Disponibile da gennaio 2018
 
 
 

RISCRIVERE IL RECOVERY PLAN (E, PERCHE’NO, ANCHE IL “NEXT GENERATION EU”?)

Mariana Mazzucato, la teorica dell’ “Entrepreneurial State”

Oggi, il “PNRR”, la bozza che il Governo ha prodotto il 13 Gennaio, non contiene, come già detto per altro da Renzi, Calenda e Bonomi, se non il solito libro dei sogni, ma non precisi progetti e priorità, accompagnati da un’analisi dei problemi, delle proposte strategiche e un preciso business plan.

Il Governo Conte è caduto, almeno formalmente, per l’impossibilità  di scrivere un  Recovery Plan in piena regola almeno dal punto di vista formale. Si presume che un ipotetico Governo Draghi riuscirebbe a rimediare almeno all’ aspetto formale, in modo da ottenere l’approvazione delle Istituzioni.Il che sembrerebbe il suo compito principale, anche se ci sono dei politici che arrivano alle consultazioni con “una lista di 18 priorità”.

Quanto sopra non ci ha stupito per più di un motivo:

-in realtà tutta l’Europa si limita, da moltissimo tempo, a gestire l’esistente, senza intraprendere mai un serio cambiamento di rotta, in un mondo che invece si sta trasformando alla velocità della luce (Intelligenza Artificiale, corsa allo spazio, Via della Seta…);

-lo stesso “Next Generation EU”, sotto un manto di belle parole, non fa che ripresentare gli stessi slogan che circolano da decenni senza mai tradursi in azioni veramente concrete (ecologia, riforme, digitale, partecipazione dei cittadini…);

-l’intera situazione  si spiega con l’impossibilità,  per la classe politica europea, di liberarsi  dai lacci e lacciuoli posti da tempo immemorabile a protezione  delle multinazionali (informatiche- i GAFAM-; dell’ aerospazio -Lockheed, Boeing-; farmaceutiche, il “Big Pharma” che vediamo oggi in azione): vedi i casi Olivetti, Minitel, ENI, Euratom,gli F-35), e dalla conseguente necessità di soffocare ogni serio dibattito politico e culturale sul modello europeo  sotto le più svariate retoriche giustificatorie della nostra inazione (atlantismo, liberismo, populismo, anti-autoritarismo,  internazionalismo liberale, pacifismo, ecologismo, perbenismo),  le quali, tutte insieme, bloccano l’improrogabile rafforzamento delle istituzioni (vedi crisi dei vaccini),  una qualsiasi politica industriale (un antitrust che non penalizzi le imprese europee, favorendo quelle extraeuropee), la politica estera e di difesa (che non ha fatto un solo passo avanti da 70 anni), i campioni nazionali (restano solo Airbus, Arianespace e Galileo), una cultura veramente europea, la meritocrazia, l’”upskilling” digitale…

Per quel che riguarda le radici di tutto questo, e i relativi meccanismi, basti leggere “Il caso Olivetti” di Meryle Secrest, uscito da pochi giorni.

Se i progetti di Olivetti e di Tchou fossero stati portati a termine, il Piemonte, l’ Italia e l’ Europa non sarebbero a questo punto.

1.Un frusto teatrino

In questo contesto, le crisi di governo (il conflitto fra Prodi e Bertinotti; le follie del Papeete; ora quest’ultima crisi), nascono quando i politici italiani vengono posti fra l’incudine e il martello da opposte pressioni internazionali (il conflitto in Kossovo; la visita del Segretario americano Barr; l’”alleanza contro la Cina” di Biden), e, per poter mettere in sicurezza le proprie carriere, si fingono  pazzi, per far “passare a nuttata” senza compromettersi, né in un senso, né nell’ altro. In queste situazioni, è più che mai improbabile che possano essere adottate soluzioni adeguate.

Così, un vero programma economico non si è mai scritto e continuerà a non  scriversi, né in Europa, né in Italia. Basti dire che perfino l’ unico Programma Economico Nazionale, quello di Pasquale Saraceno con prefazione di Ugo La Malfa,  in tutte le sue migliaia di pagine, riusciva a dire vagamente una cosa sola: che bisognava spingere l’economia verso il Mezzogiorno. Cosa per cui non ci sarebbe stato bisogno di alcun programma. Dopo di allora, con la scusa del liberismo si è deciso di non riprovarci neppure.

Eppure, di un programma ci sarebbe  stato bisogno allora, e ce n’è bisogno ora più che mai, perché:

-la decadenza dell’ Europa e dell’ Italia dura, in fondo, oramai da un secolo, e non è neppure casuale, essendo essa già scritta nei “14 Punti” di Wilson, nei “lend lease agreements”,  nel congresso di Baku dell’ Internazionale Comunista, nelle indicazioni americane alla grande industria italiana, nelle norme antitrust che in pratica servivano solo ad impedire la nascita  dei Campioni Europei, nella crisi petrolifera, nell’incapacità di sfruttare la crescita asiatica;

-mentre gli altri Paesi europei sono cresciuti poco, l’Italia è cresciuta meno di qualunque altro Paese al mondo (anzi, più esattamente, nel 2020 è decresciuta dell’ 8%, più di ogni altro Paese);

se non si cambia proprio lo scenario geoeconomico complessivo, un ulteriore peggioramento è garantito.

2.Forse non  riusciremo a incassare tutto il Recovery Fund, ma questo non sarebbe stato comunque il toccasana di tutti i mali

Infatti:

-non si tratta di  denaro fresco (come sarebbe se venisse accolta la proposta di Sassoli di cancellare il debito degli Stati verso la BCE), bensì solo di un allentamento degl’illogici  vincoli all’ indebitamento, che comunque era già implicito nelle politiche di “Quantitative Easing” perseguite dal 2008 da tutte le Banche Centrali, e che la BCE, a cominciare da Mario Draghi, aveva  imitato seppure con il solito ritardo;

-si tratta quindi sostanzialmente di un aumento del debito, seppur necessario, che si dovrà ripagare, e che avrebbe senso solo se si indicassero investimenti produttivi con un credibile piano di rientro, come predicano un po’ tutti, ma nessuno fa;

siffatte prospettive di rientro ci sarebbero oggi solo nei settori ad altissima tecnologia e sui mercati asiatici, due settori da cui l’Europa è da sempre sostanzialmente assente, probabilmente per una scelta geopolitica (pensiamo appunto a Olivetti, a Tchou, a Mattei). Orbene,  nel Next Generation EU, non c’è alcuna indicazione circa il fatto che l’Europa voglia creare nei prossimi 7 anni dei propri GAFAM, né che voglia operare più attivamente sui mercati della Via della Seta. Anzi, tutto cospira a indicare che la dipendenza dai soggetti “leader” occidentali venga sostanzialmente continuata. Unico spiraglio positivo, il trattato con la Cina siglato a Dicembre e ancora così contestato;

-quanto all’ Italia, non si capisce neppure in quali nuovi business l’Italia voglia entrare, visto che, in quelli vecchi siamo sempre più perdenti, con le nostre imprese che passano tutte sotto il controllo dei Paesi più disparati, mentre noi abbiamo abbandonato da decenni  una qualsiasi politica  di autentica espansione internazionale.

Basta leggere il PNRR per vedere che non si individua un solo nuovo business, limitandosi a dare sussidi a quelli già esistenti.

3.Le vere priorità

Tornando a noi, abbiamo idee abbastanza eccentriche su come si dovrebbero scrivere il Next Generation EU e il Recovery Plan italiano. Intanto, dal punto di vista formale, si dovrebbero redigere con la stessa logica del Piano Strategico di un gruppo multinazionale (a proposito, lo sapevate che, da sempre, le multinazionali hanno una pianificazione pluriennale come i Paesi socialisti?).

Insomma, bisognerebbe partire da un’analisi  e previsione dei mercati, da precise ipotesi di evoluzione futura, dalla quantificazione delle risorse e degl’investimenti, passando alla simulazione del ciclo produttivo e finanziario, fino a quantificare il reddito sperato, l’impatto sull’occupazione e sul prelievo fiscale. Tutto ciò oggi va fatto utilizzando l’intelligence, i big data e l’intelligenza artificiale

In secondo luogo, occorrerebbe spostare drasticamente l’ordine delle priorità, che andrebbe così strutturato:

-al primo posto la cultura, dove per cultura s’intende anche la riflessione politologica, tecnologica, economica e di difesa, come pure la formazione di nuove classi dirigenti (Accademia digitale europea, nuovi curricula, “upskilling” a tappeto);

-in secondo luogo, il digitale, destinato ad informare di sé ogni aspetto della vita umana: dalla politica, all’ amministrazione, alla sanità, alla difesa, alla ricerca, al management, alla pubblica amministrazione, alla finanza, alla produzione, ai servizi. Se può sembrare irrealistico che l’Italia si autoproclami sede di piattaforme generaliste, non sarebbe fuori luogo che creasse una piattaforma della cultura europea, un’idea appena abbozzata da Franceschini;

-in terzo luogo, la creazione di campioni europei, nell’ informatica, nell’ aerospaziale, nella cultura, nella difesa, nel  commercio;

-in quarto luogo, un centro tecnologico pensante, che progetti l’avvenire, formi élites, orienti governo, cultura, difesa, finanza società, industria, scuola, amministrazione (quello che abbiamo chiamato “Agenzia Tecnologica Europea”, che potrebbe prendere le mosse dall’ Istituto Nazionale per l’ Intelligenza Artificiale di Torino),

-in quinto luogo, l’ambiente, che però va contemporaneamente  sgombrato dai miti, dal marketing e dalla burocrazia. Ad esempio, con la crisi demografica, con il telelavoro, con l’impoverimento generale e con il ritorno alla terra, dovremmo smetterla di voler imitare le “new cities” cinesi con decine di milioni di abitanti, e pensare all’ efficientamento digitale ed energetico dei borghi, dei casolari, delle città storiche, degli antichi palazzi, dei loft…, secondo il modello del “superbonus”, che dovrebbe diventare strutturale. L’Italia sarebbe certamente il Paese che più si gioverebbe di questa nuova politica, per lo stimolo ch’essa potrebbe dare all’indentità, alla cultura, al turismo, all’immobiliare di prestigio, all’ industria edilizia, alla diffusione della partecipazione popolare, alla scuola, alla tecnologia…

-in sesto luogo, dovremmo pensare ad una nuova politica “di difesa” che sia veramente tale, senza avventure neo-coloniali e senza faraoniche spese di personale  e armamenti, ma  che sposi invece un livello altissimo di tecnologia con la mobilitazione generale della popolazione civile, che, nei tipi di guerra del futuro, sarà fondamentale, per un comportamento responsabile e disciplinato (come nel lockdown), per la costruzione di difese passive (“costruite profonde trincee”), per la non collaborazione con l’aggressore (“inte samarbejde”, per la resistenza passiva (un’”Europa inconquistabile”), per l’intelligence, per la lotta clandestina, per l’interscambio fra esercito, università, industria e ricerca, oltre che per l’impiego dei militari nella difesa del territorio, nelle politiche di sanità pubblica…Questo tipo di difesa costituisce, come avviene per esempio in Cina e Israele, una potente leva per l’upgrading tecnologico  di un Paese.

Via b. Galliari n. 32 10125 Torino info@alpinadiàlexis.com
info@alpinasrl.com
tel +393357761536 +390116690004

Kαλά Χριστούγεννα       Buon Natale      Natale Hilare     诞快乐

Gëzuar Krishtlindja    Feliz Nadal    շնորհավոր Սուրբ Ծնունդ Feliz navidá Xoşbəxt Milad    Eguberri On   з Калядаамі   Sretan Božić Nedeleg laouen Весела Коледа    Bon Nadal    Nadelik Lowen Bon Natale è pace è salute Veselé Vánoce   Glædelig jul  Vrolijk kerstfeest Merry Christmas     Ĝojan Kristnaskon  Häid joule    Gleðilig jól    Hyvää joulua   Hauskaa joulua Joyeux Noël Noflike krystdagen    Bo Nadal   შობას გილოცავთ Boldog karácsonyt Gleðileg jól  Nollaig Shona Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus    Linksmų Kalėdų  Schéine Chrëschtdag Среќен Божиќ    il-Milied it-Tajjeb    Роштува мархта Un bouan Noué  God jul   Wesołych Świąt   Crăciun fericit с Рождеством  Buorre javla Buorit juovllat  Buerie jåvle Bona Pasca de Nadale  Nollaig Chridheil Срећан Божић Radosnych Godōw  Veselé Vianoce Vesel božič Wjasołe gódy Wjesołe hody  Feliz Navidad  God jul  Mutlu Noeller з Різдвом

Riccardo Lala

THE BATTLE FOR EUROPE’S STRATEGICAL AUTONOMY: DIALEXIS CONTRIBUTIONS

The American hidden empire is the heir apparent of the Persian one.

The core problem of post-WWII politics is the centrality of deployed technique (Heidegger). With the ability of the machine to beat man, as shown by DeepBlue vs Kasparov, machines have become the protagonists of post-modern history – the history of the transition from Intelligent Machines (DeepBlue) to Spiritual Machines (the “Technological Singularity”)-. In this sense, present days history has been defined also as Post-History (Kojève, Gehlen).

If machines are the protagonists, the powers who embed intelligent machines have the control on the world (Putin). The “OKO” computer should have guaranteed, via the “second nuclear strike”, the victory of real socialism in WWIII, but “OKO” failed, so that technological sovereignty remained with the US, until China challenged them with its technological giants, like Huawei.

China challenging the US in “dual” technologies has come to the forefront of political debate

1.The core contradiction of the XXI Century

Thus , ICT, with  its trends and its control,  has become the most crucial cultural and political issue. Large part of the great questions at stake today are about the control on machines. The future of Mankind depends on the space machines will leave to humans. The conflict rudimentarily described as “Democracy vs. Autocracy” is in reality a transversal dialectics among the fledging Technological Singularity and the different forces protecting identity and difference.

At a geopolitical level, the GAFAM have almost succeeded to take control over the “Hidden Empire”, the “America-World”, making, of it, the main instrument for its control on Mankind (Schmidt & Cohen). On the other side, some stumbling blocks have arisen, which are making the march of the Singularity more difficult. The first of them is China, which has developed its own, parallel, Digital-Military Complex (The “Union of Civil and Military”),  similar to the American one, but not identical: the American political system is more widespread, but weaker.

Albeit one could think that two digital-military complexes are worse than  only one, in reality, Duality  has always been the worst enemy of Singularity (“Advaita”), and, thus, it is a remedy to the ongoing mechanisation. And, in fact, the existence of two competing digital powers gives the other powers of the world the time to reorganise. This is what is happening in Russia and what should happen also in Europe.

“The Singularity” is an archetypal aspiration of messianic empires (Ekata, Tawhid)

2.The role of Europe in the worldwide debate

The role of Europe is ambiguous. Its original idea at the times of Hippocrates, Herodotus and Eschilus,  was the one typical of  the sedentarized warring tribes (Western Semites and Western Aryans), which challenged the centralized empires governing large alluvional plains (let’s think of Moses vs. Pharaon and of Leonidas vs. Xerxes). However, with the time going on, also those tribes interiorized many ideas coming from Eastern Empires, such as enotheism, divine right, centralisation, what gave rise to decentralised “Western” empires such as the Roman, the Holy and the Ottoman Empires, conciliating centralisation and de-centralisation.

Europe’s post-WWII americanization included also puritan hypocrisy (Nietzsche’s “cant”), whereby exponential centralisation (1% Society, Political Correctness, Globalisation, Intelligence Community, Echelon, Prism), is  masked by ideologies which extol opposite principles (Thoreau’s transcendentalism, Whitman’s individualism, the Chicago School’s laissez-faire, Californian Ideology).

Under the influence of US dissidents from “the Web Delusion” (Bill Joy, Julian Assange, Evgeny Morozov), the EU had embraced enthusiastically the idea of compliance with the OECD privacy rules as an evidence  of its “superior democracy”, and was surprised (by the Echelon, Wikileaks and Prism cases) to realize that the US  were not following their same roadmap , but, on the contrary, under the pretext of Islamic terrorism, and, in reality, for stabilizing their role as the sole superpower, went on creating their own technological empire covering the whole world. Albeit the US did not appear as such at the forefront of this technological invasion, but the GAFAM, created by the DoD’s DARPA, and contiguous to the intelligence community, played the same role, or even a better one, presenting themselves as freedom-loving young start-ups. European States and even the European Union favoured these developments, by allowing the US intelligence community to work freely in Europe, by avoiding any State control on ICT, by creating incredible tax rulings in Luxemburg, Netherlands, Ireland and UK, and by postponing, for a huge amount of time, the adoption and implementation of any measures whatsoever against all that, in spite of laws on national security, secrets protection, intellectual property and privacy, and procedural law.

Europe will be the Trendsetter of Worldwide debate only when it will be a leading ICT power.

3.Beyond GDPR

The GDPR, praised by the official opinion as a masterwork of soft power, was based, in reality, on a deliberate misunderstanding: the idea that the GAFAM, which are a unique creation uniting 1% society and extractive capitalism, theological nihilism and Bal Excelsior rhetorics, hard power and intelligence, propaganda and lobbying, electoral technologies and guerrilla training, may not be effectively governed by one-sided sectoral regulations, such as privacy law, tax law, antitrust law, different according to States and political phases, without facing them in an holistic way, encompassing also international, constitutional, military, criminal, economic and electoral law.

So, each set of law, taken as such, has become a regulatory monstruosity, not achieving in any case the aim to curb abusive practices, which could be pursued only by a unitary strategy, privileging coordination and quality over quantity and bureaucracy. The failure of this policy has become evident over the time,(i) with the refusal, by Obama, to counter the system revealed by Edward Snowden, (ii)with the adoption, by the Congress, of the CLOUD Act, clearly reinstating, in deliberate contrast with the European GDPR,  that the US intelligence community has free access to all data stored by the GAFAM even abroad,(iv) with the coverage given by friendly governments, like the Irish one, to illegal practices of the GAFAM, and (v) finally, by the Schrems II Judgement of the ECCJ, which has finally condemned, as illegal, the escapeways found out by the Commission for avoiding to oblige Americans to stop their abuses.

The von der Leyen Commission had the objective to turn these weaknesses of the European system into a force, trying to counter, with a series of programmatic and legal documents, the abuses of the GAFAM, but, in the same time, accommodating very easily to the requirements of the US administration and of the GAFAM themselves. Up to the point that, refusing to comply with the GDPR as interpreted by the EUCJ, the European Institutions (by the ILA with Microsoft), and all Member States (by the inactivity of their respective DPAs) are infringing massively and permanently the laws which they have created, what constitutes the opposite of that Rule of Law which they pretend to utilise just as a pretext for boycotting unsympathetic political leaders (Orbàn, Morawiecki).

The situation has gone so far that, in the last years, the pressure on the governments, at least in some countries, for doing something concrete has become too strong. This is especially true in France, where President Macron is fighting constantly for inheriting the Gaullist tradition, still dominant in the country, which also the Rassemblement National, the second political force of the country, tries to rejuvenate.

As a consequence, Macron has launched the slogan “Souverainisme Européen”, which, as to ICT, sounds like “autonomie stratégique digitale”, which should pave the way to a more general European sovereignty.

Very recently, this slogan has been appropriated by some European Institutions (like Michel, Borrell and Breton), who are moving away from the traditional EU “liberal internationalism” (hiding a substantial subserviency to the US), for arriving at a “realistic” vision of international politics (the “power politics”).

The first imperative: stopping the trickle-down effect of European knowledge into the GAFAM and the American deep State

3. Critically discussing EU legislation

This situation has brought about a series of legislative actions, such as Macron’s walking out from the standstill on the web tax, such as  the creation of Qwant, JEDI, and,  especially, GAIA-X.

As clarified in the interventions of Associazione Culturale Dialexis, albeit these stand-alone initiatives represent a remarkable good news for  European sovereignists, they are still too weak for countering the multifaceted hegemony of the US military-digital complex on Europe in  the cultural, intelligence, military, political, social and economic fields.

In fact, whilst the “Californian Ideology” represents a consistent social design, starting from secularised millenarism, going on through American Exceptionalism, via the Rostow growth theory and “technological sublime”, the European “regulatory superpower” is dependent on millenarism for its Progress mythology, to American Exceptionalism via the “Allied Model”, to the Rostow development theory via the “multilateralistic” misunderstandings, and, finally, to Technological Sublime through Rifkin’s myth of the Third Industrial Revolution (as reworded by Floridi: “the Fourth Revolution”).

For overcoming these bottlenecks, the EU shall re-interpret its idea of “Trendsetter of Worldwide Debate”, for interconnecting it with the tradition of “Katechon”, as read by St-Paul, by the Ludus de Antichristo,by Soloviov, Dostojevskij, Mc Luhan and Barcellona, i.e. as a philosophical debate about the essence of Modernity.

For keeping abreast of these challenging times, Diàlexis is following intensely the ongoing events at world, European, Italian and Piemontese levels, proposing continuously, to competent authorities and to civil society, new formulas for overcoming the century-long difficulties which block our development and even threaten our survival.

In particular, Diàlexis has expressed its point of view about:

-the refinancing of EIT (European Institute for Technology);

-the creation of Gaia-X (the European Federated Cloud);

-the recommendations of the European Data Protection Board and the Commission Implementing Decisions (trying to comply with the Schrems II judgement of the EUCJ).

Technocratic messianism as the unmistakable implementation of the “antichristic” principle

PART 1: CONTRIBUTION TO THE GAIA-X SUMMIT

The Gaia-X summit was held virtually on 28-29 October, with the participation of the Ministers Altmaier, Le Maire and Pisano, of Commissioner Breton and of managers of different comnpanies, including Luigi Gubitosi of Telecom Italia, vice President of Confindustria responsible for digitalisation.

GAIA-X :A FIRST STEP TOWARDS EUROPE’s DIGITAL AND STRATEGIC AUTONOMY

Contribution, to the Gaia-X Summit,

by Associazione Culturale Diàlexis

Via B.Galliari 32

10125 Torino

e.mail info@alpinassrl.com

tel +393357761536

SUMMARY

The Gaia-X project arises after a lengthy process, which has revealed the weaknesses of the European system in its relationships with the large US platforms and US authorities as concerns access and utilization of data generated by Europeans.

This situation has caused, over the time, a series of problems to the EU, to member States, to European citizens and economy. It is clear today that the only way out is represented by data sovereignty as part of an all-encompassing digital and strategic autonomy. The Echelon, Prism and Schrems cases have shown that the complex legislation generated in Europe over the last two decades of the XXI Century is not sufficient for constraining the digital world within the borders set by digital ethics, national security, rule of law, citizen rights, national interest, privacy and general accepted tax principles.

In order to achieve the above goals, it is necessary that the European Union has, over platforms operating in Europe and data collected there, at least the same wide ranging control, that the US Administration has.For achieving that, the data of Europeans must be stored and processed in Europe by entities which are bound by European legislation and protected by European security laws.

This path will be lengthy and controversial, because Europe has arrived at this point too late, badly equipped from a cultural, technological, political, military, economic and social, point of view. However, without this effort, Europe will disappear from the number of developed countries.

The Institutions have chosen a low-profile approach, which, under several points of view, is too weak, first of all conceptually, since it has not taken note of the real earthquake occurred in the cultural, geopolitical, legal, social and economic paradigms of the XX Century, because of the “warp speed” by which the two digital superpowers are conducting their race.

This requires a long term effort by European intelligencija, politics,, enterprises, civil society, social organisations, for pushing forwards at all levels the battle for Europe’s digitisation and autonomy, to which Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, will be happy to contribute as a cultural organisation and as a publisher.

Since one of the most apparent weaknesses of the digital Europe is the absence of a solid digital industry to support EU policies, the Gaia-X initiative, which aims to create, by an alliance of available forces, the hard core of a truly European digital ecosystem, represents the most serious tentative to create a first European Digital Champion alongside the models of Arianespace, Tornado, Eurofighter, EADS and Galileo.

1.Europe’s difficulties in the Era of Intelligent Machines

For understanding the importance of Gaia-X, it is necessary, according to us,  to recall as briefly as possible the historical background of the  European quest for digital autonomy, which we trace back to the historical speech of President Macron at the Sorbonne.

The present paper’s starting point is the concrete dialectics between the advancement of the Society of Intelligent Machines and the plans of Europe as a geopolitical subject.

If the guiding phenomenon of XXI Century is ICT, this third decade is characterised by the crucial role of data.

The European Union, trying to update “classical” European ideals, purports to play a leading role (“Trendsetter of the Global Debate”) in a series of areas, and, in particular, the following:

-international democracy, whereby peoples should not be exploited, subjugated or discriminated because of their race, economic or military power, religion, size, ideology…;

-technological humanism, whereby our societies, whilst pursuing economic development, safeguard, and, if possible, enhance the traditional values of mankind;

-world federalism, whereby, in order to reconcile the peoples’ identities and diversities, the world should not be organized alongside a hierarchical relationship among peoples, but, on the contrary, it would strive to reach multifaceted and multicultural forms of governance.

The present state of the world does not correspond to these objectives, since, albeit decreasing, there is still the idea of a “World leadership” , which purports to influence and transform other countries in order to eliminate their diversity. This pretention impedes technological humanism to flourish, ICT  being “weaponized” and transformed into the main element of a Society of Mass Surveillance; the potentials of ICT are interpreted in such a way as to subject persons to the impersonal control of States, intelligence, corporations and, especially, algorithms. In this situation, a real world-federalism, as the one hinted by the EU discourse, cannot remain confined to a governance made of laws, of governments, of armies, of money, but shall become a governance of men over machines, alternative to world technocracy.

As a consequence, European Institutions have correctly singled out the control on data as one of their core  concerns as a principled supranational organisation. More recently, some national and EU leaders have focused still more this concept as “Europe’s digital and strategical autonomy”, and are striving to achieve the latter by promoting European Champions.

Unfortunately, Europe’s condition is the opposite of autonomy. It is still dependent on ineffective alien political myths, military and economic  subordination, political weakness, and, especially, lack of the most essential requisite of autonomy in the XXI century: a digital core, governing knowledge, debate, communication, defence, economy, money…

The major world powers, and, in first instance, China, have programmed in detail the growth of their digital structure, including 6G and quantic technologies, disaster management, national champions, worldwide market strategies and alliances…

The differences  among cultural and political systems has only a limited impact on this need for planning technological developments, because technology has a at least partially objective character, so that they, who are not mastering the most recent technologies,  cannot protect their values and interests, as it happened to the great empire of China at the time of the Opium Wars.

ICT is stretching its reach well beyond geopolitics, for reaching economy and society. The ability of each country to achieve its targets of social development and economic welfare is directly proportional to the amount of digital technology it is able to master.  We can say that ICT is a typical case of “dual use” technology, whereby defence industry is utilised as the main instrument for leveraging State intervention into a free-market economy for achieving a competitive advantage for the nation’s economy and society.

The fight for privacy is a prerequisite for European technology, defence and independence

2. From the US Postal Code to the Schrems cases

Like all dual use technologies, computers and the Internet were originally conceived as military in nature, and, with priority, intelligence projects. They have penetrated all branches of economic life, but always keeping their core defense character. Even the practical functioning of Internet was tested thanks to military funds among DARPA-friendly research centers. Its whole development was paid by the DoD, and the core of their functioning is still defense-related.

First of all, the Anti-missile Defense Systems are based on the capability, by Big Data, to forecast, detect, monitor, prevent and counterattack any offensive act of potential enemies If Mass Surveillance is so crucial, it is so primarily because of this tight connection with the needs of Unlimited Warfare. All patterns of present days’ civilization tend to be organized alongside these needs: each citizen is either a tool in the hands of the Apparatus, or an enemy and a target, as it clearly results reading the US Defense doctrine.

 Starting from the Macy conferences in the Forties, a utilization of ICT in dual, and, afterwards, civil fields, was already envisaged: mainframes, digital control engines, and machine tools, writing machines, computers, simulators.

Billions of dollars per year have been spent, by agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to develop, purchase, implement, and operate systems such as Carnivore,ECHELON, and Narus Insight to intercept and analyze the immense amount of data that traverses the Internet and telephone system every day. The Echelon and Prism cases have shown to all world as this surveillance works.

ECHELON, a surveillance program established in 1971 by the United States with the aid of four other signatory states to the UKUSA Security Agreement, also known as “the Five Eyes” has evolved beyond its military and diplomatic origins into “a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications” (mass surveillance and industrial espionage). Britain’s The Guardian newspaper summarized the capabilities of the ECHELON system as follows:”A global network of electronic spy stations that can eavesdrop on telephones, faxes and computers. It can even track bank accounts. This information is stored in Echelon computers, which can keep millions of records on individuals.”

In 2001,the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System,established by the European Parliament to investigate the surveillance network, recommended that citizens of member States routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy. In its report, the committee stated categorically that the Echelon network was being used to intercept not only military communications, but also private and business ones. James Bamford, in The Guardian in May 2001, warned that if Echelon were to continue unchecked, it could become a “cyber secret police, without courts, juries, or the right to a defence“.

The birth of the Internet allowed a much more widespread reach of Surveillance Society, leveraged by the commercial utilisation of data and data processing for manipulating consumers’ attitudes. Social networks became the channel whereby web multinationals collect data which they “resell” onto the most different ”markets”.

This has allowed the US platforms to create a brand-new area of business, collecting an enormous amount of money without paying taxes, which allows them to overcome any kind of competitors and to manipulate politics.

The effectiveness of NSA-led mass surveillance has overcome the one of the former STASI

3. After September 11

Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, a vast domestic intelligence apparatus has been built in the USA to collect information using NSA, FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. This intelligence apparatus collects, analyzes and stores information about millions of (if not all) American citizens, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking Program, the U.S. Postal Service photographs the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces in 2012. The FBI developed the computer programs Magic Lantern” and CIPAV, which they can remotely install on a computer system, in order to monitor a person’s computer activity. The NSA has been gathering information on financial records, Internet surfing habits, and monitoring e-mails. They have also performed extensive analysis of social networks such as Myspace.

The PRISM special source operation system legally immunized private companies that cooperate voluntarily with U.S. intelligence collection. According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 “specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant” when one of the parties is outside the U.S..Foreign subjects do not have any protection at all.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that all U.S. telecommunications and Internet service providers modify their networks to allow easy wiretapping of telephone, VoIP, and broadband Internet traffic. In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were providing the telephone call records of U.S. citizens to the National Security Agency (NSA), which is storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database.

Commercial mass surveillance often makes use of copyright laws and “user agreements” to obtain (typically uninformed) ‘consent’ to surveillance from consumers who use their software or other related materials. This allows gathering of information which would be technically illegal if performed by government agencies. This data is then often shared with government agencies – thereby – in practice – defeating the purpose of such privacy protections.

Many websites on the Internet are effectively feeding user information about sites visited by the users, and now also their social connections, to Google:” Google will also know more about the customer – because it benefits the customer to tell Google more about them. The more we know about the customer, the better the quality of searches, the better the quality of the apps”.

Facebook also keeps this information, as it has been ascertained in the ongoing procedures in front of national regulators, of the Court of Justice and of the Commission.

New features like geolocation give an even increased admission of monitoring capabilities to large service providers like Google, where they also are enable to track one’s physical movements while users are using mobile devices. With Google as the advertising provider, it would mean that every mobile operator using their location-based advertising service would be revealing the location of their mobile customers to Google.

The CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.

Early this years, Google has opened its cloud facilities in Salt Lake City, beside theThe Utah Data Center (UDC), also known as the Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative Data Center,[1]  a data storage facility for the United States Intelligence Community that is designed to store data estimated to be on the order of exabytes or larger.[2] Its purpose is to support the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), though its precise mission is classified.[3] The National Security Agency (NSA) leads operations at the facility as the executive agent for the Director of National Intelligence.

Schmidt and Cohen, two members of Google’s Board, had written in their book “The new digital age” that Google will substitute Lockhead in leading America to the conquest of the world. In fact, also thanks to their important coverages, the US platforms, which have a monopoly position everywhere, exept in China (and perhaps South Korea and Russia), have generated the most important economic sector of the world,n which conditions all other areas of business (finance, communications, culture, commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, services, healthcare and even politics ; see Taxleaks, Cambridge Analytica).

Thus, as many observers have noted, the Surveillance Capitalism (see Szuszanna Zubov) has reversed all classical notions of political economy (State, monopoly, antitrust, civil freedoms..). This implies that ICT should be dealt with by a specific legislation, what the EU is trying to do more than any other part of the world. Unfortunately, up to now, these efforts have been unsuccessful because the EU are trying to cope with the new phenomenon via “classical” concepts (business ethics, international vs. civil or common law, politics, markets, prices).

This intervention aims at showing the problems arising from old fashioned paradigms and suggesting ways out.

The US Cloud Act has awaken an unexpected reaction because it has hit lsarge European industrial groups

4. The battle around the US CLOUD Act

In considering the impact of the US CLOUD Act, by the  Initial legal assessment of the impact of the US CLOUD Act on the EU legal framework for the protection of personal data and the negotiations of an EU-US Agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence”, the European Data Protection Board stated that “By choosing to create a legal avenue under US law for US law enforcement authorities to require disclosure of personal data directly from service providers who fall under US jurisdiction, irrespective of where the data is stored, the US Congress enacts into US law a practice of US governmental entities likely to bypass the Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters treaty (MLAT)2 in force between the European Union and the United States of America.….. The US CLOUD Act therefore entails the possibility that such electronic communication or remote computer service providers are compelled to answer a request by US law enforcement authorities for the disclosure of personal data that are subject to the provisions of the GDPR. … The US CLOUD Act thus states an extraterritorial reach of powers under the US Stored Communication Act….”                         This aspect of the CLOUD Act is not compatible with international law.

Two conflicting legal logics face each other. From one side, we have the “traditional liberal-democratic” legal order, embodied in European Law, which predicates that any kind of interference in the private sphere is prohibited. In exceptional cases, as in the case of criminal procedure or of military intelligence, it must be carried out by the responsible authorities, with formal authorizations and documentation, and for a limited period and scope.

From the other side, we have the American system, as it evolved especially since September 11, that considers that an “unlimited warfare” is under way among, from one side, “Western Civilization”, and, from the other side, “The Rest”[1]; that the US are “the policeman of the world”, and that, therefore, they must use military instruments for preventing and  fighting “terrorists”, who may be even American citizens (like  the “Taliban Johnny”). Therefore, taking into account the fact that today’s warfare is mainly a digital warfare, US agencies have the right and the duty to interfere with whichever activity is carried out, by anybody, in the world, for detecting, preventing and striking whichever activity which could result dangerous for “Western Civilization”.

Moreover, there is a clear cut geopolitical conflict: the EU does not share all the aspects of US economic warfare, and wants to be free to go on dealing with China, Russia, Iran,…without being subject to retaliation from the US.

The idea that, via a formal bureaucracy of certifications, it would have been possible to skip this substantive contradiction is a childish trick, which the European Court of Justice has had the merit to disclose, but whichrisks to result winning after the  two Schrems Cases notwithstanding the recent rhetorics of European Digital and Strategic Autonomy.

Also the fruitless negotiations carried out between the EU and the US since many years have unveiled the European powerlessness:

a.The lack of European sovereign clouds (not belonging to US multinationals);

b.The non compliance, by French authorities, with the so called “French Blocking Statute”, banning the communication abroad of sensitive economic data;

c.Several EU member States never adopted the implementing provisions of Council Regulation  n. 2271/96 of 22 November 2996 protecting against the effectsv of extraterritorial  application of legislation of a third country.

d.The absence of criminal sanctions in European measures against the breach of confidential obligations;

e.The limitation of the strong penalties for breach of GDPR to the rights of private persons.

As Sir Martin Rees of Ludlow has written, this might be the last century of Mankind

5.Schrems I

Max Schrems had filed a first complaint against Facebook with the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) already in 2013(!) for having stored in his servers a huge amount of files concerning him. The DPC first rejected the complaint as “frivolous and vexatious”(!!). Mr Schrems appealed against the DPC and ultimately won: In that case, C-362/14 Schrems, the CJEU (“Court of Justice of the European Union”, the EU’s supreme court) confirmed his view and ruled that mass surveillance violates European fundamental rights, since it allows massive storage and transfer abroad of European’s data collected without their informed consent. The CJEU struck down the previous “Safe Harbor” system (worked out by Commission and Parliament) that facilitated EU-US data transfers. This system was urgently replaced by the Commission at the last minute with the “Privacy Shield” system in 2016. According to Maximilian Schrems: Privacy Shield is an updated version of the illegal ‘Safe Harbor’. Nothing in US surveillance law was changed or fixed.”

    After the first CJEU decision on “Safe Harbor”, Facebook claimed it would not use “Privacy Shield” but, on the contrary, the so-called “Standard Contractual Clauses” (SCCs).  SCCs are a contract between an EU company (here Facebook Ireland) and a non-EU company (here Facebook Inc, in California) in which the foreign company pledges to respect Europeans’ privacy. The law accepts that such contracts sufficiently protect European data when transferred abroad.

    Under the EU privacy laws (“GDPR”) and the SCCs, a “data export” to a third country is only legal if the exporting company (in this case Facebook Ireland Ltd) can ensure “adequate protection” in the US. In practice, this turned out to be impossible, because US surveillance laws (such as FISA 702 and EO 12.333) result in the US.

        Given the situation above and the ruling of the CJEU in the “Safe Harbor” case, Mr Schrems consequently requested the Irish DPC in 2015 to use Article 4 of the SCCs, which allows the DPC to order Facebook to “suspend” the data transfers in individual cases.  While the DPC now agreed with Mr Schrems that US surveillance laws violate EU law, they did not take direct action. Schrems: “We asked for a targeted solution, only for companies that fall under these surveillance laws. The DPC could have issued such a decision within a day.”

The traditional European Civil righta will remain on paper if they are not translated in michanised defence instruments of Europeans against all infringements

6.Schrems II

    The DPC, however, did not follow the request of Mr. Schrems, but instead filed a lawsuit against Facebook and Mr. Schrems before the Irish High Court, with the aim to refer the case back to the CJEU – this time on the validity of the SCCs-. The Irish High Court had complied with the DPC’s request and referred eleven questions to the CJEU, despite the resistance of Mr. Schrems and Facebook (who both opposed the reference for different reasons).  

    The Court of Justice ruled on July 16, 2020 (Schrems II Case), that the Standard Contractual Clauses and that the transfer of Europeans’ data towards the States, not guaranteeing an adequate protection, is forbidden. So, since almost all providers are US platforms, and the Cloud Act imposes to such platforms to make available the data wherever they are stored, inserting data into the Internet is tantamount as delivering them directly to the US intelligence community.

     In practice, this means that all transfers of data via internet providers are forbidden. Now, because European citizens and enterprises have been used since a long time to utilize the Internet, and the legal devices like Safe Harbour, Privacy Shield and Standard Contractual Clauses are not valid, most of the current internet transactions and operations are illegal

        According to Mr. Schrems: “In simple terms: EU law requires privacy, while US law requires mass surveillance. The question is, what happens when an EU company follows US rather than EU law?”as Schrems correctly pointed out, the principles of US legislation (mass surveillance os a necessary instrument for maintaining and enlarging the “hidden Empire”, and the opposite principle of the Eu (to forbid mass surveillance in defense of citizens’ rights), are at the opposite extremes.  And, being Europe in the worse negotiating condition, it can obtain an ,at least partial, victory, only via a very hard fight.

Competition now is on the worldwide market and among “Civilisational States”. Each one must have its “Continebntal Champions”

7.The role of European Champions.

Notwithstanding the fact that, as observed by Commissioner Vestager, the platforms have never made so much money at the expenses of Europeans as during the Covid infection, the official point of view reflected  in the most recent papers is still the one of neo-liberal rhetorics, which ignores self evident geopolitical facts, i.e. that ICT has deeply seated geopolitical roots, that have to be unraveled if you want a real digital autonomy. A concept which is implied already in the idea  of  Strategic Autonomy.

The same idea of European Champions is controversial, so that only a few examples exist as of now.  But what else, than American Champions, are Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Amazon? What, if not Chinese Champions, are Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei, ZTE? If we want that Europe may compete with USA and China, we must have our champions. They may be slightly different from the American and the Chinese, may be governed by different laws, but they must cover the same markets, obtaining some shares for themselves. It would be impossible that we leave ICT to USA and China and retain just manufacturing or culture, because, within a short period of time, also manufacturing and culture will become simply two branches of the digital business.

Since the digital world is an integrated ecosystem, it is impossible that European champions arise if not in tight connection with the birth of a European digital culture, of a European Army, of a European Military Academy, of a European technology agency, of European platforms, of a Digital Euro…, as clearly identified recently by Josep Borrell.

Therefore, each of the present European initiatives, such as Qwant, JEDI and , now, Gaia-x, must fit within a general plan. As stated by all the promoters, Gaia X has been conceived precisely in this perspective, but we cannot forget the need to complete the landscape of the European Digital Ecosystem, taking into account all the background referred to above.

In fact, Gaia-X will foster the storage in Europe, but will not prevent either the obligation of US companies to share their data with their authorities, nor the Europeans to go on utilizing Google, Facebook and Amazon, nor even European Institutions and Poste Italiane to outsource all of their ICT activities to Microsoft. For avoiding that, it would be necessary that at least new companies arise in Europe for social networks and for secure data transfer, and that they obtain a complete backing fron Euriopean authorities.

Moreover, the European Union must work out a new set of rules governing the different types of access inside European clouds in conformity with GDPR, European criminal and civil procedures, cybersecurity, State secrets, intelligence and counterintelligence, enshrine them into algorithm and guarantee a proper security protection around personnel, servers and workers. Finally, the Union must create a brand-new legislation devoted to the ICT industry, conceived as a public service of strategic interest, whose ownership, control, management and taxation, shall be very tightly controlled like other public services carried out in a shared way with particulars, in health care or in the postal service, in such a way that it shall no more be allowed to subtract, from Europe, via different leaks, human resources, capitals, know-how, data, revenues, jobs and/or taxable income.

This having been said, Gaia-X results to be one of the few European initiatives having a concrete basis and responding to a precise need

Therefore, we cannot but congratulate with the promoters of this initiative and wish to them that it can thrive and can be the starting point of a fledging European Digital Ecosystem, as the one outlined by our book “European Digital Agency”, which proposes a legal framework for fostering and governing such ecosystem.


DIALEXIS’ANSWERS TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING THE NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE STRATEGY

SECOND PART: ANNEX1 EDPRS AND MICROSOFT

Wojciech Wiewiórowski (EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR, EDPRS)

ANNEX 1

THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT WITH MICROSOFT

EDPRS’s “Strategy for EU institutions to comply with ‘Schrems II’ Ruling” tries to solve, directly, the problem set forth by the Microsoft Corp.’s licensing agreements with European Union authorities, which  gave the U.S. tech giant free rein to oversee data processing activities for more than 45,000 EU officials, and, indirectly, the question on how all Data Protection Authorities in Europe must cope with the legal gap created by the Dhrems II Judgement.

The EU’s in-house data protection regulator said in its findings of a probe that institutions’ lack of control “over which sub-processors Microsoft used and lack of meaningful audit rights also presented significant issues.”EU institutions should “carefully consider any purchases of Microsoft products and services or new uses of existing products and services until after they have analyzed and implemented the recommendations” of the European Data Protection Supervisor, the watchdog said.

The staff and agencies using the products “had insufficient clarity as to the nature, scope and purposes of the processing and the risks to data subjects to be able to meet their transparency obligations,” the EDPS, which acts independently of the EU bodies it oversees, said in the 29-page report on its findings.

The criticism over the use of Microsoft products is an unusual step for the body, which keeps a far lower profile than EU data privacy authorities who police the bloc’s tough rules at national level.

As a solution to the uncertainties arisen from the above report, and in effort of further clarification,the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued on 29 October a strategic document aiming to monitor compliance of European institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (EUIs) with the “Schrems II” Judgement in relation to transfers of personal data to third countries, and in particular, the United States. The goal is that ongoing and future international transfers are carried out in accordance with EU data protection law.

Wojciech Wiewiórowski, EDPS, said: “Transfers of personal data by EUIs to third countries should comply with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as applicable EU data protection legislation, specifically Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. To this end, the Strategy builds on the cooperation and accountability of controllers to assess whether the essentially equivalent standard of protection, based on the Court’s ruling, is guaranteed when transfers of personal data are made towards third countries. Furthermore, the EDPS will continue to closely cooperate with other Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) within the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) so that individuals’ personal data is consistently protected throughout the EU/EEA, when data transfers to third countries occur”. 

In this context, the EDPS has developed an action plan to streamline compliance and enforcement measures, distinguishing between short-term and medium-term compliance actions.  

As the strategy continues to be implemented, the EDPS strongly encourages EUIs to avoid transfers of personal data towards the United States for new processing operations or new contracts with service providers

Thierry Breton, Commissioner for the Internal Market

OUTCOME OF OWN-INITIATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO EU INSTITUTIONS’ USE OF MICROSOFT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, July 2nd, 2020

“..The EDPS made the following key findings in its investigation into the EU institutions’ use of Microsoft products and services.

First, the licensing agreement between Microsoft and the EU institutions allowed Microsoft to define and change the parameters of its processing activities carried out on behalf of EU institutions and contractual data protection obligations. The discretion that Microsoft had, amounted to a broad right for Microsoft to act as a controller. Given the EU institutions’ role as public service institutions, the EDPS did not consider this appropriate. The EDPS recommended to EU institutions that they act to retain controllership.

Second, EU institutions needed to put in place a comprehensive and compliant controller-processor agreement and documented instructions of the EU institutions to the processors. Their lack of control over which sub-processors Microsoft used and lack of meaningful audit rights also presented significant issues. The EDPS made recommendations on how to improve the controller-processor agreement and put robust audit checks in place.

Third, EU institutions faced a number of linked issues concerning data location, international transfers and the risk of unlawful disclosure of data. They were unable to control the location of a large portion of the data processed by Microsoft. Nor did they properly control what was transferred out of the EU/EEA and how. There was also a lack of proper safeguards to protect data that left the EU/EEA. EU institutions also had few guarantees at their disposal to defend their privileges and immunities and ensure that Microsoft would only disclose personal data insofar as permitted by EU law. The EDPS made recommendations to assist EU institutions in addressing these issues.

Fourth, the EDPS considered the technical measures that the Commission had put in place to stem the flow of personal data generated by Microsoft products and services and sent to Microsoft. The EDPS recommended that all EU institutions perform tests using a revised and comprehensive approach, share among them the knowledge and technical solutions they developed to prevent unauthorised data flows to Microsoft and inform each other of any data protection issues they identify with the products or services.

Fifth, the EU institutions had insufficient clarity as to the nature, scope and purposes of the processing and the risks to data subjects to be able to meet their transparency obligations towards data subjects. The EDPS recommended that EU institutions seek the clarity and assurances allowing them to keep data subjects properly informed…”

LETTERA APERTA A MARIO CALDERINI

L’istituto italiano per l’intelligenza artificiale deve divenire europeo

SULL’ISTITUTO ITALIANO INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE

Professor Calderini,

Mi permetta di congratularmi per il fatto che finalmente qualcuno con un diritto di tribuna sulla grande stampa abbia finalmente avuto il coraggio di dire ciò che Lei ha detto nella sua intervista a La Repubblica sull’ Istituto Italiano per l’ Intelligenza Artificiale, che è totalmente in linea con quanto noi andiamo scrivendo da anni, e, con particolare insistenza negli ultimi mesi, nei nostri libri (All.1 e 2) e blog (All. 3 e 4; http://www.alpinasrl.com), e nella corrispondenza con i vertici dell’Unione Europea, del Governo , degli Enti Locali e della società civile .

Concordo innanzitutto con Lei sul fatto che un richiamo generico alla “Ricerca e Sviluppo” non costituisce una risposta adeguata alla decadenza economica, culturale e sociale dei nostri territori. L’unica differenza è che, a mio avviso, quest’equivoco esiste non soltanto a Torino, ma in tutta Italia e  nell’ Unione Europea.

Condivido, poi, il principio di base: “gli investimenti in ricerca e innovazione creano sviluppo, a certe condizioni”. Queste condizioni sono, a mio avviso:

-che si sappia quale sviluppo si vuole promuovere;

-che si ricerchino quelle conoscenze e risultati che servono per promuovere lo sviluppo di cui sopra;

-che le risorse scarse disponibli vengano razionalizzate e controllate;

-che esistano nel territorio soggetti atti a trasformare i risultati delle ricerche in concreti strumenti di “leverage”economico, di reddito e di benessere;

-che i risultati della ricerca siano gestiti in modo economico e legale, impedendone un abuso da parte dei concorrenti;

-che il regime di proprietà, di controllo e di distribuzione dei profitti sia coerente con il modello socio-politico perseguito.

Purtroppo, non solo a Torino, ma ovunque in Europa, queste condizioni mancano, sì che gl’investimenti in ricerca e sviluppo sono stati fino ad ora un semplice  spreco, come molti manager hanno addirittura teorizzato, spacciando per ricerca e sviluppo cose che con questa non c’entrano nulla, come per esempio la creazione di lucrative sinecure, oppure attività di disegnazione o ingegnerizzazione poi rivendute, in varie forme ,dirette o indirette, per fare cassa o acquisirsi meriti, ai concorrenti esteri. Nella mia lunga attività passata come manager torinese ed europeo, sono venuto in contatto in molti casi con quest’atteggiamento aberrante, a cui però, applicando rigorosamente le regole, ho dimostrato che  si può ovviare.

Per ora i fini della transizione digitale coincidono con la Singualarity di Ray Kurzweil

1.L’ignoranza circa i fini

Con la Sua intervista, Lei ha posto poi, giustamente, la questione d’individuare una strategia adeguata per fare, degl’investimenti in R&D, e, in particolare, dell’ Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale, uno strumento per ottenere ricadute economiche sul territorio del Piemonte, e, in tal modo, per arrestare l’ormai pluridecennale decadenza.

Nell’ Italia del Dopoguerra, vi erano imprenditori (non molti, per la verità), come Olivetti e Mattei, che perseguivano obiettivi chiari, onesti e in linea con i tempi: uno sviluppo industriale armonioso in un contesto sociale e di sovranità nazione ed europea. Nello stesso tempo, il Governo aveva tentato, con il Piano Economico Nazionale, di imprimere una direzione unitaria ai nuovi investimenti, che allora si sarebbero dovuti concentrare sul Mezzogiorno, Sappiamo che fine hanno fatto Olivetti, Mattei e il Piano

Oggi, non basterebbero neppure più i programmi di Olivetti, Mattei e Saraceno, che, come Lei ha detto alla Repubblica, sembrerebbero comunque  più adatti agli Anni Ottanta che alle sfide del presente.

Oggi, infatti, l’economia mondiale è diretta dall’ informatica, come hanno rivendicato orgogliosamente Schmidt e Cohen nel loro “The New Digital Age”. Echelon. Prism e le intelligence dell’ Est permettono ai Big Data dell’ Intelligence Community di conoscere e orientare tutti i trend culturali, militari, politici, economici, tecnologici e sociali del mondo; i GAFAM e i BATX dirottano tutta la parte del PIL mondiale eccedente la mera manutenzione del capitale investito verso i paradisi fiscali, everso  una crescita interna dei GAFAM esponenziale che blocca l’ accesso a qualsiasi “new entrant”; prendono in appalto servizi pubblici essenziali come la difesa e la sanità; controllano Stati, organizzazioni internazionali e socoetà. Come hanno rilevato preoccupati la Commissaria Vestager e il Commissario Gentiloni, il controllo dei GAFAM sull’economia si è ancora rafforzato grazie al Covid e alle conseguenti crisi del lavoro in presenza, della ristorazione e della distribuzione tradizionale. Non è un caso che gli unici ad assumere, anche nella nostra Regione, siano oggi Apple, Google ed Amazon, ovviamente in ruoli ancillari delle loro strutture.

Il nostro lòibro “Torino, Capitale Europea dela Cultura”

2.Fare luce sul futuro

Chi non dispone di un proprio ecosistema  digitale autonomo non controlla la sua stessa economia.

Oggi, l’attività economica prioritaria in Europa, perché preliminare, è lo studio dei fini dell’economia. Delle imprese tradizionali  comedi quelle informatiche, ma anche e soprattutto delle imprese in generale. Cosa devono produrre: prodotti fisici, lavoro,  élites, cash, libertà, cultura? Oggi. un Paese altamente sviluppato produce innanzitutto servizi digitali (bitcoin, servizi sul web, cybrintelligence, cyberfinanza, cyberdifesa, bioingegneria), e teoricamente, potrebbe delocalizzare tutto il resto, come tentano di  fare soprattutto il Giappone, la Corea del Sud e Israele. Certo, per motivi di sicurezza o sociali, si potrebbe puntare a mantenere sul territorio una qualche produzione fisica (come vuol fare Trump), ma solo come fatto residuale. Certo, a questo ruolo di Paese altamente sviluppato, puntano in molti, sì che la concorrenza è feroce.

Inoltre, una città come Torino è evidentemente inserita in un “Sistema Europa” e in un “Sistema Italia”. Sembrerebbe illogico che Torino possedesse un ecosistema digitale che, né l’Italia, né l’Europa, posseggono. E, in effetti, sarebbe molto difficile che una qualsiasi città d’Europa pretendesse un monopolio sul digitale europeo, anche se vi sono casi di località che si avvicinano a quest’obiettivo nei rispettivi sistemi-paesi, come la Silicon Valley, Hangzhou, il Delta del Fiume delle Perle e Skolkovo.

Occorre tuttavia osservare che, come ampiamente illustrato nel libro ”European Digital Agency” (di cui Le trasmetto una versione digitale provvisoria), un tema centrale e complesso è costituito dalla strategia di avvicinamento al tanto decantato, ma ad oggi inesistente, Sistema Digitale Sovrano Europeo, di cui hanno parlato Macron e Breton. Infatti, occorre prima passare attraverso vari fasi, di ricerca, di dibattito, di lotta politica, di riforma istituzionale, di pianificazione indicativa e operativa. Queste fasi sono, anche se disordinatamente e inefficientemente, in corso. Cito come esempi:

.l’indagine Echelon;

-l’approvazione del GDPR;

-il caso  Snowden,

-Horizon 2020;

-gli IPCEI;

-Quero, Qwant, JEDI e Gaia-X;

-il Pacchetto digitale del 20 febbraio 2020 dell’Unione Europea;

-il Rome Call for AI Ethics del Vatcano ;

-le sentenze Apple e Schrems, I e II.

Julian Nida-Ruemelin, autore di “Umanesimo Digitale”

3.Una leadership italiana ed europea

Chi saprà navigare attraverso questa complessa materia acquisirà una qualche leadership (all’ inizio anche solo intellettuale) (come quelle che furono dei leaders del Risorgimento, dei fondatori delle grandi imprese piemontesi, di intellettuali legati a Torino, come Nietzsche, Gramsci, Galimberti e Olivetti, che hanno contribuito potentemente a definire i contorni di questa società  della tecnica dispiegata in cui stiamo vivendo ; cfr. libri “Torino Capitale Europea della Cultura” e “Intorno alle Alpi Occidentali”).

Torino dovrebbe aspirare proprio a questo ruolo, attraverso un’attività di studio e operativa che le permetta di creare un’élite di esperti non solo di AI, ma di Digital Economy in generale, capace di:

-sviluppare la nuova cultura umanistico-digitale;

-inserire questi temi nella dialettica politica italiana ed europea, e, in primo luogo, nella prevista Conferenza sul Futuro dell’ Europa;

-gettare le basi dei primi strumenti operativi per l’Ecosistema digitale sovrano dell’Europa, come l’ Accademia Digitale  Europea, l’Accademia Militare Europea, una Piattaforma Europea di e.Commerce;

-attirare a Torino coloro (intellettuali, finanzieri, politici, imprenditori, tecnici) che intendano partecipare al progetto.

Cantieri d’ Europa, il forum per discutere sul nostro futuro

4.Le iniziative di Diàlexis

Per svolgere il compito di cui al punto 3, stiamo sviluppando le seguenti iniziative:

-predisponiamo, con una serie d’intellettuali europei, un nuovo volume, dedicato all’Umanesimo digitale Europeo, di cui ha scritto Julian Nida Ruemelin;

-discutiamo, nell’ ambito dei “Cantieri Virtuali d’ Europa 2020”, queste tematiche (cfr All5).

Saremmo onorati se volesse partecipare alle nostre iniziative. A questo scopo, sarei lieto d’incontrarLa, per approfondire questa complessa materia.

La presente lettera aperta viene pubblicata sui blog “Da Qin” e “Technologies for Europe” nel sito http://Alpinasrl.com.

RingraziandoLa anticipatamente per l’attenzione,

Cordiali saluti,

Riccardo Lala

L’ISTITUTO ITALIANO DELL’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE A TORINO: INSERIRE I CONTENUTI

Il Presidente Draghi ha invitato ad utilizzare utilmente i fondi europei

All’inizio di Agosto, al momento della candidatura di Torino a sede dell’Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale, avevamo scritto alle Autorità cittadine:

“In vista dell’attesa  Conferenza sul Futuro d’Europa, Diàlexis ha predisposto fin d’ora, come allegato al libro “European Technology Agency”, 5 proposte relative all’implementazione in senso ICT di 5 delle priorità della Commissione, da presentare nell’ambito del Movimento Europeo. Fra queste, rientrano anche un’ Agenzia Tecnologica Europea, un’Accademia Digitale Europea, un’Accademia Strategica Europea e un  Distretto Digitale Italiano (All.5).Il tutto è già stato anticipato ai vertici di tutte le Istituzioni.

Con una proposta diffusa fra i soggetti coinvolti, e, in primo luogo, la Presidenza del Consiglio, abbiamo caldeggiato l’inserimento delle due Accademie fra i progetti italiani per il Recovery Fund e/o il Quadro Pluriennale 2021-2027, nell’ambito di un proposto Distretto Digitale Italiano. In particolare, stiamo sviluppando il progetto editoriale di un libro dedicato alla piattaforma europea, da collocarsi se possibile in Italia. Stiamo  anche per finalizzare un’opera collettiva dedicata all’Umanesimo Digitale.

I nostri progetti presentano un notevole grado di sinergia con il progetto d’ Istituto Italiano per l’ Intelligenza Digitale (raccomandazione n. 38), in particolare per ciò che concerne l’aspetto culturale dell’ intera operazione (Raccomandazione n. 3). E’ infatti nostra convinzione che il punto di partenza per una rinascita tecnologica, e, quindi, economica, dell’ Italia e dell’Europa, sia costituita da una generalizzata riqualificazione culturale (‘Up-skilling’, cfr. Raccomandazione n.16) delle nostre società, non solo dal punto della formazione professionale e della ricerca tecnologica, bensì anche da quello della riflessione culturale e della riorganizzazione della società, che ci faccia passare dall’attuale ruolo di ‘followers’ di USA e Cina, a quello di ‘trendsetters’, come auspicato dalla Commissione.

Le recentissime sentenze della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee (di cui mi onoro di essere stato funzionario) nei casi C-311/18 (Schrems II) e T-778/16, e T-892/16, (Apple), dimostrano lo scollamento fra  quest’ambizione dell’ Europa di proporsi quale ‘trendsetter del dibattito globale’ e una realtà fattuale in cui le multinazionali tecnologiche possono violare impunemente tutti i sacrosanti principi ‘etici’ invocati dal diritto europeo e contenuti nell’ Appello di Roma per un’Intelligenza Artificiale Etica. Per evitare questo scollamento, occorre lavorare senza esitazioni a tutti i livelli (filosofico, politico, pedagogico, scientifico, politico, tecnologico, economico, industriale, sociale) per fare veramente dell’Europa, come promesso da tempo, ma mai realizzato, l’area tecnologicamente più avanzata, e il baluardo dei diritti digitali dei cittadini.

In questo contesto, il tema dell’ Intelligenza Artificiale,  oggetto del progetto in discussione, occupa senz’altro un ruolo centrale. Tuttavia, ogni azione in questo campo ha senso solo se collocata in un contesto internazionale (un Trattato Internazionale), una strategia europea (l’Agenzia Europea), una filosofia della scienza (Umanesimo Digitale), un sistema economico efficiente ed equo, tutte cose che oggi non si verificano, con le conseguenze che tutti vediamo, come autorevolmente certificato dalla Corte.”

Anche il Presidente Bonomi teme interventi a pioggia

a.La decisione del Governo

Ora, il Governo ha deciso. Torino sarà la sede dell’Istituto italiano per l’Intelligenza artificiale (I3A)  che si caratterizzerà per essere  un vero network e potrà contare  su un organico di un migliaio di persone e su un budget annuale di circa 80 milioni di euro. 

Un ruolo in questa partita l’ha giocato l’Arcidiocesi di Torino e in particolare don Luca Peyron che insegna teologia della trasformazione digitale a Milano e Torino e si occupa di “spiritualità” delle tecnologie, oltre a essere direttore della Pastorale universitaria.

Ha commentato Don Luca:“La grazia è fatta: Torino è capitale Italiana per l’Intelligenza Artificiale. Un sogno, è diventata una profezia.
Ora è una promessa: una promessa al Governo che ha creduto in questo territorio, una promessa a noi stessi di essere all’altezza della nostra storia, una promessa all’Italia di essere traino per tutto il Paese e per l’Europa.

Siamo arrivati in meno di due mesi ad un risultato straordinario grazie ad un processo capace di includere, di ascoltare, di capire, di scommettere, di assumersi responsabilità.

La Vergine Maria ci doni l’umiltà necessaria per continuare a lavorare per il bene comune e mantenere queste promesse per le donne e gli uomini di oggi e di domani.

Ecco la Chiesa di Francesco, sta in mezzo alla gente, per il bene di tutti, generando processi…

Chi è rimasto alla finestra scenda in cortile a giocare con noi!”

A sua volta, la sindaca Chiara Appendino ha scritto su Facebook

“C’è lavoro. Tanto lavoro…Obiettivo dell’Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (I3A) – uno dei tasselli principali della strategia definita dal Ministero per lo sviluppo economico (MISE) in ambito AI – è quello di creare una struttura di ricerca e trasferimento tecnologico capace di attrarre talenti dal “mercato” internazionale e, contemporaneamente, diventare un punto di riferimento per lo sviluppo dell’AI in Italia, in connessione con i principali trend tecnologici (tra cui 5G, Industria 4.0, Cybersecurity).
I settori principalmente coinvolti saranno quelli della manifattura e robotica, IoT, sanità, mobilità, agrifoood ed energia, Pubblica amministrazione, cultura e digital humanities, aerospazio”

Don Luca Peyron, l’ideatore dell’ Istituto

b.Il nostro punto di vista

Avevamo comunicato alle Autorità il nostro, più articolato, punto di vista, e soprattutto, il timore che il nuovo Istituto si riveli essere l’ennesimo Ente inutile, attraverso un documento che rendiamo ora pubblico:

“PROGETTO: L’ITALIA QUALE AVANGUARDIA DIGITALE EUROPEA

In relazione, da un lato, all’entità e la destinazione dei fondi europei l’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis sta pubblicando due libri, ‘European Technology Agency’ e ‘European Digital Humanism’, e si è attivata da tempo con le Istituzioni Europee, il Governo, la Regione e la Confindustria, per sollecitare un più serio impegno nel campo della digitalizzazione, come unica via di uscita dalla spirale di decadenza che ha investito l’Europa, ma ancor più l’Italia.

1.Arretratezza europea

Il problema numero uno dell’Europa è costituito dal fatto ch’essa, non avendo sostenuto i primi esperimenti delle sue imprese (Olivetti) e dei suoi Stati (Minitel) in questo campo, è rimasta oramai indietro di parecchi decenni rispetto ad America e Cina, e, in alcuni campi, anche a Russia, Giappone, India, Corea del Sud e Israele. Oggi, essa vorrebbe recuperare, ma si trova ostacolata in mille modi, fra l’altro dalla sua filosofia liberistica, dalla pluralità e litigiosità degli Stati membri, dalla mancanza di un esercito europeo e dalla scarsezza  di gruppi finanziari e industriali pan-europei.

Quest’arretratezza è stata sottolineata negli ultimi anni dai casi Prism e Huawei e dalle due sentenze della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee Schrems II e Commissione contro Apple, che hanno smentito la presunta coerenza con il diritto europeo di due delle posizioni tenute negli ultimi anni dalla Commissione: il tentativo di eliminare i privilegi fiscali delle multinazionali del web facendo leva sul divieto degli aiuti di Stato e quello di permettere, nonostante la legislazione sulla privacy,  l’immagazzinamento dei dati degli Europei in America attraverso stratagemmi giuridici come il Privacy Shield e le Standard Contractual Clauses.

A nostro avviso, queste arretratezze economiche, tecnologiche e militari sono innanzitutto il risultato di un’arretratezza culturale. Lo sviluppo fenomenale del web in America è avvenuto dopo le ‘Conferenze Macy sulla cibernetica’ subito dopo la IIa Guerra Mondiale, le opere di Asimov e lo sviluppo dell’ ‘Ideologia Californiana’. Nello stesso modo, l’informatica cinese è in gran parte opera di ex ufficiali dell’Esercito Popolare di Liberazione che avevano sviluppato le loro competenze a fini militari, come pure quelle israeliana e indiana.

Le Istituzioni hanno lanciato la parola d’ordine della ‘Sovranità digitale europea’, che, se presa sul serio, presupporrebbe che Stati e imprese si facessero parti zelanti per acquisire risorse (a valere innanzitutto sui fondi europei), per realizzare iniziative imprenditoriali  competitive con quelle dei GAFAM e dei BAATX. Il Presidente Macron e il Senato francese (Rapporto Longuet) avevano  sostenuto che la competenza per realizzare questi nuovi ‘Campioni Europei’ avrebbe dovuto essere comunitaria….. Purtroppo, l’ex commissario Moedas aveva  risposto che la Commissione non intendeva promuovere quelle attività, ma che, se la Francia e la Germania volevano, erano libere di farlo, e la presente Commissione non ha detto nulla di diverso. Ora, Francia e Germania si stanno sforzando di coprire, in ossequio a quell’ impostazione, con iniziative come Qwant, JEDI e Gaia-X, l’insieme di queste attività, con la speranza di farle diventare dei veri ‘campioni europei’, ma si tratta ancora d’iniziative modeste e parziali, senz’ alcuna ricaduta durevole, e senza una partecipazione italiana.

Di fronte a questa situazione, osservo che, già anche soltanto a tavolino, vi sono sufficienti spazi liberi da colmare, non ancora coperti, neppure parzialmente,  dalle iniziative franco-tedesche. In particolare, l’Italia potrebbe candidarsi per tre iniziative già auspicate dalle Istituzioni, e mai portate a termine: l’accademia digitale; l’accademia strategica; la piattaforma di e-commerce e/o di  web marketing. In ogni caso, visto l’attuale imponente dirottamento di profitti e d’imponibile fuori dell’Europa grazie al gioco congiunto dei GAFA e dei paradisi fiscali, si tratterebbe di una provvidenziale forma di ‘import substitution’, seppure  sui generis.

L’iniziativa potrebbe risultare  sinergica ad altre, altrettanto necessarie e urgenti, nel campo dell’ acquisizione di competenze e dell’ ‘upskilling’ dell’ intera società italiana, rilanciando la tradizione di Adriano Olivetti.

2.La svolta del 21 luglio 2020

Liberismo, politica della lesina, vincoli comunitari, hanno costituito fino ad oggi in Europa degli ottimi pretesti per non fare nulla d’impegnativo, in particolare nel settore digitale.

La  vicenda del Coronavirus e degli Eurobond, oltre che le sentenze della Corte di Giustizia nelle cause  ha segnato  tuttavia una svolta. Oggi è una ‘communis opinio’ bipartisan che:

-l’economia europea è ormai giunta al suo punto più basso;

-le politiche di austerità seguite fino ad ora non sono state soddisfacenti;

-occorre fare investimenti produttivi, capaci di generare profitti, redditi, posti di lavoro sempre più qualificati e di sconfiggere la concorrenza internazionale;

– la parola d’ordine è ‘spendere al meglio i fondi europei’.

Il progetto che proponiamo  è quello di fare  dell’ Italia un centro qualificato di sviluppo della cultura digitale europea, con un programma a medio termine (pari alla legislatura 2021-2027 e al coevo Quadro pluriennale dell’ Unione), partendo dalle fasi più urgenti e più semplici (2021-2023), per poi passare a una trasformazione complessiva della nostra società, basata sempre sul ‘reskilling’ digitale.

La distinzione fra fase di recupero dalla pandemia e fase di rilancio dell’economia qui non si può mantenere al 100%, in quanto vi è tutta una fase d’interiorizzazione delle competenze, che non presenta costi rilevanti, ma dev’essere superata subito.

(a)L’accademia digitale.

Come detto in molte sedi, il principio di base che governerà le politiche economiche in Europa nei prossimi anni sarà quello di spendere bene i fondi europei.  Cosa che non è affatto garantita, a causa delle molteplici contraddizioni delle nostre società, a cominciare dalla stessa costruzione europea.

L’economia, e, ancor di più, la geopolitica, si giocano oggi in gran parte sulla capacità di usare il digitale come strumento competitivo sui mercati mondiali: Google contro Baidu; Amazon contro Alibaba; Silicon Valley contro Shenzhen.

Orbene, la Commissione Europea sostiene che, grazie al GDPR, l’Unione Europea avrebbe creato un sistema digitale identitario europeo, che  dovrebbe costituire un modello per tutto il mondo. In realtà, come hanno messo in evidenza due recentissime sentenze della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee (quella contro Apple e quella contro Facebook), l’enorme apparato burocratico posto in essere da una ventina di anni dall’ Unione Europea è un semplice castello di carte, che non serve a nulla salvo che a penalizzare le imprese europee rispetto alle loro concorrenti extraeuropee. Infatti, mentre noi in Europa siamo obbligati a circondare ogni trasmissione di dati sul web da una pletora di adempimenti burocratici che non sono richiesti ai nostri concorrenti (e che in realtà  non costituiscono alcuna protezione effettiva per i cittadini), poi l’insieme di questi dati viene trasmesso in tempo reale alle multinazionali , le quali sono tenute per la legge americana a metterli a disposizione senza indugio alle 16 agenzie d’intelligence. Che, in tal modo, hanno schedato tutti gli abitanti e le imprese europei, traendone enormi vantaggi tecnologici, politici e commerciali, oltre che militari, che rafforzano la nostra dipendenza. La Commissione si trova ora dinanzi all’ immane problema  d’immaginare una formula giuridica (diversa da quelle già bocciate dalla Corte di Giustizia) per  far rispettare il GDPR agli Americani e per tassare i profitti realizzati in Europa dai GAFAM….

La prova più schiacciante di quest’affermazione è costituita dal fatto che gli stessi documenti dell’ Unione che propugnano queste iniziative sono cosparsi di sconsolanti constatazioni circa la decadenza inarrestabile dell’ Europa (basti pensare alla strategia industriale del 2017 e allo studio del 2020 dell’ EPRS sulla sovranità digitale).

Di fronte a questa situazione, facciamo due osservazioni:

-già anche soltanto a tavolino, vi sono sufficienti spazi liberi da colmare, non coperti dalle iniziative franco-tedesche;

-uno dei principali motivi dei fallimenti franco-tedeschi è ch’ essi mancano di spessore teorico, in quanto, l’assenza settantennale dell’Europa dalle grandi tecnologie e la dipendenza tecnologica europea verso i GAFAM hanno annientato il ceto degli imprenditori digitali, e soprattutto l’ambiente dei pensatori originali e indipendenti.

Per questo motivo, l’Italia potrebbe candidarsi per tre iniziative già auspicate dalle Istituzioni, e mai portate in porto:

-l’accademia digitale;

-l’accademia strategica;

-la piattaforma di e-commerce e web marketing.

L’accademia digitale costituisce una premessa logica per le altre iniziative, perché dovrebbe permettere di riunire intorno a un progetto comune tutte le competenze, culturali e scientifiche, geopolitiche e sociologiche, economiche e tecnologiche, imprenditoriali e professionali, necessarie per la creazione di un ecosistema digitale europeo, ovviando così alla carenza di spessore culturale delle iniziative precedenti. Il meccanismo per la creazione dell’accademia dovrebbe essere quello usato a suo tempo da La Pira per la creazione dell’Istituto Universitario Europeo di Firenze e da Sariusz-Wolski per la creazione della sede di Natolin del Collegio d’Europa: le autorità locali sponsorizzano l’iniziativa, canalizzando fondi locali, nazionali ed europei.

Sono in corso discussioni per il distaccamento di corsi d’informatica del Politecnico di Torino presso l’ ICO VALLEY di Ivrea. La nostra proposta mirerebbe a fare di quest’iniziativa qualcosa di più ambizioso, mirante a conseguire due obiettivi:

-da un lato, allargare quella che già esercita il Politecnico, come strumento di cultura e di arricchimento del territorio con le vere e proprie attività accademiche e il loro indotto;

-dall’ altro, costituire una base concettuale su cui investitori, Istituzioni, Imprese, possano costruire iniziative più avanzate ed ambiziose, accedendo anche ai relativi fondi europei.

Soprattutto, i corsi e le attività di ricerca non dovrebbero indirizzarsi a una platea locale, bensì coinvolgere, come l’ IUE e il Collegio d’ Europa, tutti gli Europei.

(b)L’Accademia Strategica Europea

Anche dell’Accademia Strategica Europea si era parlato in varie occasioni , ma poi non se ne era fatto nulla, in assenza di una Politica Estera e di Difesa dell’ Europa. A questo punto, sarebbe probabilmente utile provare a invertire il processo logico, creando prima le competenze, per poi supportare il cammino ideativo della Politica Estera e di Difesa Comune. Infatti, come ha rilevato il Presidente Macron, esiste un gap concettuale, nel mondo politico europeo, circa le esigenze della politica di difesa, anche questa, delegata sostanzialmente agli USA, e perdendo, così, le competenze nel campo dell’analisi geopolitica, delle nuove tecnologie, dalla programmazione strategica, del rapporto civile-militare.

Occorrerebbe porre una molto maggiore attenzione alle culture di tutte le grandi aree del mondo, in cui rientrano scacchieri fondamentali come i Mari della Cina e il Medio Oriente, all’impatto di nuovi fattori come la militarizzazione dello spazio, i satelliti quantici e i missili ipersonici, i Big Data, la Cyberguerra, la concorrenza fra le grandi potenze per le tecnologie…

Un armamentario così complesso e sofisticato avrebbe senso solo per una platea più vasta del solo Esercito Italiano.

Anche qui varrebbero le stesse considerazioni fatte per l’Accademia Digitale Europea, con la quale vi sono molte sinergie. Altre sinergie, se non di più, vi sono con la Scuola di Applicazione, che potrebbe essere l’alveo entro cui collocare la nuova Accademia.

(c)Piattaforma europea di e.commerce e web marketing

Sempre in simbiosi con i due progetti di cui sopra, si potrebbe riprendere , come proposto dalla Vice-Presidente di Confindustria Beltrame, la creazione di una piattaforma dedicata all’e.commerce e al web marketing. La proposta nasce dalla constatazione dell’incongruenza, per un Paese esportatore come l’ Italia, di non disporre di una propria piattaforma web dedicata, specie in un momento, come quello presente, in cui, a causa della pandemia, il traffico dell’ e-commerce e del web marketing è aumentato a dismisura.

A parte il sospetto, che sempre c’è in questi casi, che questa carenza dai orchestrata dai concorrenti, vi è certo il problema che una piattaforma troppo specializzata è comunque debole, sicché, per poter disporre di un’utenza abbastanza vasta, occorre allargare l’operatività della piattaforma a materie confinanti. Per esempio, il marketing di tutti i prodotti europei, il marketing turistico e delle industrie culturali, la promozione del territorio, delle sue eccellenze e della sua cultura.

La piattaforma potrebbe crescere a latere dell’accademia del digitale, e costituire anche un ambito di sperimentazione per la stessa.

3. Le ricadute sul territorio

Secondo una leggenda metropolitana, l’industria digitale non creerebbe sufficiente occupazione, e, anzi, avrebbe effetti negativi sull’ ambiente sociale circostante. Sta succedendo in America nella West Coast, dove i pochi privilegiati venuti per lavorare nella Silicon Valley hanno reso la vita difficile agli abitanti originari, soprattutto a causa dell’aumento del costo della vita. Questo accade però se l’introduzione  dell’ industria digitale avviene senza un piano preordinato, e, soprattutto, se non si guarda all’ aspetto geopolitico.

Intanto, le grandi piattaforme americane e cinesi hanno da 30.000 a 100.000 dipendenti, che è già una bella cifra, a cui va aggiunto l’indotto, diretto e indiretto. Infatti, intorno a queste attività è destinato a svilupparsi tutto un mondo di piattaforme e servizi “satelliti”, e comunque il personale di questo tipo di aziende dispone di una capacità di spesa notevole, che non può non influenzare l’economia locale.

Ma, ciò che più conta, la nascita di vere e proprie grandi imprese digitali non avviene mai nel vuoto. Anzi, deve avvenire all’ interno di un intero processo di “upskilling”, nel corso del quale tutta la società viene accompagnata verso nuovi tipi, digitalizzati, di attività. Si incomincia con la cosiddetta “Industria 4.0”, nell’ambito della quale si dovrebbe realizzare una generalizzata trasformazione dei lavoratori in operatori digitali. Ma si dovrebbe continuare con trasformazioni capillari anche di attività tradizionalmente labour intensive o intellettuali.

Ma, soprattutto, l’introduzione di attività digitali avanzate va visto, nel nostro caso, come una forma di “import substitution”. Infatti, nella nostra situazione attuale non è che introdurremmo la digitalizzazione là dove essa non c’era. Al contrario, noi creeremmo imprese torinesi o italiane per svolgere un’attività che attualmente viene svolta da Amazon, E.bay o Alibaba, e i cui profitti non si riescono a tassare per la nota vicenda della web tax. Perciò. L’effetto positivo sarebbe costituito innanzitutto dal mancato trasferimento di utili e d’imponibile.

In ogni caso, il piano di finanziamenti appena approvato, dovrebbe servire proprio per finanziare nuove attività che permettano di rilanciare l’economia dei territori, non solamente recuperando il terreno perso per effetto della pandemia, bensì anche creando nuove opportunità di utili e di reddito. L’Italia  è chiamata  a  fare proposte e a richiedere fondi. Soprattutto in un contesto, come quello presente, in cui l’oculata utilizzazione farà oggetto di un controllo da parte dell’ Europa.Orbene, quale utilizzo più appropriato che non realizzare obiettivi conclamati dall’ Europa come propri? “

Abbiamo richiesto alle Autorità di essere ricevuti per discutere l’insieme di queste proposte.

Il Collegio d’Europa di Natolin, fermamente voluto dall’ Onorevole Sariusz-Wolski

c.Torino Capitale Europea della Cultura

Nel frattempo, la Sindaca Chiara Appendino ha deciso di candidare Torino a Capitale Europea della Cultura per il 2033. Un vecchio progetto, per il quale ci eravamo battuti per anni, tra l’altro con:

-la creazione del Comitato della Società Civile per Torino Capitale Europea della Cultura;

-la pubblicazione di ben due libri per l’argomento.

 Ho perciò scritto alle Autorità cittadine:

“Nella mia veste di presidente dell’Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, e, in particolare, di coordinatore del Comitato della Società Civile per Torino Capitale Europea della Cultura (raggruppante una cinquantina di associazioni di Torino e provincia, che figurano nel frontespizio di “Torino snodo”), avevo supportato,  dal 2010 al 2012, la giunta Fassino, e, in particolare, l’Assessore Alfieri e il Dott. Bagnasco, nello studio preliminare della candidatura per il 2019,  facendomi parte zelante per l’organizzazione di:

-una bozza di atto di candidatura;

-alcune manifestazioni pubbliche, per lo più presso la sede del Comune, ma anche e soprattutto  presso il Circolo dei Lettori, dedicate a discutere con esperti e con la società civile i vari aspetti della candidatura.

Soprattutto, avevo pubblicato, presso la Casa Editrice Alpina, due studi sull’ argomento: ‘Torino Capitale Europea della Cultura?’ (2010) e ‘Torino, snodo della cultura europea, Piano di offerta culturale 2011-2021’, che Vi invio in allegato All. 1 e 2).

Inoltre, come già espresso in quell’occasione, credo che la candidatura di Torino non possa prescindere, a causa dell’emergere di sempre nuove problematiche, che, nel 2033, saranno divenute particolarmente acute:-dal riordino delle vocazioni culturali della Città, in particolare nella direzione  dell’umanesimo digitale, cosa di cui le Istituzioni stando dando atto con l’iniziativa relativa all’ Istituto Italiano dell’ Intelligenza Artificiale. Anche a questo proposito abbiamo diffuso  all’inizio di Agosto il libro ‘European Digital Agency’, che illustra le proposte già fatte alle Istituzioni europee e alla società civile per la Conferenza sul Futuro dell’ Europa, in particolare per ciò che concerne le iniziative che potrebbero essere localizzate a Torino…..

Al fine di non disperdere, e, anzi, di recuperare, a favore della nostra Città, gli enormi sforzi sostenuti in quell’ occasione, saremmo grati alla Sindaca e a tutti i destinatari della presente se potessero convocarci per ascoltare le nostre esperienze e proposte. Nel contempo, siamo a Vostra disposizione per fornirVi tutte le informazioni e la documentazione raccolta ed elaborata, nonché quella relativa a Fiume Capitale Europea della Cultura, manifestazione attualmente in corso.

Infine, saremmo lieti di organizzare, nell’ambito del Salone Virtuale del Libro 2020 (cfr. Allegato n 3), che stiamo mandando avanti a dispetto della pandemia, un webinar dedicato alla candidatura, a cui saremmo onorati se potessero partecipare le Autorità cittadine ed esponenti della società civile. Chi è interessato, è pregato di segnalarcelo, indicando anche la propria disponibilità a partecipare, e le date preferite.

Infine, va da sé che saremo sempre disponibili per mobilitare come allora un movimento indipendente di cittadini a sostegno della candidatura, da coordinarsi con le Autorità.”

Teilhard de Chardin, il controverso gesuita padre del postumanesimo

d. Non perdiamo un’occasione preziosa

Tutti   questi nostri interventi sono stati basati sulla preoccupazione che, come affermato da autorevoli personaggi fra i quali il Presidente Draghi e il Presidente Bonomi, tutti questi sforzi volontaristici non si traducano in un miglioramento concreto della situazione culturale, umana, politica, economica e sociale, né dell’ Europa, né dell’ Italia, né di Torino, tutte duramente colpite ormai da decenni da un declino generalizzato rispetto al resto del mondo. Manca, infatti, una strategia complessiva per arginare questo declino, che passi attraverso le sue ragioni storico-filosofiche, le carenze strutturali, la progettazione di un’alternativa, la concentrazione sulle priorità.

Abbiamo preso atto, anche in precedenti post, che si sta riscontrando un rapido avvicinamento delle posizioni ufficiali a quella che sarebbe una visione realistica del problema. Si  è passati, in un decennio, dall’apologia auto-referenziale di un presunto superiore benessere e giustizia sociale dell’Italia e dell’ Europa, a una seppur superata logica redistributiva per ovviare alle principali carenze, poi al riconoscimento della  necessità di sostenere le attività produttive, passando  per l’addolcimento, attraverso il Quantitative Easing, del dogma monetaristico che tanto male ha fatto all’ Europa, per poi giungere,  grazie al Covid-19, a una forma di neo-keynesismo, che va, attualmente, ancora  aprendosi a un’idea di ‘Stato Innovatore’, e che potrebbe perfino giungere  ad ammettere che la digitalizzazione è la chiave di volta per la rinascita delle nostre società.

Mancano però ancora alcuni passi importantissimi:

-il riconoscimento del carattere civilizzatorio (e drammatico) del dibattito sulla digitalizzazione;

-la necessità della centralizzazione a livello europeo, o, almeno, nazionale, delle vitali scelte in questa materia;

-l’urgenza  di un dibattito pluralistico e alla pari, che non dia per scontato l’oltranzismo post-umanistico di Teilhard de Chardin e di Kurzweil, ma permetta anche di esprimersi  a un Umanesimo Digitale critico sulla falsariga di MacLuhan e Nida-Ruemelin, e, concretamente, delle sentenze Apple e Schrems della Corte di Giustizia delle Comunità Europee.

In una fase politica dominata, non solo in Italia, ma in Europa, da preoccupazioni elettorali, una classe politica che si pretende europeistica non sarà in grado di mobilitare le energie intellettuali e morali dell’Europa contro le tendenze disgregatrici se non facendo leva su quelle minoranze che sono concretamente impegnate nella ricerca e nel dibattito sulle soluzioni per superare l’attuale impasse. Se non dimostrerà un maggiore impegno in queste direzione e una maggiore indipendenza nei confronti dei GAFAM, non potrà essere presa sul serio, lasciando agli Euroscettici tutto lo spazio politico.

Mentre ribadiamo perciò ovviamente la richiesta di essere ricevuti per illustrare il complesso esito delle nostre più che decennali ricerche su questi temi e per proporre concreti contenuti, tanto per l’ Istituto Italiano dell’ Intelligenza Artificiale, quanto per la candidatura di Torino a Capitale Europea della Cultura, proseguiamo con i nostri “Cantieri Virtuali d’ Europa” per mantenere vivo l’interesse dell’ opinione pubblica su questi temi..

Se queste non diventeranno al più presto le priorità dell’ Europa, dell’ Italia e del Piemonte, questa classe dirigente dovrà assumersene l’intera responsabilità politica.

Marshall Mc Luhan, il teorico dellav società della comunicazione,critico della rivoluzione digitale

POSTPONEMENT OF THE LEIPZIG MEETING, II:QIN SPEAKING TO DA QIN

Confucius in Berlin

After her first teleconference with President Xi Jinping, Ursula von der Leyen had made a very important statement, which in any case was the last in a chain of small shifts from last decade’s acritical atlanticism of the EU: “The relationship between the EU and China is simultaneously one of the most strategically important and one of the most challenging that we have,” She had pointed the finger at China for “cyberattacks on computing systems, on hospitals”, adding sternly that “we know the origin of the cyberattacks”, on disinformation campaigns and on the subject of Hong Kong she spoke of “very negative consequences” should Beijing go ahead with the national security law (what ha just happened).

Xi, not impressed by such statements, went on to say that China was “a partner, not an opponent” to the EU, and would continue to deepen reform and expand opening up, providing Europe with a new round of cooperation opportunities and development space. “No matter how the international situation changes, China will take the side of multilateralism and adhere to the global governance concept of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefit.”

Today, the big issue confronting the EU is World Trade Organisation reform. While the US’ hostile approach to the WTO was not welcomed in Brussels, the EU was equally dismayed by Beijing’s attitude. However, if we recall that, a few years ago, EU wanted to sign the TTIP with the US for sorting out  China, a great step forward has been done (mainly, thanks to President Trump) in the direction of an overall agreement with China. On the other side, de facto, China is already doing what the EU requires, restraining from investments in Europe and allowing further European investments in China. It is questionable whether these trends are really in the interest of Europe, which needs investments in its own economy.

Finally, once  the idea of signing the TTIP fallen aside in March last year, the Commission had classified  in a first moment China as a “systemic rival”, while also referring to it as an economic partner and strategic competitor. The idea of a “systemic rival” is very ideological, hinting at old Cold War definitions, which Europe had rejected since a long time, and that now are being revived only under US pressure. Then came the issue of next-generation 5G mobile technology, as different EU countries debated whether to comply with Washington’s demand to ban Chinese telecommunications giant.

As Stefano Stefanini  remarked in “La Stampa”, the most important news is that Xi and Li Keqiang have decided to endorse a great power status for EU, since the dialogue has taken place directly between Xi (the President and secretary of the CPC) and Li Keqiang (the Prime Minister), from one side, and Charles Michel (the President of the Council) and Ursula von der Leyen (the President of the EU Commission),from the other.

China sticks to its friendly attitude towards Europe, which it had at the times of Jesuits, of Mao, of the economic reforms, and especially of Xi Jinping, who loves to speak of the “Peoples of Eurasia”.This friendliness is especially important in a moment when the Union needs badly a support to its assertiveness. From another point of view, it is difficult to deny that the idea of Europe’s unity had made many leaps forwards since the beginning thank to reflections as the ones of Leibniz and Voltaire about China.

Since the beginning of the XXI century, I had considered, alongside Asimov, Kubrick, Snowden and Joy, as a priority, to fight against the overcoming of Mankind by Intelligent Machines.  Since then and up to now, this threat has come constantly from the Silicon Valley and the NSA, as shown by thousands of law cases all over the world and by the work published by the same initiators of the US digital industry, such as Joy and Musk. Now, the US OTTs are no more alone in their industry, because also China has developed, at an astonishing pace, its digital industry (the BATX), which, under several points of view, is even more advanced than the American, and represents a similar, but not identical, threat, because China does not dominate Europe, nor the rest of the world. So, in any case, it may cause less damage, also because China’s move is defensive, against monopolies which pretended to extend to China, the homeland of the highest population of surfers.

But, especially, this newly arisen competition hinders one party’s domination, and , even if its excessive enthusiasm for new technologies is suspect, the world should be thankful to China for this.

Catalan ministers in jail in Spain for having exercised their duties for the autonomy of their country

1.Europe unduly harsh towards China

Apart from the fact that Europe had given up since many years to the idea of “exporting democracy”, it seems inequitable  to  indict China for things that, when they are done by Western countries, are not even remarked,

The Hong Kong national security law is very similar to the US Subversion Act 1807, invoked by President Trump against anti-racists rallies, and especially to the Spanish criminal code utilized for condemning the Catalan Government (« rebelión »- paragraphs 472 and 473 ;“distracción ilegal de caudales públicos” -paragraph 478;”malversación de caudales públicos” -paragraphs 432 and 252; “desobediencia grave” -paragraph 410-).The Generalitat (an autonomous region as Hong Long) has been put under direct control of the Central State, and the ministers have been condemned to very heavy penalties, something that has not occurred, up to now, in Hong Kong.

In the same way, the repression of political Islam in Xin Jiang is not so much different from what has happened in the neighbouring Afghanistan, occupied for less than 10 years by Russians and for 20 by Americans, who are now indicted in front of the International Criminal Court.

In the same way, the annexation of Crimea is not more unjustifiable, from the point of view of international law, than the one of the West Bank.

Then, why to impose sanctions on China and Russia and not on Spain, USA and Israel?

In reality, all these anti-Chinese arguments seem to be first of all just negotiating tools, because more focused arguments are lacking, and in reality no one wants to interrupt negotiations, but nobody wants even to conclude them waiting for this year’s American elections.

The EU, and especially Angela Merkel,   wants to reach a substantial  agreement with China, because their economy needs markets, capitals and customers. Especially the dominating EU industries, like the German car manufactures and their Italian and Spanish sub/suppliers, need a favourable climate for their most promising market, already in difficulty because of Trump’s trade wars and the Wuhan lockdown.

And, if we analyse the two parties’ mutual relationships, we see that a similar swing is not new at all.

 Trump’s West Bank Annexation Plan, more questionable than Crimea’s   

2.”Digital Renminbi”,  Made in China 2025 and China Standards 2035

Things will probably further change with the recent advance of China in digital industries, whose further progress is already planned (“Digital Renminbi” “Made in China 2025”; “China Standards 2035”). From another point of view, such advance, exerting a certain weight on the military balance with the US, could be a further area of specific conflict, which could degenerate into a total one.

The impact of this technological duopoly may represent, for Europe, at the same time a challenge and an opportunity. A challenge, because it will make still more difficult, than today, to stop a deadly escalation among autonomous weapons as had succeeded in the Petrov case,  and, from another point of view, an opportunity, because Europeans will not be put any more in front of the diktat of a sole alternative, the American one, and will be able to choose between two, or among many, up to a moment when (we hope) they will be in a position to build up their own technology. Angela Merkel and Li Keqiang have spoken some days  ago about technology. Here lies the most important aspect of the relationship. China is so advanced in digital, that it is the only partner which could help Europe to become achieve technological sovereignty before this is too late. An example is the proposal of Huawei to sell to third parties on an absolute exclusivity basis the whole technology package of G5, whilst Huawei would focus  only on the new G6.A similar formula could be utilised for acquiring from China the algorythms for creating a European web apt to sustain US competition. The idea of a European telecom giant between Nokia and Erickson could be achieved thanks an agreement with Huawei.

Now, following an indication of our “Da Qin” post, the Italian central bank has expressed its wish to participate, in an experimental way, to the creation , by the European Bank, of a European digital currency.

The same approach could be followed for the creation, in Italy, with the Recovery Fund and the help of China, of other exemplary forefront digital activities, such the digital academy and a European Web,

It would be the case that  a collaboration is started between European and Chinese on all these new technological fields. It has to be recalled that, as written below, China is filing  one half of all patents filed in the world.

Questa immagine ha l'attributo alt vuoto; il nome del file è 220px-Latvian_non-citizens_passport1.jpg
The passports fo the “non citizens” (Russian speakers natives of Latvia)

3.Europe’s crisis is caused first of all by the American hegemony

Europe and America are not the same thing for a reason very well expressed by Huntington in “Who we Are”: America is the Dissidence of Dissent.  Puritans flying from Europe because English Protestants were not sufficiently anti-traditional for their tests. As well exemplified by Dan Brown in his “The Lost Symbol”, America is a hidden theocracy of Christian sects at the borderline with political radicalism, esoteric Freemasonry and Qabbalism.

America had overcome Europe already with World war I, when it had imposed on the UK the Lend-Lease Agreements, the “14 points”, the Society of Nations and American films. With the military occupation after WWII, it just completed the conquest of Europe. As Trockij had written during WWI, after the wear, “America would have contingented European capitalism”, what is what they did with the Marshall Plan, European Antitrust, the hegemony of the dollar…

Since, in a world which is conformist as the present one, it is essential that people think that America is winning, every effort has been deployed since ever for showing that the USA are and remain stronger than any other.  For this reason, when the weight of America declines, Europe’s weight must decline even more. From this come the tariffs, the sanctions (which do not hit China and Russia, which, on the contrary, have become more independent, but Europe), as well as the giant lawsuits against European corporations.

As a consequence, Europe has a dramatical interest in reducing, especially now, USA’s influence over its society. Since Europe is very weak, the only way to reduce US influence is to play intelligently with Chinese, Russian, Islamic and Israeli influences, as well as the ones of the Churches. Today, US influence may be considered as one half of all the external influences over Europe. It is still too much for giving Europe a real freedom of movement. As an example, in case of a total war, Europe would find very hard to avoid being involved.

Even the continuous US/China bilateral trade  negotiations are often at the expenses of EU economy. For instance, China bought more than US$1 billion worth of soybeans from America in the first quarter of 2020. Photo: Bloomberg

For instance, China’s commitments under a trade agreement signed with the United States in January have left European firms feeling frozen out of the world’s largest consumer market, observers say. Under the deal – reached in an effort to put the brakes on a trade war that started in July 2018 – Beijing promised to buy an additional US$200 billion worth of American agricultural products over the next two years.For European firms, who had made some inroads into Chinese markets during the trade war – as Beijing sought alternatives to its usual US suppliers – the phase one deal, as the January agreement is known, came as a body blow.

In 2018, with the trade war under way, Beijing granted approval to 46 meat companies from European Union (EU) countries to export their products to China, more than double the figure for the US. Last year, as China grappled with a shortage of pork and other meats due to an outbreak of African swine fever, which killed an estimated 60 per cent of its pig herd, the number of EU meat producers granted approval to export more than doubled to 112.EU sales of agricultural products to China in 2019 rose 38 per cent from the previous year to €15.3 billion (US$17.1 billion).

The trend has been reversed  in 2020, with 1,024 US companies getting the green light to sell to China, compared with just 24 from the EU. In the first three months of 2020, China bought more than US$1 billion worth of soybeans from America – one of the world’s biggest suppliers of the crop – and US$691 million worth of US.

Meanwhile, European sales of agricultural goods to China are set to take a further hit after officials in Beijing said the new outbreak of Covid-19 in the city was linked to a “European strain” of the coronavirus.

The strategy towars China should start from the study of its culture

4.A cultural revolution

For the reasons listed above, for understanding how Europe should interface with China, it is preliminary to locate the present conflict within an overall vision of what present days superpowers are, i.e, holistic realities which  we may understand only adopting at the same time different points of view, the ones  of world-view, ideologies, alliances, supra-national organisations,  confederations, federations, nations.

For what America is concerned, it is sufficient to think of the complexities of the “Hidden Empire” described by Immerwahr; as to China, the nature of its empire lies in the vague and archaic concept of “Tian Xia” as described by Zhao Tinyang (see post n. 3 below). Both of them are purported  global empires which  have not achieved up to now their final goals because of the existence of alternative empires and sovereign states. Their mutual conflict is not subject to mediation, because it arises from their similar ambitions to world power, well expressed by the 矛盾, (“hanzi  / maodun”) contradiction.

The ambiguities of the two concepts depend on our inability to locate the same within their specific holistic context:

-the limitation of human beings, denied by the messianic pretention of the Perpetual peace;

-the contradiction of Western eschatologies, with the Tree Ages myth, the Antichrist, the Millennium;

-the vagueness of  Classical Chinese, and in particular, the absence of a clear cut times declension.

As a consequence, it is very unlikely that, either the Americanisation, or the Sinicization, of the world, may be really carried out,  so that the world will go on being “polyhedrical”, so guaranteeing the freedom of all peoples.

Also Muhammad (r.w.m.’.), Rousseau and Kant, often described as tenants of a Uniform World State, considered this a monster, and appreciated all kind of differences :“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” –  [Holy Qur’an, 49:13].

This implies a persistence of international conflicts, not only among States, but also among worldviews, up to the Last Day. Possible (and positive) moments of encounter and of peace exist, as have existed in the past. The first, and not yet overcome example was the “Pax Aeterna”, signed among the Byzantine emperor Heraclios and the Persian emperor Khosrow, to which also China, India and the Huns should have been participated. Second case was the Treaty (‘aqd) signed between Emperor Frederick II and the Egyptian King al-Malik, for the recovery of Jerusalem. Even the signing of the Charter of the United Nations did not bring an end to wars. On the contrary, very important conflicts (Israelo-Palestine, Indo-Pakistani, Greek and Korean wars) were under way in that period.

Also today, the maximum to which we may strive is a similar situation, a “plural world” with peaceful competition, as opposed to “Existential Risk”.

THe next world war will be fought by machines against other machines

5.Europe has to fight against the perspective of  WWIII

Europe is indeed now a piece-loving country, not because of a special spirit of election, but because today its most concrete development prospects lie in pacific activities, such as culture, digital and environment (in which it can be the first in rank), and not in mass production, bureaucracy and technological warfare. For which it is not endowed, especially after the disastrous internecine religious, dynastic, colonial and, finally, the civil/World Wars. This had been foreseen relatively clearly already by Fichte and Nietzsche

From another point of view, the war of today is not a “hot war”, but, on the contrary, a virtual one, fought at the writing desk, in conference halls, via the web, in laboratories and television studios.

Consistently with this “pacific” vocation,  Europe, being  in any case one of the largest countries of the world,  does not need a huge offensive apparatus, but, on the contrary, just  a thin, but very effective defence (and counterintelligence)apparatus, in a position to protect Europeans from any attack to the freedom of our country, without invading others (as done in Sinai, Somalia, Iraq, Kossovo, Afghanistan, Libya), according to the traditional defence doctrines of Switzerland and Sweden (“Om kriget komer”, “inte samarbejde!”).

The ambitions of Europe, starting from Reconquista, has gone through radically different stages: requerimiento (1492-1600); colonisation(1650-1800); exploitation (12850-1950); neo-colonialism (1950-1990); democratic imperialism(1995-2010); rhetoric equalitarism (2015-today). For the future,they should not lie, as it happens still today, in territorial expansion, but more in the upscaling of all its social activities, so being able to seize a “nobler” position in the international division of work (“a trendsetter”), as opposed to the present situation (“a follower”). Europe as a center of religion and of big data, of culture and high tech, of environment and of cyber-defence, of  automatisation and of financial organisations, of tourism and international trade. No need of re-locating labour intensive industries, because we will be all “Saints, Poets and Seafarers”.

A type of ambition and, consequently, of defence, radically different from the American one. As a consequence, it is very difficult that, in such post-modern world, America and Europe will go on having a common interest (and even complementarity) in defence structure. A “secondary” consequence is that Europe has no interest in conflicting with China.

THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE EU-CHINA MEETING IN LEIPZIG: 1.WHAT LIES BEHIND?

When, thirty years ago, I had started to write about Europe, the prevailing criticism I received was that no reader would ever have taken any interest in European questions, something which mattered just for a handful of specialists and/or idealists.

Now, in 2020, Europe is one of the top political and mediatic issues, either for extolling or for criticizing it. What are, if not European problems, economic crises, recovery from Coronavirus,  disputes among member States, with Russia, China and Turkey? What are, if not disputes about Europe, the “sovereignist” ideas of a “Europe of the Nations”, or the one of Atlanticists, of a “Euro-Atlantic Community”?

In the same way, when, twenty years ago, I started writing about the re-birth of Russia and China, everybody thought that it was mere phantasy, because the Eastern Bloc was just collapsing, and, with the fall of communism, even the modest previous influence of those countries would have ceased; then, we have had Crimea, Donbass, Syria, Libya, high speed trains, Confucius institutes, G5, New Silk Roads, mask diplomacy….Now,allkey protagonists of European politics feel obliged to take position every day about China and Russia. Presently, more often in a negative sense (dictatorship, expansionism, espionnage,  sanctions), but we do not doubt that, in a next future, we will necessarily listen to growing and growing positive voices (effectiveness, epistocracy, harmony). And, in fact, we have been favourably  surprised in listening to some of Europe’s top politicians, as Josep Borrell, inclined even towards a certain amount of equidistance between China and USA:”We are not in a tough position against one or against another. …… So no, I do not see anything comparable to what you remember of what happened many years ago between China, the United States and the Soviet Union. We are not on a confrontational line; we just want to have realistic relationships in order to defend our values and our interests.”

And, in fact, all new EU policies treat on a foot of equality all extra-European relationships.

When, in 2017, I wrote the book DA QIN, maintaining that China millennial history can represent a model for the rejuvenation of Europe, nobody took seriously that idea, which today is not only present in the works of important international scholars, such as Parag Khanna, Daniel D. Bell, Zheng Wei Wei and Zhao Tingyang, bet is even considered as an important danger for the European Union, which has created expressly the formula “Systemic rival” without specifying what it means.

The need to understand how China has become so strong, that the last report of the European Parliament, “EU-China trade and investment relations in challenging times “ is devoted to a multifaceted study of the question, in particular about the cultural, technological and commercial aspects. Notwithstanding the remarkable attention paid to this matter, we feel that very much has still to be studied. We anticipate here the concepts which we will express at length in the new edition of “L’Europa lungo la via della Seta”, about which we will debate on the 4th July,  of July, and which will focus on the attitude that pro-European movements should adopt, according to us, towards the new Treaty under discussion, starting precisely from the structure of the above Parliament’s study.

If, within 10 years, I will still be alive and write on these matters, I am afraid that I will again realize that my pages have foreseen the future, but have been written in vain again.

The many people who cannot do anything better than crying, on behalf of their employers, against  purported “dangers to our way of life” would do a much more useful thing if they would study what is happening in the world – in the Silicon Valley, in the United States, in Russia- for seeing how can we master the burning world of tomorrow.

In the same way, it would be useful to understand what is meant by “our way of life”, because Europe has always been a multi-faceted., or, as the Pope says, a “polyhedrical” countries, with wild, inhabited lands such as Greenland, the Balkans or Lappony; post-modern metropoles, like Paris and London, ancient shrines of culture like Freiburg, Prague, Venice, Florence, Rome, Dubrovnik, Istanbul, St. Petersburg; historical cities, like Granada, Turin, Siena, Palermo, Athens, Sarajevo, Krakow; small jewels of past times, like Guimaraes, Carcassonne, Noto, Modica, San Gimignano, Mantua, Bruges, Rothemburg ob der Tauber, Salzburg, Veliko Tarnovo, Zamosc; West and East….

Qin and Da Qin: the most ancient and continuous empires

1.A history of repressions

The dominating narrative about “the East” (inherited from Herodotus and Aeschilus) is that its societies were, and still are, characterised by   a culture of State repression of individuality (the Empires), whilst Western Europe (and still more the United States) would be the countries of freedom. Personally, I do not share this view, because, albeit having concretely fought in the past against the real forms of repression  then prevailing in the East (under ”real socialism”), I know better the ones of the West, an area where massification and conformism are not less heavy, and where people like Assange and a large part of the Catalan Government are still in jail for having exercised their civil rights, and/or duties. Moreover, the obsessive care for the so-called “fake news” and for opinion crimes shows that, under an falsely friendly image, Western European States are no less totalitarian than Eastern ones. The only difference is that the two areas prosecute different types of infringers: in the East, separatists or pro-Americans, in the West, pro-vita, muslim veil bearers and extreme right nostalgics.

As to an asserted primeval difference as to the respective concepts of the State, what Zhao Tingyang describes of the Chinese Empire (Tian Xia) is astonishingly similar to the Roman empire and still more to the Holy Roman empire, as described, e.g., by Dante in De Monarchia and by de Las Casas in De Regia Potestate. We will devote the third chapter of this post to a thorough analysis of Zhao Tingyang’s work, which is helpful also, and above all, for understanding Europe’s own cultural and political history, starting from pre-history, passing through Persians, Jews, Greeks, Germans, Romans and Modernity, very similar to pre-historical China, the different dynasties and ethnicities.  It is what we mean when we speak about Qin and Da Qin.

In reality, East and West have always influenced mutually one another, and often exchanged their respective roles. For instance, Herodotus explains that, while choosing for themselves monarchy, which they considered more effective, Persians imposed democracy to their subjects, the Greek Ionians, after defeating the latter, because, in this way, they thought that they could be more easily manipulated by the Empire. This preference of empires for having democracy in their satellites has continued up to now. Let’s recall, for instance, that the Soviet Union did not impose in most satellites a Soviet-style one-party system. In certain “socialist” countries, a “true” “communist” party with this name did not even exist, and/or, as in East Germany and Poland, had not even the majority of MPs. These “People’s Democracies” could easier be manipulated (e.g. by Yaruzelski’s  “Stan Wojenny” or the speech of Gorbačev in Berlin in 1989), than genuine dictatorships, like the ones of Tito, Hodzha and Ceausescu, where the leadership was composed of stark communist fighters, which for this reason resisted up to the last moment USSR influence. Useless to recall that Angela Merkel had started her political career as an official of the East German “Youth Front”.

The censorship of Western establishments on Eastern (and East European) cultures and values had been absolute since the XVI Century, at the times of von Herberstein, of  Condorcet, of Hegel, of de Coustine: the “Romano-Germanic Arrogance” of Trubeckoj. Extra-European (and East European) countries have always been vilified: only Western Europe, and eventually America, are valid civilisations, les “nations policées” (“the decent countries”).  The others are backward, are the equivalent of Europe’s Ancien Régime, they would have been substituted with modern, progressive, societies, which, without any doubt, would have imitated Europe, but, especially, America.

According to the Western establishment, the whole process of world history, from the Bible to Hegel and Marx (“from Plato to NATO”), revolved (and still revolves) around the West, where East was seen just as a far away root (Egypt, Israel), an accident (the Mongols) or a foe (Persia, Islam). It is really difficult to have somebody in the West, even the most cultivated and the most ”Third World friendly”, to conceive world history as  something really parallel, from the first hominids, up to the civilisations along the great rivers, ancient empires and cultures, their mutual relationships (e.g., the Silk Road), the succession of ideas spread between East and West (the sannyasin movement, mazdeist and  judaic messianisms, Hinayana and Mahayana buddhism,  christianism, islam, the steppes peoples, the search of Cathay, the chinoiseries, aryanism, the “white man’s burden”, Asiatic ideologies, the Soviet Union, the surge of China, multilateralism…).As Zhao Tingyang writes, “the different histories of the different places have been melt, by European History, into a complex ‘history of histories’. In so doing, they traced no world history, but, on the contrary, just  the history of the expansion of Europe’s influence.”

In the last 100 years, this relentless propaganda has further developed, being unchained against all kinds of non-American nations: imperial Japan; militarist Germany; “papist” Italy; totalitarian Russia; reactionary Poland; theocratic Arabs; nationalist Israelis; hierarchical Indians; imperialist Chinese…The evil does not consist in one or another characteristic: just in being “un-American”. America (and present days Europe) will not stop interfering into the other people’s life until they become exactly equal to USA and Europe. At that moment, there would have been “the End of History”, the “Perpetual Peace”. As Tacitus wrote: “They made the desert, and called it ‘peace’”.

The apparent openness of Americanism to diversity is just theoretical. In fact, if a country becomes equal under all aspects to America, except one thing (e.g, theocracy, monarchy, one party system, a castes system, socialism, polygamy…), it is considered automatically in breach of human rights and the West has the obligation of interfering. Only worldwide uniformity is accepted: against the others (British, Indians, Mexicans, Confederates, Spaniards, Philipinos, Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Islamists), there is perpetual war.

In the background of “human rights exportation” there is the belief that the expansion of the “Western way of life” is a higher justification which overrides even the pretended “universality” of human rights. It is a translation into politics of the genocides of the Old Testament (starting from the worshippers of the Golden Calf)  justified by the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me!” And, in fact, when US society or authorities breach roughly those “human rights” that they pretend to protect in other countries, no one has the right to interfere – not even to express a judgement-:the ”Double Standard of Morality”. The extreme case is constituted by the recent sanctions of Trump against the International Criminal Court, created precisely for defending American-style human rights, but responsible to prosecute American military.

2.The “Necessary Nation”

In fact, for America, this idea  to be a “Necessary Nation” is unavoidable: if the USA would not be the leader of the World, its very “raison d’etre” would cease, and every American would come back to be a Brit, a German, an Italian, a Jew, a Hispanic, an African…What we start to see now with the clash among white-Americans and black Americans, but is going on also with Sino-Americans and Islamo-Americans, de facto discriminated. At the end of the day, not differently from all other modern (“ideocratic”) empires, if America is deprived of its messianic objective, it would be seen simply as a purposeless, and even monstruous, conglomerate of power. Also Europe suffers a lack of mission, but its peoples, rooted in theirs histories, can, nevertheless, survive well or worse.

The real point is that the mission of America, as shown from Bacon to and Transhumanism,  is to achieve the domination of technique over Mankind, so that, as Marx wrote, if you cancel the US from the world map, you cancel also the progress. And, in fact, the  Singularity project of Ray Kurzweil is going on with Google just because of the protection of the US Digital-Military Complex. That fanatism in the defence of America’s mission is in reality the messianic enthusiasm for a negative theology aiming at the End of Man.

Paradoxically, whilst Western civilisation had been born from doubt (the Socratic dialectic, Tertullian’s “Credo quia absurdum”,  Descartes’ “Systemic doubt” and Pascal’s “Pari”, Nietzsche’s prospectivism and  De Finetti’s challenge to the principle of causality), the only thing of which the West never doubts is its own superiority on the others. Just a handful of European intellectuals (De las Casas, the Jesuits, Schopenhauer, Guénon, Evola, Panikkar) have been really immune from this presumption. Also the official Europe has pretended since ever to be different from the US because it purports not to “export democracy”, but, in reality, follows the same path, just in a less evident way and often being obliged by America.

This obsession for a theological, ethical, political, intellectual and social superiority (inherited from  ancient empires and monotheisms) is the driving  force around which the Western establishment has aggregated one seventh of Mankind, pretending that the others must become as they are ( but also without ceasing to criticize them because they are not succeeding to do so), has shaped one century and a half of world history, with the Algerian, Mexican, Indian, Spanish wars, with the repression of Sepoys, Taiping and Boxers, with Atlantic slave trade, the Crimean War, the Inequal Treaties, the Chinese Concessions, the Congo State, the Durbar. It remains still now the secret powerhouse of most conflicts.

This pretension has allowed America to minimise the memory of its evils (such as the extermination of native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade, the Opium Wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Vietnam War), emphasizing the ones of the others (totalitarianism, terrorism). This Double Standard of Morality has always found an allied in Western left, which has always been aware that this messianic arrogance of America is the driving force of economic progress, so triggering a continuous shift in power balance worldwide, what, at its turn, favours social mobility and class conflict. Typical the favour of Marx for the Confederates’ slavery, which, according to him, was unavoidable for preserving the avantgarde role of America in the ongoing worldwide progress march.

The present iconoclastic furore against the racist past of the whole anglosphere, arisen by the killing of George Floyd, is awakening once again those never healed old contradictions.

The statues of Christopher Columbus violated under the accusation of racism

3. The Fall of XX Century’s Myth

Happily, these pretentions of the West have started to  shrink over the years, with the birth of African, Indian, Chinese and Arab nationalisms,  and of the international movements of Developing Countries,  with decolonisation and  the wars of Korea and Vietnam, but especially with the strong resistance of intellectuals as different as Voltaire, Boas, Guénon, Pannwitz, Fenollosa, Père Foucault, Gandhi, Pound, Aurobindo,  Evola, Débray, Béjart, Panikkar, Jacques, Frankopan, who have extolled the merits of extra-European civilisations, affirmed their right to remain themselves, to participate on an equal footing  in the decisions about the future of the world and in the philosophical debate under way at world level. Taking this into account, a certain intellectual violence from Eurasian leaders is fully understandable as a reaction to this systematic repression.

The fact that the majority of European intellectuals (even when not sharing extreme positions on this point such as the ones of Guénon, Evola, Béjart or Panikkar) has not approved in any moment  those politics of defamation of other continents, has not reduced, but on the contrary, extended, the repression, not only against different cultures, but also against such Western intellectuals who do not share the arrogant attitudes of their politicians (the “political correctness”). It’s sufficient to see how were treated Blas Valera, Boas, Pound and Evola.

The ongoing digital revolution, creating the real bases for a possible worldwide technological empire, has reinforced everywhere all existing imperialistic trends in an exponential way, rendering a solution to the problem still more difficult. A world empire is possible, and America has been, in 2002, on the verge of implementing it. China, which had never accepted, since 1850, the idea of “America First”, seems today to shift towards the radical strategy to oppose the American technological empire with another technological empire,  based on Datong and Tianxia. The real miracle is that it is again in a position to raise such a question after one century and a half of foreign occupation and continuous wars. The real meaning of this new claim is unknown to most actors, because of the absence of an adequate culture,

The discussions about the new Treaty with China cannot be read in separation from this historical background and this unsolved problem.

White Man’s Burden By Rudyard Kipling (1899) Take up the White Man s burden– Send forth the best ye breed– Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild– Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. Take up the White Man s burden– In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another s profit, And work another s gain.

4.The advancement of Eurasia

Notwithstanding the Durbar, the repression of the Boxers and the Sykes-Picot Agreements, starting from the beginning of the XX Century, extra-European cultural traditions (African, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian), and even minority European cultures (like the Orthodox and the Euro-Islamic), had affirmed more strongly   their right to exist, and, subsequently, had  gained momentum in several countries.

All extra-European countries, and also the countries of Eastern Europe, share today a sense of pride for their ancient traditions, different from Western mainstream (“the Asia that dare say ‘no’”). For this reason they have, towards their history, a “continuity approach”, from the Yellow Emperor to  Confucius, from Qin Shi Huangdi to the Red Rescript, from Sun Yat Sen to Mao; or, respectively, from Rjurik to Alexander Nevskij, from Ivan the Terrible to Peter Ist, from Catherine II to Lenin, from Stalin to Putin (or from Arpad to Rakosi, from Kossuth to Nagy). Only Europe tries (happily, without success) to limit its own history to the last 80 years, minimizing the roles of Gilgamesh and Moses, Hippocrates and Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles, Alexander and Caesar, Augustus and Constantine, Justinian and Charles the Great, Dante and Frederick II, Napoleon  and Coudenhove Kalergi. If this effort of the mainstream would succeed, we would loose our main element of strength: the attractiveness of our old culture.

The most extreme avatar of present days  Eastern Renaissance is constituted by the Belt and Road Initiative, which, already by its definition, recalls to everybody that the peoples of Asia and Europe have been linked since the most remote antiquity by ethnic, religious, cultural and commercial links, so that China and Europe have conceived themselves as a mirror image of high civilisations (Qin and Da Qin). The idea of a Silk Road, invented by the German Earl von Richthofen,  creator of the Trans-Syberian railway project  developed eventually by the tsarist government, has been taken over now by China, which seems today to be the main beneficiary of a revamping of the Old Silk Roads. However, nobody hinders other subjects, such as the European Union, to develop  their own “Silk Roads”. This is precisely what the EU intends to do by its “Connectivity Initiative”.

In reality, in our century, the idea of a new Silk Road had already been developed by Hillary Clinton, but not followed-up. China,  being the largest country of the world, needs vitally for several reasons a continuous interchange with the rest of the world, which has already taken place, especially with the United States, but that the latter wants now to stop because, thanks to it, China is gaining always more momentum, so challenging the American “intellectual leadership” of the world.

And, in fact, there has been since a long time a wish to establish world peace based upon a harmony between East and West. This idea is deeply entrenched in Chinese culture since its beginning, being tightly linked with the idea of Tian Xia), and found its expression in the name of the Qin, Han and Tang Capital, Chang’An (permanent peace). In the short period between 332 and 340 a. C, there was even an ephemerous Pax Aeterna between Constantine and Khosraw of Persia, to which also China and the Huns should have adhered. The Epistle of Prester John in the twelfth Century asked for a contact between Byzance and India, Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and Marco Polo, tried to establish a stable relationship, which was consolidated by Jesuits.

What disturbs most Americans and European Atlanticists is that the Silk Road makes a direct  reference to the core of the Old World: the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Dar al-Islam, India, Central Asia and China, so putting into a corner the New World, which still pretends to be the heart of the ecumene. Actually, a full implementation of the New Silk Road (and/or of the Connectivity Initiative) would imply the marginalisation of the United States. Even the widespread idea of creating, by the Connectivity Initiative, uttered by the Institutions in an effort to balance the Chinese weight in the Belt and Road Initiative, will end up completing the latter, and consolidating the ongoing “Eurasian” trend.

The Coronavirus pandemic is just the last event in a long chain, where the effectiveness of Eastern countries has shown their superior capability to overcome the challenges of the Third Millennium (so confirming an intuition of Max Weber): traditions, technology, State-building, soft power. This superior capability has been recognized by Western public opinions, as shown by recent polls that have revealed that the majority of Europeans is more inclined towards Russia and China than towards the West, and especially is not available to participate in a Third World War on the side of America. It is not a case that the present US Defence Doctrine starts from the idea that USA must be independent from NATO, first of all by the refusal of existing agreements  with the stress on sea-land ballistic missiles, which do not require any consent from allied countries and by imposing home productions invoking war preparedness.

This implied conflict is at the roots of what European Institutions has labelled as “a Systemic Rivalry”, which we will criticize in the following posts, for its lack of an adequate cultural background, and even of a precise meaning.

The national Indian festival in New Delhi

5.China Bashing

For all the above reasons, US media and politicians attack China constantly with a series of stereotyped critics. Here is an example:

“ China’s thousand-year objective is to overthrow the democratic order through peaceful and divisive means. China is spreading its narrative through coercive diplomacy, OBOR, propaganda and disinformation campaigns legitimizing Chinese authoritarian governance shrouded in historical values and ideals. Its objective is to alter democratic governance, norms and the established rule-based world order and replace it with the Chinese version of an illiberal order and authoritarian rule. China is making inroads in democratic countries like Poland, Greece, the United Kingdom and Italy by buying or investing in companies and critical infrastructure like ports and bidding for 5G network contracts. Chinese companies doing business overseas have links to the communist party or the People’s Liberation Army. Through these companies and 5G technology, China will be able to collect and harvest intelligence for diplomatic and trade negotiations, launch cyber warfare against critical infrastructure and classified government networks, gather confidential information from companies, launch disinformation campaigns and understand warfare plans and military preparedness of host states.”

Taking into account their lack of cultural background, such attacks, by Western national and supranational institution, to Russia’s and China’s public diplomacy appear to be ridiculous, and the new so-called Chinese “Wolf warriors diplomacy”, not differently from the consolidated style of the Russian speaker Marija Zakarova,  by which it seems to be inspired, is just a reaction, mirror image of the American one (for instance, of Victoria Nuland).

In the same way, the very much criticized militarisation of Chinese society is a result of the everlasting imitation lust of Chinese:“China’s initiatives in military-civil fusion are informed by a close study of, and learning from, the U.S. defense industry and American defense innovation ecosystem to an extent that can be striking. In certain respects, military-civil fusion can be described as China’s attempt to imitate and replicate certain strengths from a U.S. model, but reflected through a glass darkly and implemented as a state-driven strategy.”

In reality, all of that was already anticipated in earlier stages of China’s history, by the idea of a fusion of Chinese and American cultures, hinted by the Taiping ideology and Kang Youwei’s Datong Shu, directly risen by the incumbent propaganda of  evangelic missionaries.

Sino-Italians welcome Chinese warships in the port of Taranto

6.The Treaty

Presently, the major ambit of dispute is the next Europe-China Investment Treaty, which last year the Commission had undertaken in writing to sign, and which was bound to be signed in September in Leipzig, but against which George Soros had launched a violent campaign, and which has been postponed for Coronavirus.

In the background, there is the struggle for technological dominance between USA and China, which is an updating, in the III Millennium, of Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” and the first Fukuyama’s “End of History”. According to this author, the world would have split alongside the borderlines of the Orthodox Faith , and would have gone towards WWIII, where China and Russia would have fought against the US. According to Huntington, notwithstanding the big differences that he objectively saw between Europe and the US, it was of utmost interest for the US that Europe remains together with them. Otherwise, the latter would have had good prospects of loosing WWIII, and, in the best case, the only remaining superpower would have been India. This is the explanation for the growing pressures, from the US and the European pro-American lobbies, to boycott the new Silk Roads, in which many European countries, such as UK, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Serbia and Greece, not to speak of Turkey and Russia, are already heavily engaged.

In reality, US, without Europe, should not remain the hegemon power of the world; on the contrary, Europe without Eurasia would remain forever a follower of the US and a country on the way towards underdevelopment.

The summary drafted on behalf of the European Parliament about the EU-China Treaty has made it clear that, notwithstanding Europe’s ongoing descent towards underdevelopment, we have now a lot of political opportunities which in the past had never existed.

The news is that, being the XXI century the one of Intelligent Machines, the power struggle is no more between States, but between technologies: not the DoD against the PLA, but the OTTs against Huawei.

However, the new Treaty would have first of all a symbolic, political and legal meaning, because it will simply supersede the existing “national” treaties: besides being an opportunity to profile itself as more independent from the USA, would also be a move to assert EU’s legal competences in the face of Member States. In fact, all member States are doing excellent business with China and have their own treaties, and it is questionable whether the competence for international investment treaties lies with the EU or with Member States, or both. A new “mixed” Treaty, alongside the model of the ACP-EU  Agreements, could be an appropriate basis for the whole Silk Road. By the way, my first work devoted to European law, written in 1980 when working in Luxemburg for the European Court of Justice, dealt precisely with the Lomé Agreement.

Eurasia is a complex of ancient civilisations

7.How to behave in the US-China dispute?

The campaign launched by Bannon and Trump some years ago, for “disrupting China’s supply chains”  has gained momentum in the States because of the ongoing American crisis and the even more evident growth of China. America feels that it is losing its clout on the world and reacts nervously. Ironically, also George Soros is sponsoring now an action formerly initiated by Bannon (which, unexpectedly, has obtained just now, by the Administrative Court of Latium, the right to utilize an ancient monastery for creating an American political school in Italy) and shared by Le Pen and Salvini, who have proposed a motion of the European Parliament under this heading. In this, America is wholly bi-partisan.

Such idea of “disrupting supply Chains” with China could make sense for the US, which, having seen that they cannot undermine China from inside, are preparing a war, so that nobody can expect them to purchase strategical goods form the enemy (nor to shell US property in China as they did not shell Opel and Ford in Nazi Germany during World War II).

Contrary to what has written ECFR, this idea does not  apply, on the contrary, to Europe. Seen from this part of the Atlantic, adhering to the US diktat to break-up relationships with China in this moment of deep crisis would be fatal for Europe’s economy. Unfortunately, European politicians are very attentive and reactive to US “suggestions”, which often change the Governments’ attitudes within a few minutes (as has happened with the infamous Italian MOU). This time, Europeans seem a bit tougher, because Europe, with China, risks to lose very much, as we will show in the following posts.

In fact, first of all, far from trying to reduce Chinese investments in Germany, Merkel  is speeding up German investments in China. On June 11, in spite of American pressures,  Angela Merkel and Li Keqiang had a teleconference, and  three agreements were signed by German and Chinese firms, including one between auto makers Volkswagen and JAC Motors. Merkel urged Li to open up the domestic market and provide more legal certainty for investment, but, in fact, in spite of accusations, more than 40% of the cars manufactured by the Volkswagen Group are sold in China. By these agreements, VW has even achieved the majority of the stock of the joint ventures which manufacture VW cars in China. What is in itself an evidence that there is no limitation on European investments in China.

At the end of the teleconference, Li has affirmed, in stark contrast with the requests of Americans and European “sovereignists” that China and Germany should make good use of the “fast track”  for personnel exchanges to facilitate business cooperation and resumption of production “and jointly maintain the safety and stability of the supply chain of the industrial chain.Li said China always respects Europe’s integration and is glad to see a unified and prosperous EU:”We are willing to maintain high-level exchanges with Europe, promote pragmatic cooperation and strive to complete the negotiation of the China-EU investment agreement at an early date to better achieve common development,” .

In fact, the most evident result of Trump’s policies has been a direct damage to European economy, heavy duties (for security concerns), by the interruption of trade fluxes, and, last but not least, the direct unfair competition with European goods, the ITA with China resulting in China being obliged to purchase for US§ 193.3 billion instead of 130.7. As a consequence, imports from the EU have declined by 10.8 billion, so reducing European export to China under the American one (always a consequence of the “America First” principle).

I remember that already under Reagan the US utilized the military legislation for curbing the commercial expansion of its allies. Now, pretending that the import of metals from Europe has to be reduced for the national security of the United States amounts to say that the two sides of the Atlantic might have a war between them. If this should be the case, there is a lot of Europe-US business relations which would constitute a danger for the security of Europe: first of all the storage of European data in the US.

EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY AGENCY: LETTERS TO THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL GROUPS

European Space Agency

Turin, 22 May 2020

Honorable President Weber,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion, in contrast to what foreseen in Minister Altmaier’s Industriestrategie fuer Deutschland und Europa,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried ourt by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Arianespace, European launchers champion

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

Honorable President Garcìa-Pérez,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry

Free Alliance  Identity and Democracy Group  

Honorable President Zanni,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The correrponding Ministry in China

Renew Europe

Turin, 2 June 2020

Honorable President Dacian Ciolos,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

This is what President Macron means when speaking of “European Digital Sovereignty”.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The new Chinese hyperloop

Greens/Free Alliance

Turin, 3 June 2020

Honorable Ska Keller and Philippe Lamberts,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

Also the European New Deal is unrealistic without mastering all AI technologies, because, as Jeremy Rifkin has explained very well, a rational utilisation of energy is based upon an omnipresent form of control, which can be achieved only thanks a widespread presence of digital devices and of powerful control centers, which must not depend from far away multinationals.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistencies  in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

Rostech, the State-owned holding of the Russian high tech industries

European
Conservatives and Reformists

Turin, 2 June 2020

Honorable Ryszard Antoni Legutko and Raffaele Fitto

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency.

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

The Chinese quantum satellite, developed in Austria

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left  

Turin, 3 June 2020

Honorable Manon Aubry and Martin Schirdewan,

We have addressed to the President of the European Parliament, to the members of the ITRE committee and to other members of the EP, as well to the ones of the Council and of the Commission, a letter, which we sent  for urging them, in the course of the present work for approving a series of documents for the 2021-2027 period, to take care of the urgent need to give to Europe, for this period decisive for the future of Mankind, an adequate policy, strategy, structure, funding and legislation, for building up a European Autonomous Digital Ecosystem, able not only to meet successfully the competition of the US and Chinese global systems, but also to develop an autonomous  societal system, able to translate, into the society of intelligent machines, the “European way of life” which the Institutions purport to develop.

We take the opportunity to note that, in the website of the Commission, the page devoted to a “European Industrial  Strategy”, included in the timeline for the European Digital Green Deal, and foreseen for March 2020,  is lacking.

We understand that, in March, in the middle of  the Coronavirus crisis, it would have been difficult to decide upon a European  Industrial Strategy. However, without an Industrial Strategy, any Recovery Plan does not make sense, especially if it is linked to the 7 years budget 2021-2027. Our book and the attached proposal for the Conference for the Future of Europe constitute a tentative to fill this gap with the creation of a new entity devoted to a large part of this task: new technologies. The basic assumption is that, in the third decade of the III Millennium, no problem of mankind (environment, peace, culture, equity, health), not to speak of Europe, can be solved without mastering the new technologies, and first of all, Big Data, the Web, cyberintelligence, AI, Digital Financing. As long as Europe gives up to have its own high tech, its decadence will go on indefinitely, and no substantive objective will be met. In particular, The role of workers depends on a rational digital policy (see Annex 2).

In particular, we note also that, in  the present Industrial Strategy under discussion,  attention is paid only to SME, whilst, on the contrary, announcements from different parts had hinted at a strategy for European Champions, comparable to the ones of the USA and of China. After the market failures of the ongoing economic crises, worsened by Coronavirus, it had been said that old turbo-liberal prejudices had been overcome, but this reluctancy of European politics to make plans (when everybody in the world makes plans) is suspect.

This decade will be decisive for the world’s and Europe’s destiny. Europe cannot remain a passive spectator of a technological revolution which runs contrary to the European Way of Life and to Europe’s legitimate interests.Especially,the fact of being completely dependent on the OTTs blocks any capability to make an autonomous programming of its technological and geopolitical development, to have an independent intelligence, to have an autonomous R&D and European Army, to develop its own AI. I note also that in his interventions in Strasburg, the Pope had warned against “unknown empires”. These empires may be blocked only by a European Web, which the Institutions should  build up according to the models of ESA, Arianespace and Airbus. This herculean work cannot be carried out by the about 40 small agencies existing today, but only by a powerful European Technology Agency (see Annex 1).

We are confident that the Institutions will take care of these inconsistency in working out the 7 years budget, in structuring the Conference on the Future of Europe, but also all the technical documents whose discussion is under way today.

We remain at your disposal for highlighting our studies and debates on this urgent matter.

Thanking you in advance for your attention,

Kindest regards,

For Associazione Culturale Diàlexis,

The President,

Riccardo Lala

Associazione Culturale Diàlexis, Via Bernardino Galliari 32  10125 Torino,  tel 0039011660004  00393357761536  website: http://www.alpinasrl.com

A quantum computer

OLD-NEW FINANCIAL APPROACHES FOR EUROPE

Walther Rathenau, the author of “The New Economy”

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

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

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

The new Chinese Central Banl Digital Currency: a model worldwide

1.Central Banks Digital Currencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudolf Hilferding, the theorist of the State-monopoly capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michal Kalecki, the inventor of “Military Keynesism”

3.A further step forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will be many great surprises.

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

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

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

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

The overall scheme of tEuropean recovery interventions

4. A European NATO-like Emergency Service

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

In fact:

1)each action has to go through:

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

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

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

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

-a jurisdictional control.

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

-disputes about the nature of the aids;

-US interferences;

-instrumental polemics;

-media manipulations;

-personal ambitions;

-organised crime;

-unconscionable citizens’attitudes;

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

-the swinging attitudes of financial markets;

-the upredictable impact of the financial compact;

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

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

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

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