaign tool.
There are three main questions that we should ask: Is the Earth getting warmer? Are humans the cause of it? Will this change be mostly bad or mostly good? To the first question, Moore responds with a confident yes. The last time the river Thames froze over was in 1814. However, before the cold period was the medieval warm period, during which it was possible to grow grapes in Scotland.
In regards to the second question, he concludes that we cannot say for sure, but probably not. He cites the constant fluctuations in the earth’s temperature for the past 2,000 years, as evidence of this. In regards to the third question, he acknowledges that some will benefit and some will lose. However, there is much more to be lost if the earth’s temperature were to go down by two degrees, rather than up.
Many people have cited the dependence in the Himalayas of glacial melt for crops as a concern for global warming. Many movements have emerged to stop the glacial melting. However, the truth is that these societies benefit from glacial melt for their crops. In truth, rainwater and snowmelt is more of a necessity for societies in the Himalayas, rendering little conviction for this argument. A warmer world would be a better one for species, forests, and biodiversity. Ice, frost, and snow are the enemies of life. We are, after all, a tropical species. Should we reverse time, and allow ourselves to use only 0.8% of the energy we do today, civilization would end as we know it.
Question and Answer Session:
President Franco Pavoncello: Thank you for the interesting discussion. What we try to do at this university is to think critically about issues without preconceptions, so I must thank you very much. I am substantially in agreement with you and with your analysis, but I have a fundamental question. I was just listening to a conference on food security in which the president of world foods informed us that WWF sets the standards for the kinds of crops that can be raised, and by making very tough standards in terms of agriculture, they are cutting off the poor from the world from making products that can be bought by large multinational corporations. In a way I think this environmentalist coalition is really affecting the lives of growing numbers of people around the world in a very negative way. Thus, my question is, in your opinion, is this kind of ecological, deterministic extremism growing or receding? Do you see the world moving away from the ideology of Greenpeace and WWF? Or is this ideology expanding? What is the future? Are we going to become wiser about these issues? Or are we going to become more extreme?
Moore admitted to a large degree of skepticism when anyone claims to be a futurist. The force of the green movement is making it very difficult for the 3rd world to develop. The environmentalists boast that they have stopped 200 hydroelectric projects. However, Patrick Moore asks, “How do these people expect them to read in the evening?” Electricity and reading are powerfully connected. You need light to read. Moore then gave an account of his years in Indonesia working for different organizations there. One of those companies is Asia Pulp & Paper. Moore expressed dissatisfaction that the company is being vilified as a destroyer of the rainforest, despite the fact that they have 70,000 people planting trees.
Indonesia, which is trying to become a more developed nation, still has nearly 70% of its forest cover. Europeans, whose continent has less than 1 % of the original forest cover, are trying to stop the country from developing a percentage of their land to grow food and fiber. Regarding the future, Moore warns that he advises people to be prepared for a new intellectual dark age in these regards. However, public opinion also shows that there is a significant population who can see through the propaganda.
It was the environmentalist Bob Hunter who coined the term eco-fascism. This is where the environmentalist decides that he should be the arbitrator, he should be the judge, the government, and the decision maker, and leaves no room for democracy.
One of the most tragic cases of this is the case for golden rice. The World Health Organization has estimated that in Asia and Africa, half of one million children go blind and die annually from a lack of beta carotene that result from a diet of a cup of rice per day. Golden Rice is a genetically modified organism that contains Beta-carotene. This marvelous advancement could put an end to the loss of a half of one million lives yearly. However, Greenpeace has blocked this innovation from going forward. The international rice research institute now has the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but it is very slow to progress due to the opposition from the Greenpeace. They are responsible for millions of blind children because they say something could go wrong with a rice plant that has vitamin A in the grain of rice. Greenpeace has valued its agenda over the lives of those in impoverished countries.
Professor Argentieri- Director of the Guarini Institute for Public Affairs: Did you have a chance to discuss with Al Gore, who, by the way, was in Italy recently? The views that he expresses in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, are completely opposite to yours and coincide with Greenpeace’s. Did you ever have a chance to discuss these issues with him, and what was the outcome?
“No, I haven’t met him personally, and I don’t think I could have a very productive or engaging conversation with him. He is not a scientist, but a politician. He attempts to come across as someone who is a scientist, but he simply is not. I listen to his rhetoric; he is basically a very clever snake oil salesman. That is how I see it. And I know a snake oil salesman when I see one. His main science advisor is a guy with NASA, named James Hanson. He is a maniac. He is not credible from a science point of view as I am concerned, and he has used this clever salesmanship to make himself many hundreds of millions of dollars by first making people afraid of climate change and then investing in securities and stocks which he knows will grow if people are afraid of climate change.”
Pietro Paganini- Business Professor JCU: I have a question that relates to business and Greenpeace. Greenpeace shouldn’t be a profit organization, but it seems that it has been just that. And I am referring to what President Pavoncello said before about their certification. You mentioned forestry, and exactly as it is in this country, as it is in most of Europe. Today if you want to buy wood or if you want to buy paper, you are obliged out of necessity. The paper is more expensive because it has to have a certification. This certification is established by a cartel, and these certification standards are established by organizations like “Legambiente” in Italy, and this is making products much more expensive and is a form of protectionism towards developing countries that are not allowed to export their paper to the E.U. Don’t you see this business model that the organization you created is today creating cartels in this part of the world? I believe it has become a business organization that is monopolizing the market at the expense of consumers.
I have written in my book that many environmental campaigns today are riding on the back of many trade disputes and conflicts. The protectionism of European agriculture is a reason why the anti Genetically Modified Organization movement works in Europe, and part of the reason that the certification of 3rd world agriculture works for Europeans. Very often there are trade and protectionist and non tariff trade barrier kinds of issues behind what are given to the public as environmental campaigns when in fact they have more to do with trade and competition disputes as professor Paganini has pointed out. This is bad for developing countries. In Europe agriculture has become a social program. It is no longer a competitive business.
Michele Testoni – International Affairs Professor JCU: I would like to ask your opinion about the Masdar city project in the Abu Dhabi desert. For those of you unaware, the Masdar city project aims to be the first zero carbon, zero waste, city in the world. It is a joint venture between the UAE and MIT and has recently begun undertaking this project. The City will be a combination of solar energy, wind energy and the solemnization of water. Since you focused mainly on wood, hydroelectric, and Nuclear energy, can you give us an opinion about that?
A new zero carbon city merits some skepticism. A zero carbon city is possible if based on nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy. But it would be difficult to have a city that runs purely on solar and wind, unless they are willing to put up with long periods without energy.
The technology exists that if there is enough money to put into something, a dream can be a reality. But in this case, the money is being made through the sale of oil, and the sale of carbon. This is an ironic way to build a zero carbon city.
Whether this type of technology can be applied in countries like Brazil, China or India will require a practicality of thought. It will be interesting to see the result of the project.
April 13th, 2011
Justice, Politics, Privacy and the Dignity of Women: an Update on Italy
By Riccardo Vitalone
Participants included:
Carme Colomina (Barcelona Institute of International Affairs)
Anselma Dell'Olio (freelance journalist)
Tijana Mamula (JCU Professor of Communications)
Gianfranco Pasquino (Professor of Political Science at the University of Bologna)
Steven Van Hecke (Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp)
On Wednesday, April 13th the Aula Magna hosted the final Guarini Institute event of an intense Spring semester. The conference started at 6.30pm, and Professor Argentieri took the podium to introduce the topic and the guest speakers. He talked about Berlusconi’s style, particularly during international meetings, addressing the issue of how his manners affect the reputation of Italians around the world.
The floor was then left to Professor Gray, who briefly discussed the few videos that the audience was about to be shown. The five short clips were all about Berlusconi’s reputation abroad, and showed how media from other countries portray the Italian prime Minister. Following the multimedia introduction, Professor Argentieri began by asking each speaker on the panel a question.
The first question was for Professor Pasquino, who was asked to address the problematic relationship that binds politics and justice in Italy. In his answer he stressed that the major issue in Italy is the corruption that pollutes both the political and the social sphere.
Anselma Dell’Olio spoke about the way Italy is seen in the United States, in light of the latest scandals involving Berlusconi. She openly said that the Prime Minister’s image is pretty much the same everywhere. This is because usually journalists fail or neglect to get the other side of the story. “Writing about Berlusconi is easy, there is always so much to say”. In a materialistic society which revolves around money, it seems like selling copies is a higher priority than finding out the truth, or trying to get the full picture of what’s going on in Italy right now. In her conclusion she pointed out that the two major anomalies in Italian politics are not only Berlusconi and his popularity, but also the lack of a real, strong opposition.
The third panelist to speak was Carme Colomina from Spain. She said that there are certain similarities in the way Spanish and Italian people view politics. The first thing in common is that both languages have one word only for “politics” and “policies”. This linguistic issue, according to her, is one of the reasons why the two spheres have somehow merged, becoming one blurry concept for the Italian people. She continued by saying that Spanish people do not understand the current political situation in Italy, and can’t figure out why Berlusconi is still in power. The truth is that the Spanish culture doesn’t thrive on political gossip, and the quality and truthfulness of the news in the media is relatively low, according to Colomina. Moreover, recently Berlusconi acquired the rights of the most important Spanish left wing newspaper, a strategic move to preserve/save his popularity in Spain.
Steven Van Hecke gave a brief history of Berlusconi’s party. From “il Popolo delle Libertà” to the European People Party (EPP), Van Hecke illustrated how Berlusconi managed to get where he is right now, presenting interesting anecdotes to make the audience better understand the Italian Prime Minister’s political strategy.
Professor Tijana Mamula then discussed the image of women on Italian TV. According to Prof. Mamula, Italian TV degrades women perhaps even more than in the United States. The main difference between the two cultures is that in Italy the degradation of women is more open, and when it comes to Berlusconi’s questionable behaviour the general public often “justifies” him because – supposedly – “he’s only doing what everyone else is doing, just like Clinton”. The Italian media and the people, according to Prof. Mamula, are guilty of being perhaps “too” open minded, which may eventually result in a regressive mentality. The issue in Italy is the dichotomy between hypocrisy and honesty.
April 4th, 2011
Women’s Status in Afghanistan
By Riccardo Vitalone
Guest speaker:
H.E. Musa M. Maroofi (Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in Italy)
On Monday, April 4th the John Cabot community had the honour to host Ambassador Maroofi for his speech entitled “Women’s Status in Afghanistan”. The conference, which was supposed to start at 6.00pm, eventually started slightly later but it was worth the wait.
Professor Argentieri, after a brief introduction on the topic, immediately left the floor to our illustrious speaker. Ambassador Maroofi started off apologizing for his tardiness and also admitted forgetting his notes he had prepared for the event. Despite his forgetfulness, his knowledge on the topic allowed him to address the issue flawlessly for over one hour. Even though his political role in and for Afghanistan has been important (he was one of the drafters of the 2004 Constitution), he underlined the fact that he was speaking to the audience as a lawyer, and not as a politician. He began his reflection saying that the status of women in Afghanistan can be defined by the interaction of two factors: tradition and law. Prior to the advent of Islam, women’s status was defined by local traditions. Back when the main sources of income for most Arab countries were agriculture and war, women’s roles were deemed non-influential in social life. In Arabia, where Islam emerged, women had no rights. They used to be enslaved, exploited and trafficked. He even mentioned how new born girls used to be buried alive because they brought shame to their house.
Luckily, he continued, things began to change with Islam. Islam brought a forceful, radical revolution that changed everything for women. The Islamic religion recognizes women as equal to men. For the first time women were granted honour and equal dignity. Islam made slavery illegal. According to the Koran, for example, men are ordered to let women get an education. This religious law is based on the simple fact that if a woman is not educated she will not be able to understand the Koran, which is the foundation of the Islamic religion. With the advent of Islam, for the first time, women were allowed to attend schools and to earn a higher education even in foreign countries. On paper women were now granted all the rights that up until that point had been granted exclusively to men. The problem is that Muslim societies don’t necessarily follow Islam (as far as the role of women is concerned), because its teachings challenge secular traditions. Ambassador Maroofi admitted that most of the issues related to the status of women in Afghanistan are caused because the majority of the male population is neither ready nor willing to change its lifestyle in such a radical manner.
This inner dichotomy between tradition and law created severe consequences in the past century. In the brief historical background given by Ambassador Maroofi, he mentioned the main events that marked the recent history of Afghanistan shaping the country that it is today. After 66 years of instability (a civil war and the advent of Communism to mention two), in 1994 the Taliban managed to gain full control of Afghanistan taking advantage of the political void left by the previous inexperienced leaders. Once in power they eliminated every accomplishment that had been achieved up until that moment. This represented one of the darkest times for women in Afghanistan. Women were denied the right to work, to education, to property and ownership. The Taliban were finally kicked out from the government in 2002 thanks to the involvement of the international community. Without leaders, continued the Ambassador, Afghanistan needed a Constitution. That’s why in 2004 a new Constitution was drafted: all the rights that had been taken away by the Taliban were put back into place, with the addition of new rights. Nowadays in Afghanistan, according to the law, men and women enjoy equal rights. The problems, however, remain deeply rooted in tradition, the role of the family and the lack of education. Despite good laws, tradition and cultural beliefs have still proven to be too strong.
The Ambassador concluded that yes, the situation can be changed, but first women need to get together to challenge the role of men and fight for their rights. The other solution would be to strengthen the central government of Afghanistan to the point where it will be able to implement the laws present in its progressive Constitution.
“The problem of tradition can only be cured over time”.
March 29th, 2011
The Religion of Liberty in Italy’s Risorgimento
By Riccardo Vitalone
Guest speaker:
Maurizio Viroli (Princeton University)
The Italian Risorgimento has been the theme at the core of the work of Maurizio Viroli. Currently a Professor at Princeton University, Viroli has earned a doctorate at the European University and works at the Italian University of Lugano as well. He has written several books on political thought in Italy. On Tuesday, March 29th the John Cabot community gathered in the Aula Magna to listen to Prof. Viroli’s speech on “the Religion of Liberty”.
After a brief introduction by Prof. Argentieri about the history of the Roman Republic, Prof. Viroli took the podium. His thesis was centered on Benedetto Croce’s “History of Europe”, a very influential book during the Fascist era. Viroli believes that behind every major movement and event in history lies a strong religious sentiment. All the poets, journalists, apostles, martyrs, artists, politicians that made history somehow were fueled by their complete devotion to an ideal. This ideal is referred to as “La Religione della Libertà”. “By religion”, Viroli explained, “I mean that feeling that makes you follow a certain moral or political principle with a devotion that if necessary translates in personal sacrifice”. The religion of liberty is a moral force that leads from within the soul and is invincible. Those who have it cannot be defeated. The examples offered were the Anti-Fascist movement and the Resistenza during the XX century, as well as the Allied forces who challenged Nazism. Viroli centers his lecture on a question posed by Croce at the end of his book: “Will liberty have a future?” Croce believed that “Liberty has something better than the future. It has eternity”.
Was Croce right in asserting that Italian Risorgimento was fueled by a particular religious feeling?
According to Viroli, he was absolutely right, and history presents several facts supporting this thesis.
Alessandro Manzoni, for instance, in his poem “March 1821” talks about a God that listens to oppressed people. Manzoni’s God wants people to know He’s on their side. In the “Promessi Sposi”, Viroli continued, the real hero is Fra Cristoforo, a man of faith, a man who finds the strength to challenge Don Rodrigo in God. Another great example of the dedication of Italians towards a certain ideal during the Risorgimento is Giuseppe Verdi. Viroli believes that Verdi wrote the perfect music for his masterpiece “Va Pensiero” inspired by a religious feeling because the line “va pensiero sull’ali dorate” (go, thought on golden wings) could be interpreted as a paraphrase of the Bible.
Another question was raised during the conference: where do Italians get this religious sentiment from? What is the source?
Perhaps features of Italy’s old republican past are still alive today. Sismondi, a liberal Swiss protestant, said that Italians in the 15th century had a great republican spirit supported by the ideal that in order to be a good Christian, you first had to be a good citizen, practice charity and serve the common good. This seems to be supported by the view of Alexis de Tocqueville (author of Democracy in America), who wrote that republics need religion more than monarchies. There is no question that Christian religion is on the side of political liberty. So, Viroli continued, in order to achieve political liberty it is first necessary to strengthen the religious spirit of the people. In a society where people are not able or willing to practice devotion to a certain principle, there will never be liberty. It was Count Cavour, one of the founders of Italy as we know it today, who said that Liberty is the best ally of religion.
So what happened after the Risorgimento? Why and how did we lose this strong religious feeling? One of the explanations has already been given by the protagonists of the 19th century themselves. They complained that, despite its potential, the Risorgimento was not able to establish in Italy a moral and religious reformation.
Viroli concluded that we Italians have been extremely unwise to forget the religious dimension of the Risorgimento. Had we not forgotten it, probably the quality of our moral, civic and political life would be not so repulsive right now.
March 16th, 2011
Twittering the Revolution: Causes and Prospects of the North African Upheaval
By Anthony Vanicek
Participants Included:
Antonio Lopez
Tarek Heggy
Maria Cristina Paciello
Frederick Vreeland
Valentina Colombo (Moderator)
On Wednesday, March 16th the Aula Magna Regina filled once again to listen to a panel speak about the revolutions in North Africa and the impact of Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites. An introduction was given by the President of John Cabot University, Franco Pavoncello, who commented that our ability to predict the future is becoming increasingly difficult with the rapid progression and advancements of social networking. At the core of these revolutions are educated young people, which is why Facebook and Twitter are increasingly significant.
The first speaker was Antonio Lopez, a notable media activist. Antonio Lopez followed the revolutions by paying close attention to the media, but more significantly to various tweets and Facebook pages of people in the midst of these revolutions. He focused on two general debates surrounding the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt: the digital utopian, and the digital dystopian. The digital utopians believe that while Facebook and Twitter are excellent tools with which to build a revolution on, society now needs to focus on the use of technology to build a state, restore a functional government, and to get people back to work. Many people blame western technology for the influences that lead to these revolutions, but in the end it is an influence of these social networks that allow people to understand the function of government.
On the other hand people such as Malcolm Gladwell, author of
The Tipping Point, calls internet activism “clicktivism”. He claims the ties that are created in social networking are superficial and that people have been revolting long before Twitter and Facebook. However, Lopez dismisses this as a simplistic view. Lopez acknowledges that these revolutions were not merely products of Facebook and Twitter, but were largely aided by traditional news sources, most notably Al-Jazeera. By spreading images, messages, and events, in Arabic, Al-Jazeera became the glue holding these revolutions together. However, even the director of Al-Jazeera said that the scene was a “Wikipedia of journalists.” Al-Jazeera was by no means the only news network on the field. In the end Twitter cannot topple dictators alone, but it also cannot be underestimated.
Next, the audience had the privilege of listening to the charismatic voice of Tarek Heggy, one of the most notable liberal Arab intellectuals. Tarek Heggy was born in the 50’s to the Egyptian upper middle class family. He taught at law schools in North African Universities, but resigned in 1966 to devote himself to writing. Some of his most notable works include Critique of the Arab Mind 1998 and various other essays on Egyptian Political issues. Tarek Heggy began by providing a basic history of popular thought in the Middle East. He recognized the golden age of Islam to be from the 8th century to the 12th century. In this period scholars focused on translating Greek masterpieces. Thanks to the Arab world, the works of Aristotle were able to reach the west via Spain. There was pro-active intellectual life for 4 centuries. However, this practice was soon confronted with a debate between the idea that reality cannot reach the facts of life, reality must be reached through faith and the divine. While many in the region were beginning to adopt this point of view others insisted that the human mind was the ultimate source of power. Heggy lamented that the theological side won in the end. While this move away from rationality was happening in the Middle East, Europe was doing the opposite. Humanism was spreading, and Europe was moving forward and adopting the values of enlightenment.
“In the Arab world, we were occupied because we were backwards, not the other way around.” The imperial age left the Middle East with a loss of pride but once independence was gained, power was distributed to either medieval monarchists or to dictators who would go on to steal the wealth of the state like Gaddafi and Mubarak have done. He argued that some of the monarchies could be reformed (though he noted that Saudi Arabia was a special case and exceptionally difficult to fix).
In the 18 days that it took for Mubarak to leave power, technology was crucial to the people. It is because of technology that the people were able to discover what it means to be a citizen and have rights. The people discovered the true function of a government: To serve the people and not the other way around. The Egyptians learned that in their system they were not citizens, but objects of the state. Tunisia and Egypt both have poverty, however it was not the poor who rose up and rebelled. It was the middle class users of technology. This is the truly different thing about these revolutions.
Tarek Heggy noticed that human behavior has changed significantly in Egypt. “People were standing in lines!” he noted in what seemed like a humorous anecdote. He remarked that this usually disorderly society was showing signs of a desire to be orderly that was previously unheard of. He also noted that since the revolutions sexual harassment towards women has declined. “We had never used the word ‘former president’ in Egypt. My colleague said it, and I realized at that moment how sweet it sounded, I had to ask him to say it again… ‘former president’.” Now Egypt has set up a system in which a president can only serve 4 year terms with only one re-election. Egypt now has a chance to be something it has never been able to be before, a market economy. Without a market, there is no middle class.
Many Islamists in power argue that if they fall from power a regime much worse would ensue. Mubarak insisted, “It’s either me or Al Qaeda.” Heggy dismissed these fears as unfounded. He used a comparison to the death of Franco in Spain. After the death of Franco the fear was that the communists would take over, but instead the Spanish people received a legitimate state. The greatest challenge today is to make Egyptians believe in themselves. Millions of people would fight for a modern Egypt. The issue is that these 20-22 million people haven’t believed in themselves for many years, but in 2011 this is changing.
The next speaker was Frederick Vreeland, the former ambassador to Morocco who also served in the U.N. Security Council as the advisor on Middle Eastern affairs. He was an instrumental part in passing U.N. resolution 242 which required the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. He laments that many of the goals (in regards to refugees, borders, and security) outlined in the resolution never happened. In fact these issues only got worse.
Autocratic leaders control the lives of everyone within their state. At times these regimes are largely condoned by the United States, who he says must take responsibility for the fact that nothing has changed. However, in Morocco, he noted that the King has been travelling throughout the country responding to the needs of the people. It was very surprising to see this young King making speeches about human rights.
Vreeland was very critical of the United States foreign policy in issues like the Algerian war, in which the United States only hoped that the two sides would weaken each other. There was a possibility of Algerian elections, but the international community did not act to facilitate such an event. He noted that technology is now in the hands of the youth as the majority of the population in the Middle East is under 30 years old. This is something that is irreversible. With the advent of Facebook and Twitter borders can no longer be sealed off.
He noted that hopefully the situation in Morocco is reforming on its own. Morocco has a young king who is married to a computer expert. Today he is continuing to circle the country opening hospitals, creating jobs, projects and schools, and has even announced a major constitutional reform. He said the public council would draw up a new constitution that would give power to the prime minister and there would be free elections.
In Tunisia, the revolution was started by a kamikaze act. Young people in our world today have the guts to die for their principles. While this is undoubtedly a good thing it does present several problems to the world. One issue is immigration. Gaddafi himself noted that if he falls Europe will experience a large immigration wave. Vreeland closed by emphasizing that what the west needs to consider now is a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East. The only way to keep immigrants from coming across will be to establish jobs in North Africa; we need to work now to help rebuild their states and to create sustainable living conditions in these countries.
The last to speak was Maria Cristina Paciello, a lecturer in Economics and Political Science at La Sapienza. She spoke emphasizing the transition period that must take place in North Africa. There are many challenges to political transition in North Africa, however the departures of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt are crucial first steps towards political change. The Revolution has changed people’s attitudes towards life. Women have played a very relevant role in the protests. Pictures of protesters can be seen by women both with and without veils. Whereas you could once see pictures of Mubarak in every angle of the city, they have all now been torn down.
The main uneasiness of the transition remains in the coexistence of the emerging new power and the old power. The interim ruling parties in both Tunisia and Egypt are reluctant to break ties with the old powers. For example in Tunisia the former speaker of parliament under Ben Ali has assumed the role of Interim President. This paints a dangerous picture for those who truly want change in their society.
New interim governments such as those lead by Mohammed Gannouchu who was a cabinet minister under Ben Ali, and Bejo Caid Essebsi who had served as foreign minister under Abib Bourguiba, are diminishing the ability for these societies to change. Without doing away with the old system, no clear schedule of reforms, no deadlines for elections and many provincial governors, there is still reason to be skeptical of change.
However, despite reasonable skepticism, there is reason to believe that some of these interim governments are on the right path. The Interim governments have announced popular elections to nominate a national assembly. However the extent of the council’s commitment to a real political change appears still unclear and ambiguous and it is, after all, drawn up from men who supported Mubarak’s regime. There are also many who are unsure about whether the new parliaments will be as representative as hoped.
Cristina Paciello also commented on the nature of political parties, and people’s ability to have more options than they have in the past. This could present as many possibilities as it does challenges. It is difficult to gage the popularity of some regimes. Al-Nahda, the Islamist party, receives popular support but the amount of which is difficult to estimate given its long absence from the country. They are religiously conservative but they were persecuted for so long that it could have actually raised its popularity. The fate of political transitions in both countries depends on whether or not and to what extent they will be able to dismantle the previous power structure.
February 21st, 2011
The Politics of Multiculturalism
By Riccardo Vitalone
Participants included:
John Rundell (Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne)
Federigo Argentieri (Moderator, Professor at John Cabot University)
Tom Bailey (Professor at John Cabot University)
The Politics of Multiculturalism
On Monday, February 21 the Guarini Institute for Public Affairs had the pleasure of hosting its first guest speaker from Australia, John Rundell, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. Professor Rundell specializes in classical and contemporary social and critical theory, focusing in particular on 'multiple modernities' and the role of the imagination in society and politics. He came to John Cabot University to talk about multiculturalism, as part of a two-month European lecture tour on religion and democracy.
Professor Argentieri introduced the topic by mentioning German and British efforts at promoting the coexistence of linguistically and ethnically different people and recent claims by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the British Prime Minister David Cameron that such 'multicultural' policies have ‘failed’. How, then, are we to better integrate ethnically diverse groups into our post-industrialist society? This was an excellent starting point to engage the mixed audience present in the Aula Magna Regina.
With this question in mind, Rundell began his lecture by stressing how misleading it can be to analyze our modern society through pre-determined, closed categories of identity. He explained how the concepts of ‘strangers’ and ‘outsiders’ could perhaps be justified in more primitive societies, but not in Europe, especially considering the diversity that currently characterizes it, or even in the United States, which has undergone significant immigration in the last few decades. Rundell talked enthusiastically about how complicated multicultural processes are constant factors in our everyday lives.
Fundamental for a deeper understanding of the issue, Rundell argued, is the distinction between ‘conditional strangers’ - those 'foreigners' who have a well-defined self-identity, a centre of gravity, a home to which they can return - and ‘contingent strangers’ - those who live in the 'here and now' they find themselves in, rather than identifying themselves with a specific 'home'. This latter category seems to be the condition not only of contemporary immigrants, but also of ordinary non-migrants, who also consider their 'home' simply as their contingent location amongst other contingent strangers. 'We are all contingent strangers', Rundell insisted.
However, despite the fact that globalization is diminishing the geographical, cultural and ideological gaps between different cultures and countries, Rundell argued that dichotomies between 'us' and 'they' continue to obstruct alternative, more effective politics of multiculturalism. This is evident, he argued, in the 'anxiety of strangers' which the European Union is still struggling to manage, reflecting a mixture of various nation’s nostalgic resistance to European integration and emphasis on ‘integration’ into their national identities and the need for immigration caused by the shortage of skilled labor. Rundell suggested that this anxiety could be seen particularly in Europe’s relations with Arab countries – indeed, Rundell claimed that today prejudices bordering on racism persist, with 'Arab' often having a negative connotation just as 'Irish' and 'Italian' did when Europeans emigrated to the Americas. Rundell also pointed to the frequent confusion of ethnic or national groups with religious affiliations, a confusion that often results in simplifications and generalizations that obscure the complexities of people’s identities.
Rundell compared this with the cultural pluralism that marks Australian multiculturalism, in which groups are politically represented and their group rights legally established. There, in a country populated over time by “strangers” from all over the world, Rundell claimed that multiculturalism is not perceived as the integration of different individuals in a pre-established, “uniform” society – as ‘conditional strangers’ – but rather as a fluid, shared experience of being ‘contingent strangers’.
Claiming that “multiculturalism is not a threat”, Rundell concluded by insisting that we must face our condition of being ‘contingent strangers’ to one another, rather than trying to reduce citizenship to simplified ‘identities’. In particular, he claimed, we need to recognise the multiplicity and dissonances of our ‘identities’, as these are marked by our membership of national as well as supranational bodies, by labor market flows and by a range of different participatory, negative and welfare rights.
In response to the question of how better to integrate ethnically diverse groups into our post industrialist society, then, Rundell’s answer was that neither integration nor inclusion can be sufficient. Rather than making ‘them’ look, speak and live like ‘us’ or recognizing ‘them’ as a simplified ‘identity’, we need to coexist with all our multiple identities, accepting all the political challenges and complexities that this implies.
February 9th, 2011
Digital Media, Democracy, and the Press
By Anthony Vanicek
Participants Included:
Peter Sarram (Moderator, Professor at John Cabot University)
Barbie Nadeau (Newsweek and The Daily Beast)
John Hooper (The Guardian, and The Economist)
Juan Carlos De Martin (Politecnico di Torino)
Maurizio Massari (Ministero Affari Esteri)
On February 9th, 2011, the Aula Magna Regina was flooded with students, professors and guests to listen to a panel on an issue that, since the advent of Wikileaks, has earned the attention of the world. Digital Media has usurped all other means of information transfer in terms of speed and efficiency, but as technology improves the winds of change are beginning to alter the way we receive news. A brief introduction to the topic was given by Professor Sarram, who commented that hacker culture has officially become mainstream since 2010. Since Wikileaks the spotlight has been turned to hacker culture, and its impact on media. Facebook and Wikipedia have proven not to be mere fads, but an intricate system of information communication.
Juan Carlos De Martin from the Politecnico di Torino gave a technical view of what has changed in the last 20 years of information technology. It is important to understand how even the most basic technology has changed to understand how we have arrived at our current state of affairs. The remarkable improvement of bit technology has opened the door for innovation. Today one can make infinite copies of files at low costs that are easy to transfer. The creation of space in hard drives is the fastest improving technology today; huge amounts of information (USB, hard-disks, etc), has evolved at a daunting rate. Today there are drives that are compact and practical, yet have the ability to store entire libraries. The use of encryption techniques is not merely limited to governments, but rather is a power given to any ordinary citizen. The ability to collaborate, organize and publish information has now become easier than ever.
Many engineers are faced with a paradox in attempts to control technology, through the use of technology. “Bits are very liquid, more like a gas.” Anyone who wishes to leak information is now able to do so. One remarkable change is the shift in power from the intermediaries to the hackers, the result of which is a leak of information that is uncensored and unfiltered. While this may sound frightening much of this information brings us out of ignorance and allows the public to be aware of issues within governments. Similar to Kant’s Liberal Theory, transparency with the people is needed. If something is being kept a secret it is likely that there is something sinister behind it.
Maurizio Massari then commented on the relationship between media and foreign policy. The free flow of information and differentiation of sources has enhanced the way people receive their information as well as the type of information they receive. This new era of technology and information sharing has enriched democracy and its liberal values. However, this innovation does not come without some consequences.
Most notably, there is too much information coming from too many sources. Politicians and policy makers find themselves getting sidetracked by news. Political messages become less effective, and any piece of news can become the center of attention at any time leaving no chance for anyone to decide matters of chronology. Immediacy sounds like a good thing, but it provides media sources with as many challenges as it does the viewers. Foreign policy is often decided as a response to media before any time has been given to make a critical evaluation of information, and its credibility. Tremendous challenges have surfaced in the realm of diplomacy. Should diplomats have the right to privacy, exempt from the hysteria of the public? Politicians and diplomats will have to think twice before opening their mouths, whether it is during an official interview or behind closed doors. Democracy and liberal values are prospering with this new flow of information, but the issue remains that we pay the price as to the quality of democracy and personal security.
Any possible remedy for what has happened will be very difficult because of the unstoppable flow of information. However, we must manage to find a way to tighten up the security belt and limit the risk of leaks. It’s up to the people, the media, and the politicians to show a responsible attitude towards the quality of information that is released.
Next Barbie Nadeau from Newsweek and The Daily Beast commented on the evolution of media, and the hurtful effect Wikileaks has had on those who work in “old media.” Thus far, the advent of a new technological means of conveying information has never replaced its predecessor. For example the invention of the radio did not replace newspapers, just as the invention of the television did not replace radios etc... And while the internet and the hacker culture has not yet replaced traditional media, it has however, provided them with unprecedented challenges.
As a journalist, one has to fight the urge to tell viewers everything. However, recently the information being conveyed to people is happening too fast for anyone to keep up. There exists a responsibility to balance between what should be told and what can be told. This “New Media” is constantly forcing traditional media to adapt, thus merging the old and new. The emergence of this new kind of media is new for absolutely all of us, especially those who work in traditional media sources.
Next John Hooper, the Rome correspondent for The Economist and The Guardian spoke about a wide range of issues facing the world of media. He began with a humorous anecdote about a man who was once banned from reading “The Sun.” Now a days it’s hard to imagine a day in which the media had that much control over who is able to read what. Just 15 years ago everything used to be checked and controlled, and it was easier to restrict information.
In these regards the emergence of the internet has been an utterly positive one. There have been great advantages such as facilitating contribution from readers. News sources are able to be more in touch with the audience, who now has access to sources anywhere where there is wifi. However, there are 2 sides to this innovative story. John Hooper echoed the sentiments of the speakers before him that things happen entirely too fast. The pressure to compete can compromise the ability to write accurate articles. There is an increased risk of necessary details missing from articles. There is little time to scrutinize and analyze the works that are released.
Wikileaks is an entirely new thing. It is a combination of the sources and the outlet. While the state department faced embarrassment from some of the leaks, nothing that was released was classified as top secret. Much of the information that was released was predictable, but rather gave further insight. However, people need to be cautious when reading these sources because it’s hard to define what is credible. Fact checking has become increasingly difficult. The difficult thing to decipher is where to draw the line. At what point does a journalist become professional? Journalism is no longer a closed profession, and has become one of the largest industries.
One concern is the diminishing demand for hardcopy news sources. There has been a lot of doubt about the time that hardcopy newspapers will be around. Many people like the convenience of hardcopy magazines on their coffee tables, but for some having a copy of expensive issues such as Monocle have become a mere fashion statement.
November 8th, 2010
Looking Beyond the U.S. Elections
By Hannah Wolkwitz
Panelists:
Mario Baldassari, Italian Senate
Lucia Goracci, TG 3
Prof. Larry Gray, John Cabot University
Prof. Pamela Harris, John Cabot University
Lucio Martino, Guarini Institute
Franco Venturini, Corriere della Sera
Moderator: Patricia Thomas (AP)
On Monday, November 8th the Guarini Institute hosted a round table discussion aimed at analyzing the impacts of the recent midterm elections in the U.S. With the Republican party picking up 60 seats in the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate, a clear message of dissatisfaction left Congress divided: the Republicans regained control over the House and the Democrats remained in control of the Senate. Moderator Patricia Thomas from the Associated Press began with an introduction of what President Franco Pavoncello called the “power panel”. Mario Baldassari, an MIT Economics graduate, was the first to speak, addressing the importance of “looking back before we are able to look beyond”. Baldassari analyzed the financial crisis and explained that the root causes of the crisis have not yet been identified. He suggested that a new Bretton Woods is essential to create updated international governing bodies and, politically, a new G8 that represents the U.S., the E.U., China, India, Japan, Russia, Latin America, and Africa is necessary to move forward. In an ideal world, Baldassari says the coordination of economic policy would solve financial stresses and the U.S. and the E.U. would work together to face China’s growing economic power.
Professor Pamela Harris of John Cabot University analyzed the elections from a domestic point of view, noting that the presidential party often loses in the midterm year. Over the past 30 years, 21 years have seen a divided American government. Harris suggested that the American constitution allows for this “healthy rebalancing” by preventing the tyranny of one faction and, although divided government is able to produce a more centered agenda, historically it has put the U.S. government in a gridlock making it difficult to produce legislation. In 1994 when Bill Clinton was President, the Republicans swept the House of Representatives and were unable to develop a budget that the president would sign. This perhaps, is something that we might expect to happen in the next two years. Professor Harris specifically hypothesized that the Republican House would attempt to de-fund the health care legislation.
Next to speak was Professor Larry Gray of John Cabot University who emphasized that an increase in consumption and not in income is a signal that the U.S. is adjusting to a structural shift. Gray coined the emergence of credit, technology and low cost labor as the “perfect storm” that would lead to a movement of American lifestyle and identity. He condemned the government for not looking to invest and compared the American citizen to the American government on the large scale: Congress simultaneously wants to lower taxes and provide more services which logically only drives up American debt. Gray noted that in the last few years, United States debt has grown 14 times while the U.S. economy has grown four times. Perhaps raising taxes to create more revenue is worth considering.
Franco Venturini, a journalist from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, spoke of the American public’s possible “mass misunderstanding regarding the illusions of [Obama’s] campaign”. He noted that there is a “psychological misunderstanding” of any presidents capability to mend and return a country to previous situations. While Venturini considers Obama a great communicator, he was disappointed by Obama’s decision not to explain to the American public that it was impossible to return to previous international situations. The United States is no longer the only world superpower and therefore is unable to solve its economic problems domestically. Obama was in an ideal place to announce this to the public, but failed to do so.
Lucia Goracci from TG 3 continued the discussion by emphasizing the impact the results the midterm elections have on Obama’s Middle East policy, specifically regarding Palestinian and Israeli negotiations. A divided Congress could, she suspects, place a freeze on the talks themselves. Israel doesn’t actually negotiate with Palestinians in the West Bank directly, but with the U.S. in Washington. Gorracci said that Obama “wants a place in history by stopping the conflict” and perhaps his recovery will come with a focus on Middle East policy because it is the “easiest to approach”. The last to speak was Lucio Martino whose use of an informative powerpoint displayed historical general election results and emphasized the impact of the Midwest in election results. Historically, the Midwest has been “up for grabs” making it desirable campaign territory. Martino also questioned whether or not Obama was going to become a “foreign relations president” and theorized the effectiveness of a military campaign aimed at destroying Iran’s industrial base.
October 24, 2010
The Festival for Diplomacy: Teaching and Learning Diplomacy Round Table
By Hannah Wolkwitz
Keynote Speaker: Prof. Nabil Ayad, Director Diplomatic Academy of London
Moderator: Prof. Larry Gray, John Cabot University
Panelists:
Ms. Jutta Edithofter, Representative of the EU Council
Dmitry Shtodin, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Italy
Prof. Joseph Mifsud, Director of the Euro-Mediterranean University
Amb. Mladen Andrlic, Director of the Diplomatic Academy of Croatia
Prof. Stefano Bartolini, European University Institute of Florence
Min. Plen. Emanuela D’Alessandro, Director of the Italian Diplomatic Institute
Amb. Fabio Migliorini, Secretary General, SIOI
Within the context of the Italian Festival for Diplomacy, the Guarini Institute had the honor of hosting a round table discussion “Teaching and Learning Diplomacy” in which eight prestigious panelists participated. The discussion began with an introduction by keynote speaker Professor Nabil Ayad who contrasted the 17th century diplomat with diplomats of today, emphasizing that today’s diplomats must recognize the importance of global policy and act in accordance with a constantly changing international environment. According to Professor Ayad, the themes and techniques of training a student in diplomacy must incorporate aspects that are consistent with our increasingly complex world. Diplomats are the “managers of globalization” and tailor made training programs should become increasingly implemented, teaching what the student needs to learn rather than what the professor is best qualified to teach.
The first to speak from the panel was European Union Council representative Jutta Edthofter who detailed the changing nature of diplomacy within the broader European Union. Edthofter noted that the politics of the EU have changed, specifying its increasing duty to approach large scale issues such as international trade, climate change and terrorism.
The creation of the EEAS (European External Action Service) itself details the “europeanization” of European politics and illustrates the impacts of globalization on diplomacy. Professor Stefano Bartolini proceeded to outline his vision of a common european professional development program. He specifies that a university modeled after the Kennedy School of Governance at Harvard University in the United States is essential at the European level in order to effectively train European diplomats. Bartolini emphasized that in our increasingly globalized world, problems are arising that cannot be solved by an individual state. Therefore, institutions of diplomacy must exist to educate students in a way that allows them to effectively function in this changing political environment.
Ambassador Miladen Andrlic from the Diplomatic Academy of Croatia illuminated the problems faced by small countries with regard to teaching diplomacy. For smaller countries, diplomatic training is costly and complex. It is not cost effective to instruct students in only specific aspects and as a response, the Diplomatic Academy of Croatia trains it’s students in multiple areas. Professor Mifsud, the director of the Euro-Mediterranean University highlighted the importance of the Union of the Mediterranean and “just in time” courses on risk and innovation. He stressed that “academic diplomacy” consists of taking courses in diplomacy abroad, coordinating university exchanges of students, programs and professors in order to address the technical nature of diplomacy. A link between countries needs and technical and professional competencies is important to establish in order to create the most outstanding and capable diplomats.
Ambassador Shtodin from the Russian Federation recognized the changing nature of Russian diplomacy and emphasized the importance of creating a dialect between religions. He believes that today’s diplomat must recognize and address the challenges emerging with religious plurality. Emanuela D’Alessandro comprehensively addressed the need for a sense of urgency in updating Italian diplomacy training programs in order to create a “strategic framework to combine domestic and global preparation”. This program should include the analysis of main issues, cultivating communication and lobbying skills, understanding exchanges of information through technological skills development and through learning to match human and financial resources. D’Alessandro outlined the importance of the EEAS in creating a new generation of diplomats and common training to aid in the creation of networks.
Ambassador Migliorini was the last to speak, providing what he calls “flexible instructions” for a multilateral diplomat. In today’s world, adjustments must be made so that the student is able to interpret the world through careful observation so they are able to adapt to constantly changing circumstances. The positions and politics of our own countries and the country in which they are serving should be exhaustingly known in order to most effectively act. Professor Bruna Molina from the audience addressed the panel noting that the role and presence of United Nations was absent throughout the entire discussion. She emphasized the importance of the United Nations and of the establishment of a permanent crisis control mechanism. Languages as a tool of communication, she urged, are a must in the world of diplomacy.
Professor Ayad concluded the discussion by noting how important is it that institutions train students to be international diplomats rather than European diplomats. He rejected the idea of privatizing diplomacy and reiterated the significance of a training process so that each diplomat is capable of managing the complex interactions between Europe and the outside world. In a brief question and answer period, Michaela Pavoncello, a student at John Cabot University, asked if the EU council was going beyond the interest of the states. President of John Cabot University Franco Pavoncello noted that there are national bureaucratic stipulations in order to become a global diplomat. He asked if this increasingly prevalent national order is a contradiction and asks what we should do to break down the obstacles students being educated abroad face. Professor Federigo Argentieri posed a final question, asking if the United Nations was effective or not. He noted that perhaps it is too diplomatic and stressed that the organization has it’s “utilities and futilities”, being a great success in disaster relief.
October 7, 2010
Internationalization of Universities in the US
By Hannah Wolkwitz
Speaker: Thomas Sullivan
In collaboration with the US Mission to the UN, the Guarini Institute hosted Thomas E. Sullivan, the Vice President and Provost of the University of Minnesota, who gave an interesting lecture titled Internationalizing Universities in the US. President Franco Pavoncello introduced the discussion by acknowledging globalization as prevalent in the academic world, citing universities in the US that have become more focused on international experiences.
Sullivan began by stressing the importance of study abroad programs and highlighted the fact that 30 percent of the 67,000 students at the University of Minnesota have international experiences. He commented that Universities should work to inspire students in regard to interconnectivity and globalization by giving them the opportunity to work, study and live together. To illustrate this, Sullivan gave an impressive array of statistics emphasizing the national goal of reaching a 50 percent mark where 50 percent of undergraduate students study abroad. The importance of the international experience is evident due to the recent development of international campuses. The University of Minnesota’s prospective new offices in Beijing and India provide a means for students to study and conduct research around the globe, which undoubtedly creates an important global interconnectivity.
Addressing Thomas E. Sullivan in a short question and answer period, Dean Mary Merva, Professor Judith Crews and Professor Thomas Govero commented on the current state of affairs. Dean Merva outlined that as fiscal stress increases, international students coming from abroad must be provided with adequate scholarships. She stated that perhaps, as globalization continues, we are excluding talent that cannot afford the price of Universities. Professor Crews questioned whether or not the idea of “public good” in the US is eroding as a result of the strong influence corporations have on the ability of research to be privately funded. Sullivan answered the question by saying it is not a threat because these corporations are specifically required not to influence the project or the thoughts of the individual researcher. Professor Govero then addressed the seemingly unhealthy trend towards the scientific, mathematical and business faculties without a strong liberal arts basis. He concluded by addressing that a liberal arts, humanities foundation is rudimentary to higher education and should be stressed more in the US.
September 29th, 2010
Obama at Midterm: A Round Table Discussion
By Hannah Wolkwitz
Participants Included:
Larry Gray (Moderator, Professor at John Cabot University)
Patricia Thomas (The Associated Press)
Guido Lenzi (former Ambassador of Italy)
Enrico Molinaro (Prospettive mediterranee)
Kass Thomas (Democrats Abroad- Rome Branch)
On September 29, 2010, a large audience gathered in the Aula Magna at John Cabot University to listen to a stimulating discussion on President Obama’s impact and the projected impact of the approaching midterm elections in the United States. Giuliano Ferrara, Greg Burke, and Jamie Shea of the intended speakers were unable to attend and were replaced by Patricia Thomas, Enrico Molinaro and Guido Lenzi, who contributed to an interesting discussion.
After President Pavoncello introduced the round table by reiterating the importance of the midterm elections on both American politics and international politics, he welcomed and thanked the Honorable Frank Guarini, John Cabot University Trustee. The discussion began as moderator Larry Gray presented the dynamic political situation in the US that is threatening democratic control of congress. He hinted that the midterm elections might be considered a republican referendum on the first two years of the Obama administration and stated that the Tea Party movement is a “tsunami hitting US politics today”.
The conservative Tea Party movement, campaigning for more constrained government spending and lower taxes, has indeed taken the US by storm and has forced the Democratic Party to flee towards the political center in order to maintain its control over congress in the upcoming midterm election. Larry Gray mentioned the importance of Governor Sarah Palin in politics today stating that she is at “the dynamic center” in a political sphere where voters seem to be no longer concerned with credentials or seniority. He went on to describe that Palin endorsed 36 political candidates in the last year, 13 of who were women. Moderator Larry Gray then presented his questions to the panel.
The first to speak was Patricia Thomas of the Associated Press who believes the Tea Party Movement has galvanized the general republican conservative movement and agreed with Larry Gray’s analysis of Sarah Palin’s current influence in politics. She described the positive effects Palin has had on bringing women to the forefront of American Politics, notably candidate for Governor of California Meg Whitman, but believes Palin is not qualified to be President of the US. Patricia Thomas stated that the Republican party should harness the energy the Tea Party Movement has captured.
Guido Lenzi, former Ambassador of Italy, took to the podium next placing emphasis on how the midterm elections will impact European politics. Guido Lenzi highlighted the fact that state interference seems to be growing in the US and shrinking in Europe, bringing them closer together politically. He also noted that Obama has been committed to multilateral diplomacy and the creation of horizontal alliances as he outlined in the famous Cairo Speech, delivered on June 4, 2009. The trouble is, Obama has not received a response from the countries he has reached out to perhaps because the domestic “socialization of America” has distracted Obama from foreign policy. In the end, Guido Lenzi stated that the Western world generally needs to “get its act together to reconstruct the international system to what it was after the fall of the Berlin wall” and the European Union and Russia need to significantly respond to Obama’s calls for multilateral diplomacy to create a dynamic triangular relationship.
Enrico Molinaro approached moderator Larry Gray’s questions philosophically and theorized that the struggle between US political parties is not at all a struggle between parties, but within the parties themselves. He focused mainly on the challenges facing Obama in the Middle East by demonstrating that we see two opposite trends regarding collective identity. One trend is that of national identity, formed by boundaries and the creation of objects such as national flags. The opposing trend is a mainstream trend that destroys national identity and state frontier to create a global identity of ideology and religion. Enrico Molinaro hinted that Obama’s foreign policy is strained because of this emerging trend of global identity, specifically the Muslim identity that has formed in the Middle East.
The last to speak was Kass Thomas, head of the Rome Branch of Democrats Abroad. She began an emotional speech by echoing the importance of America’s first amendment right to the Freedom of Speech. Kass Thomas stated that the United States represents democracy for the world and it is important for the United States to “stand up for democracy”, even if it is in the form of “tea parties”. Reiterating one of Guido Lenzi’s points, she hinted that Obama was looking for team players or, in other words, allies to strengthen multinational diplomacy. Kass Thomas finished by reminding the audience that today’s Tea Party Movement should not be underestimated as a passing “fad” as similar movements have arisen in the past. The movement, in this sense, can only be considered an act of political free speech and may only move both the Democratic and Republican parties closer to an independent, central stance.
After each member of the panel spoke, the first remark came from President Franco Pavoncello who noted that addressing the US economy was necessary to a discussion about American politics. Other members of the Audience noted that Obama is not active enough in foreign policy. Federigo Argentieri responded from the audience reminding everyone that Obama has had to face two terrible domestic obstacles since he was elected president: the worst financial crisis in 79 years and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He noted that these two major domestic emergencies are perhaps the reasons why Obama has been unable to devote his energies to foreign policy. Patricia Thomas responded by saying that “all presidents get kicked in the knees” and doesn’t see an excuse for Obama to be inactive in foreign policy. Ambassador Lenzi then confirmed his belief that a “balance of forces” approach to politics needs to be re-implemented and America cannot lead as it did directly following WWII.
June 21st, 2010
Dr. Esther Brimmer on Promoting Multilateralism
By Marianna Griffini
On Monday, June 21st 2010, the Guarini Institute had the honor of hosting Dr. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, who outlined the global challenges the world is facing and the how a coordinated effort of all countries may help tackle them.
Dr. Brimmer was nominated, by President Obama, to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations on March 11, 2009. She leads the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, which strives to advance U.S. foreign policy goals and interests through international organizations in areas including; human rights, peacekeeping, food security, humanitarian relief, and climate change.
Dr. Brimmer opened by thanking the president, faculty and students of John Cabot University for hosting her and for their warm welcome. She stated that it was, “amazing to see such a wide array of students dedicated to the study of international affairs and the challenges which we face today.” Dr. Brimmer’s presentation focused on multilateralism and food security. She began by discussing the strong partnership between the United States and Italy. Italy is a “great ally” and an important partner in NATO. Dr. Brimmer then discussed her role as Assistant Secretary and commented that “today’s leaders have to deal with the changing dynamics of global relationships, the ever growing importance of multilateral engagement, and the need to invest in a common community.” Dr. Brimmer added that, “partnerships are a key part of the U.S. national security as well as a key part of improving global security as a whole because “greater challenges” lead to a need for “greater cooperation.” In such a complex international panorama, it is essential to strengthen the existing ties between partner countries, in order to undertake global challenges such as international networks of terrorism, pandemics, climate change, sustainable growth and development, cybercrime, and food security. The focus of Obama’s administration is, indeed, to enhance global commitment, and to foster peace, justice, and prosperity. Dr. Brimmer described her own position as overseeing the Unites States’ interaction with international organizations- most importantly the United Nations.
Dr. Brimmer specifically discussed global food security issues, which are the focus during her trip in Rome. She reiterated the fact that one billion people in the world suffer from chronic hunger, which has been exacerbated by the recent financial crisis. The U.S. is working together with the UN, to offer a global platform for sharing the expertise and knowledge about food production and how to deliver substantial aid. She emphasized the importance of addressing hunger and food security as the hunger crisis, “contributes to social, political, and economic instability, crippling growth and progress.” She outlined the Obama administration’s “Feed the Future” initiative which aims to alleviate hunger and poverty as related to the Millennium Development Goals. She highlighted that a focus on women is key to achieving food security because they produce 60% to 80% of food in developing countries and because studies have shown that aid given to women has a higher effect on improving the lives of whole families.
Dr. Brimmer concluded her speech with an enthusiastic address to the students. She encouraged them to use their education and to continue their commitment to improving global challenges and re-shaping the world through modern systems of communication, diplomacy, and fundraising.
Dr. Brimmer participated in a lively question and answer session with students and faculty. Dean Merva, of John Cabot University, asked if the price of oil can distort not only food production possibilities but also distribution. Dr. Brimmer commented that food insecurity and hunger are not isolated from other global causes of food shortages, oil prices are certainly related. The link has been seen and is being addressed in a holistic manner. We are trying to improve energy policies, create more green jobs and boost local productions so that transport does not have to be so important in the distribution of food and food aid.
A student asked about Dr. Brimmer’s view on climate change and how the government can push international change if they are not enforcing new polices at home. Dr. Brimmer discussed that the U.S is making a difference at home. This is illustrated in the economic recovery package, established by the Obama administration, which included almost $80 million to create green jobs and to invest in new technology to undertake a long-term change that will have the minimum impact on the environment.
Another student asked how the U.S. is going to deal with the BP oil spill and whether the IO is asking for international assistance. Dr. Brimmer’s commented on the efforts that President Obama and the Bureau for Ocean Environment and Science are making in coping with this environmental disaster. The US has formally accepted aid from numerous countries already, including Canada. Dr. Brimmer further added that the U.S. is very appreciative for the support that it has received from the international community.
When asked about the international efforts of the UN and the US in Gaza, Dr. Brimmer commented that the US and UN efforts are streamlined. The U.S. along with its partners shares the goal of reaching a “peaceful solution” between Israel and Gaza.
Regarding questions concerning the alleviation of starvation and hunger, Dr. Brimmer discussed the Obama administration’s “Feed the Future” initiative. The initiative strives to accelerate progress towards achieving food security in partnership with other donors and leaders—global and local, public and private— and requires a shift in the global community response. She replied that the World Food Program is promoting local products and striving to cooperate with each country in order to safeguard the success of the program. Dr. Brimmer commented that, “while there is still much to be done in achieving food security, we must look at the advances that have been made. Although the number of hungry has increased, because of the food and financial crises, there has been great progress in bringing clean water and nutrition to dozens of places in the world that did not have them before. As far as the U.S. agricultural policy is concerned, the U.S. must address the issue of subsidies with a more holistic approach encompassing domestic agricultural issues.
Obama’s administration is facing tough challenges, but it is also serving as a catalyst for change in the fields of climate change, health, security, and diplomacy, through multilateralism and cooperation.
June 16th, 2010
Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, "President of Victory"
By Marianna Griffini
On Wednesday 16th June the Guarini Institute hosted a guest lecture featuring Prof. Spencer M. Di Scala, a pre-eminent professor of University of Massachussets, Boston, and scholar specialized in Italian history. His latest book, published in April 2010, “Vittorio Orlando: Italy” seeks to deepen the knowledge of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Italy’s Prime Minister during World War I. Historiography concerning this character has operated in a “default mode” and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando’s figure is a mixture of myth and history.
Italy signed the Triple Alliance in 1882 with Austria and Germany. Italy became more industrialized and liberal and over the years, additionally, the Left did not see favorably Austria and Germany. Therefore the Triple Alliance became obsolete by the start of World War I and Italy declared its neutrality in 1914. Critically, this move was perfectly correct, says Prof. Di Scala, since the Austrians neglected to honor the Triple Alliance when they gave the ultimatum to Serbia without informing Italy about it (as the agreement contemplated).
History unfolds through images of notable characters. Vittorio Emanuele Orlando was born in 1860 a few days after the landing of the Thousand led by Garibaldi in Sicily. In the pre-war period he was minister of Education and of Justice. He stood in favor of wider civil rights and liberty to universities and he laid the bases for the reconciliation between the Church and the State, by opening the dialogue with Pope Pius X.
When Giolitti resigned before the beginning of World War I, Antonio Salandra became Prime Minister and declared Italy’s neutrality at first. In 1915 Sidney Sonnino, minister of Foreign Affairs, secretly signed the Treaty of London, thereby Italy entered World War I. Italy’s remarkable characters that determined the course of World War I are General Luigi Cadorna (1915-1917), notable for being tough with his soldiers, and his successor Armando Diaz (1917-1918), who replaced Cadorna after the terrible defeat inflicted on the Italian army at Caporetto. Diaz, also called “Duca della vittoria”, saved the army from the collapse, and led Italy to victory.
At the Paris Peace Conference held in 1919 David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau represented respectively the United Kingdom and France. France, in particular, expressed its resentment towards Italy, since they thought that Italy attacked Austria only when it was collapsing, but, in fact, France behaved similarly with Germany. Woodrow Wilson, the US president, emanated the famous Fourteen Points, condensing major political guidelines concerning democracy, free trade, and the settlement of territorial disputes. Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Italian representative, interestingly demanded Fiume, which was not included in the Treaty of London, but it was inhabited by Italians, along with Istria. The missed fulfillment of territorial desires of Italy later contributed to the rise of extremist movements, especially of Fascism. In the complex chessboard of colonialism, the British and the French carved out the Middle East, by establishing mandates in Iraq, Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, while Austria focused its interests on the Balkans.The defeated powers had had ambitions that were much greater than Italy’s.
One of the last pictures is a “wanted” photograph portraying a young Mussolini (1903). He was a radical socialist before founding the Fascist movement, and after the war was animated by an impetus of territorial conquest soon after the war his Fascist movement took off thanks also to the way Italy was treated at the Paris Peace Conference. Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, in fact, said: “If I don’t take back something to Italy, a big change will shake it.” At the Paris Peace Conference he predicted what was looming over Italy: Fascism, a major crisis that would affect the world.
June 1, 2010
Pushing Past the Night of Italian Terrorism: A Discussion With Author Mario Calabresi
By Marianna Griffini
On June 1st, 2010, the Guarini Institute for Public Affairs hosted a discussion with the editor-in-chief of
La Stampa and a victim of the 70’s terrorism, Mario Calabresi, author of the international best seller “Pushing Past the Night” (New York, The Other Press, 2009).
John Cabot University President Franco Pavoncello introduced the speaker, adding his remembrances of the terrorist bombing at Piazza Fontana, Milan, in 1969. This episode inaugurated a series of attacks, which were supposed to contribute to the “liberation” of the country. In fact, they gave rise to a civil war. Terrorism of both types, i.e. the extreme right and left, was fueled by corresponding ”black” and “red” extremist movements. Fascism, for instance, was responsible for the creation of the notion of internal enemies, adopted by “black” terrorism.
Then Mr. Calabresi started off by introducing his book “Pushing Past the Night”. It was published in France and Germany, which experienced terrorism as Italy did, but also in the US. Even though the 9/11 attacks represented a different kind of terrorism, they still share a common experience of victimization with Italy. Mr. Calabresi recalled that he spoke at the UN where he had the chance of meeting the relatives of terrorism victims killed by the ETA and by Islamic groups in Madrid, Bali, London, and on 9/11. Their common issue was how to survive after an attack.
Terrorism turns victims into symbols; it deprives them of their humanity. For instance, in the 70’s victims were described in Red Brigades’ leaflets as servants of the state or of the CIA. In the recent terrorist attacks, British and American tourists were viewed as representatives of oppressor states. In order to neuter terrorism of its power it is necessary to give humanity back to the victims and to educate young people about terrorism. Young students, in fact, can be attracted by terrorism, conceiving it as motivated by a romantic impetus, and can reach the point of glorifying ex-terrorists as heroes. Moreover, some students in high school mistakenly think of terrorism as a movement of renewal and change for a closed society.
Actually, it is vital to understand that terrorism did not benefit society at all. An exemplary story is that of Doctor Luigi Marangoni. In 1980, he was in charge of the most important hospital in Milan. In his hospital a group of nurses carried out sabotage to discredit the state: they unplugged the refrigerator holding the blood necessary for transfusion every night, so that the morning after surgery could not be performed. He interrogated the nurses and four of them revealed the names of the culprits to him. He warned them that if they had committed the crime again, he would have denounced them to the police. That night they cut the power to the fridges. Dr. Marangoni called the police and some days later, the four nurses who revealed the names of their “criminal” colleagues to him were shot in their legs. At this point Dr. Marangoni started being constantly threatened. He had to cancel his vacation and to change drastically his life. One night, shortly before being assassinated, he apologized to his wife for not being with her for their whole life. He felt an incumbent danger. On February 17, 1981 he was shot dead. Terrorism is not progressive or beneficial.
The Institute’s Director Prof. Argentieri then asked the speaker to tell something more about the association of the victims of terrorism. Mr Calabresi replied that a bill in favor of the victims of terrorism was passed in 2004. They offered scholarships to terrorism victims’ children, but for him it was too late, since he completed high school in 1989. Two years ago, May 9th was established as a day of remembrance to commemorate the victims of terrorism: on that day in 1978 the body of Aldo Moro, President of the DC party, was found dead in downtown Rome.
A student asked how could he accept to La Repubblica correspondent while Adriano Sofri (one of his father’s murderers) was working for the same newspaper? The answer was, “At first I turned down the offer. Then I visited my mother in Milan, and she encouraged me not to turn down that offer if I liked it. She said: ‘Sofri has changed your life by killing your father. Don’t let him ruin your life again’”. The audience applauded this quote.
“Why did the State not support Calabresi proving an escort in the face of clear threats?” asked another student. “Luigi Calabresi was the first victim, followed by hundreds over the years. He did not want to carry a gun with him and he put it in a drawer. He said that terrorists would not have killed him looking in his eyes, and, most remarkably, he did not want to kill anybody”, answered Mario. The meeting closed, as the speaker needed to reach the Quirinale palace for a meeting with the President of the Republic, leaving the numerous attending students with much food for thought.
Monday, April 12 and Friday April 23, 2010
65th Anniversary of the end of WW2 remembered
By Thomas Hormby
The Guarini Institute for Public Affairs hosted two events commemorating the end of World War II. The first was an April 12 screening of the Andrzej Wajda film, Katyn. The film depicts the massacre Polish officers, intellectuals and ordinary citizens that took place during the initial Red Army occupation of half of Poland. The following week, Professor Portelli of La Sapienza led a guided tour of the
Museo Storico della Liberazione which is in the partially restored prison where Nazi Germany housed its political prisoners during the occupation of Rome.
The screening of Katyn had been planned months in advance but came much more topical after the April 10 tragedy that took place in Smolensk, Russia. The Polish Ambassador to Rome had originally planned to participate but was forced to cancel in light of the weekend's events.
After a moment of silence for the victims of the air crash that claimed the lives of Polish President Lech Kaczinksi, his wife and 94 others, Professor Eric Terzuolo introduced the film with background information on the actual Katyn Massacre and its memory in Poland, the Soviet Union and Russia. The Katyn Massacre took place during the 1939 occupation of Poland under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which divided Poland into German and Soviet sectors. The Soviet Occupation was interrupted by the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 but was restored two years later.
As in other areas under Soviet occupation, the Red Army and the Soviet secret police (NKVD) initiated a rule of terror targeting members of the officer and politician class and also the ordinary citizens for imprisonment, relocation or execution. The Red Army, and Joseph Stalin in particular, held an animus for Poland, which had challenged the fledgling Russian communist state after the Bolshevik takeover. In order to nip in the bud any resistance that might arise in the occupied areas, the NKVD chief, Beria, proposed that the entire officer class of Poland be eliminated. Stalin and the Politburo approved the plan and tens of thousands of Polish officers and enlisted men were taken as POW's and transported to the Katyn Forest. The officers were separated from the enlisted men and then shot and buried.
Not until the eve of its dissolution did the Soviet Union admit to any role in the Katyn Massacre. In some cases, families waited for years before finding out about the fate of their loved ones. During its reoccupation of Poland in 1943, Red Army propaganda blamed the massacre on the Germans. In 1992, Boris Yeltsin, the first President of the Russian Federation, opened the Soviet Archives for the first time. Scholars were able to read Beria's correspondence with the Politburo and with Stalin himself over the planning and execution of the massacre.
The film itself follows the story of one Polish officer, Andrzej, who is executed in Katyn. The director interwove Andrzej's story with those of his relatives: his wife and child who did not find out about his fate for certain until after the war, his father who died in a Soviet camp and his officer comrades. The film is very graphic in its depiction of the violence carried out against the Polish people and also shows how little civilians knew about the Soviet Rule of Terror in the occupied areas during World War II.
After its 2007 release, Katyn won 7 awards in Poland and was nominated for an Academy Award under Best Foreign Film.
On April 23, Professor Alessandro Portelli, who teaches American literature at La Sapienza and cultivates historical studies on the Roman Resistance, gave a guided tour of the Museo Storico della Liberazione at the Via Tasso, the former German Consulate until 1943. The building housed the prison where the Nazis held its political prisoners during its occupation of Rome in 1943-44. JCU faculty and students attended the tour, which included visits to the actual cells were prisoners were held to rooms showing leaflets, newspapers and posters from the Italian Resistance, the Allies, the Nazis and the Italian Fascist regime, as well as correspondence between the prisoners and their loved ones.
Hundreds of political prisoners (including partisans, officers and ordinary civilians) were arrested and many were executed. In many cases, Via Tasso served as a transit point for prisoners being deported or shot.. Professor Portelli paid special attention the cells which had been left more or less as they were during the war. The graffiti from the prisoners were still on the walls and the windows were still bricked up (to prevent communication with the outside, according to the inscription.)
The memory of the prison was also important to Professor Portelli. The resistance to the German Occupation of the city spanned all walks of life. Enlisted men were held across the hallway from famous prisoners like
Giuseppe Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, a victim of the Ardeatine Caves. Several exhibits grapple with the question of the changing memory of the Occupation. The curators use newspaper clippings and other contemporary sources and contrast them with how the events are now commemorated and remembered.
In another room, Professor Portelli pointed out a case holding
jack rocks, two nails welded together to form four sharp points. During mining strikes in West Virginia, he had seen the same devices used to disable company vehicles. In Rome, they were part of the Resistance and were a constant drain on German resources during the Occupation.
Professor Portelli concluded the tour in the Jewish section of the museum where the Jewish prisoners are commemorated. The entrance hall of the annex is lined with the arrest records of the victims of the Ardeatine Caves, many of whom the forms indicate were shot on the same day of their arrest. The Jewish history of the occupation, noted Professor Portelli, is particularly fraught because of the historically non anti-Semitic Fascist Party.
After the tour was completed, the participants signed the guestbook of the museum and thanked Professor Portelli for his insight on the exhibits and on the history of the Resistance in Rome.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"Italy's Divided Memory: Fratture d'Italia"
, a short documentary on the portrayal of women on Italian network television. After the screening, members of the large audience participated in an extensive question and answer session with the director of the film, Lorella Zanardo, and a panel of five professors and journalists:
The 25-minute documentary is made up of clips from over 400 hours of Italian broadcast television that the directors taped over the course of two years. Using only a simple voiceover, Zanardo makes the case that the identities of women have been hidden behind plasticine masks and have been hyper sexualized, making Italian broadcast television resemble soft core pornography. Despite her condemnation of how women are portrayed, Zanardo is careful to emphasize that she is not criticizing the veline themselves. The women on television are as much victims of the system as any other woman in Italy.
Zanardo says there are reasons for optimism. As a follow-up to the documentary, Zanardo and her team have started hosting training sessions for educators across Italy. She focuses on teaching students on how to watch television critically, a skill that many young people might lack. In these sessions, she emphasizes the importance of girls maintaining their identity and not allowing the portrayal of the veline to influence their self-identity.
The other panel speakers tried to answer the questions of why Italian television differs so much from that of other high-income countries and what can be done to fix it. Concita De Gregorio, the editor in chief of the national newspaper L’Unità, and Megan Williams, correspondent for the CBC, both talked about how she had to grapple with the portrayal of the veline and their own children. Since it is not practical to expect young people not to watch television at all, parents should take the time to watch television with their children and to talk about how women are portrayed. This point was echoed in the questions and answers session where speakers criticized the Italian left for disengaging from popular culture and not providing a compelling alternative vision of women and television.
Professor Harris echoed this sentiment in her comments. As a high school student, she took a women’s studies course where she was required to write to a corporation and explain why she objected to the portrayal of women in its ads. The assignment helped her develop media literacy, enabling her to critically read the text and subtext of women’s portrayal on television. Professor Sarram, who teaches communications at John Cabot, pointed out that media studies does not exist as a separate program at Italian universities. If present at all, it is lumped into a broader communications department.
In his remarks, Lucio Martino stressed the point that far from being in line with process of women emancipation, to say that the "true" women are disappearing from the Italian television just to be replaced by a humiliating, gross, and grotesque portrait of woman is old news, that is very conservative. Who is in the position to say what is right and what is wrong for a woman in her career, especially in show business? And television, do not forget, is show business.
Martino noted that make-up has always been important both for men and for women involved in any kind of social activity. Plastic surgery answers the same needs, but it is not cosmetic. After a nose job any face is real as it was before. Plastic surgery is not a mask. Plastic surgery is everywhere, to great advantage of all of us. Importantly, plastic surgery it is not just for women. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt are almost fifty, but do not look more than thirty. Even the very Italian Pippo Baudo recently had hair implants. The ‘true’ is that our television faces are ‘real’ as much as any other face. Nose and breast augmentation are now common features of the people all around us.
Finally, said Martino, there is no reason to complain about the probably low intellectual capabilities of too many of the young, and less young but still beautiful, women we see in TV. There is no reason and in addition is unfair because too many of the as well young, and not so young but still gorgeous, male colleagues show no signs of any better intellectual capability. Actually, there are no big differences between men and women in television simple because no brain is needed, shows being boring and repetitive. The only thing worth watching are these beautiful bodies. If you take them from the shows, you simply kill the shows.
Professor Isabella Clough argued that the situation on Italian TV has to be analysed within broader problems of trivialization and lack of visibility of women in many other spheres, such as politics and business. She also pointed out that women are not given the same space and prestige as their male peers on TV even when they appear as professionals(not as eye candy).
During the questions session following the panel discussion, Professor Federigo Argentieri called the images in the documentary “utterly disgusting.” He posed three questions to Zanardo and the panel in general: Was Italian television always so degrading towards women? Did the women’s movement affect how they are portrayed on television? What do the veline think about how they are treated onscreen?
Next to speak was John Cabot President Franco Pavoncello who attributed the quality of Italian television to a lack of public etiquette. This lack of etiquette is directly linked to Italy’s continued backwardness. Italians lack an understanding over what is publicly acceptable. Professor Colatrella agreed with President Pavoncello’s characterization of Italy as being backwards and called for the effects of Italian television on Italian men to be closer examined.
Vanda Wilcox asked whether having more female producers would improve how women are portrayed on television. In her response, Zanardo pointed out that a woman actually runs the main casting office for veline at Mediaset, the largest private television network in Italy. Women, though underrepresented in comparison to other Western European countries, play a role in all stages of production. In fact, women in senior positions at networks actually actively degrade women both as producers and as hosts.
One John Cabot student who grew up in Italy and in France, Marta Traxler, noted that there are few alternatives to television in the lives of many young Italians. In France, the Ministry of Culture actively promotes museums and other institutions to young people. Even in the private sector, French cinemas often play vintage or art films and are popular places for young people to spend their free time. Professor Argentieri, in response to Marta’s comments by noting that student discounts exist at many cultural institutions but they were not promoted actively by the government. He also pointed out that cinemas in Rome once played more eclectic movies, such as Cinema Farnese in Campo de’ Fiori, but they more and more resemble American multiplexes, playing more and more commercial movies.