The data of the Global Peace Index (Ref. The Institute for Economics and Peace - 2016) and the associated analyzes seem to leave no doubt. Over the last few decades there has been a tendential increase in global conflict. Although for the time being it mainly characterizes peripheral realities, as a result of globalization, this condition risks spreading like a virus also to Developed Countries. In a similar dimension, each seems to have the "right" to impose a subjective view of "order" to guarantee its own survival, ending up against a climate of great "dynamism". And yet starting from these situations shocks it is possible to understand the characteristics and the attitude of a system.
The provocative hypothesis of a return to the "Cold War" has been invoked several times to explain this new phase of International Relations. But we are faced with something far more complex, which cannot be plastered into mere ideological schematics. This obviously makes it even more difficult to read and therefore to understand.
By carefully observing the global reality, it is likely to be assumed that the causes of this ferment are to be found in a process of inter-State adjustment, among actors willing to take on the role of "globalizers " or "Identity". The first aimed at exploiting the potential of Net Economy and Information Communication Technology, in the utopian vision of achieving advantages on a global scale. The latter, instead, very likely due to a homeostatic attitude, are more likely to defend national interests as a priority.
Obviously, in this simple schematism, Globalizers and Identitaries are only possible stereotypes of the modern evolution of state and regional organizations. Indeed from the analysis of the indexes on world globalization (ref. KOF Index of Globalization 2016) it is really difficult to conceive a state system associated only with one or the other category.
In truth these mechanisms are much more complex and dynamic. Faced with the challenges of change underlying the idea of globalization and the reduction of material, temporal and cultural barriers, the individual state actor ends up producing an adaptive "immune response". A reaction that strengthens the identity character on a national scale, but that does not necessarily presuppose isolationism or autarky.
In general terms this dichotomy Globalizers and Identifiers seems to be fomented essentially by two thrusts. The first "centrifuge" associated with innovative and revolutionary dynamics (in the different domains: political, cultural, economic, social, informative, ...) that are typical of the global phenomenon. The second, vice versa, "centripetal". And which brings back the idea of the Nation State as an alternative to supranational systems, perceived more and more as a limit, rather than as a real opportunity to guarantee peace and development.
However this apparently virtual comparison, essentially based on a linear causality, produces real effects, triggering at the same time a very dangerous vicious circle of instability. In this perspective, even the simple search for a solution cost-effective to increase regional security could contribute to fueling the antagonism: Globalizers and Identitaries. And this, for example, could be an alternative key to understanding the current situation of "confrontation" between NATO and RUSSIA.
At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that a climate of inter-State rivalry favors the rise and spread of terrorist actors and criminal organizations. Specifically, taking up a conceptualization in vogue in Game Theory, the world seems to be the victim of a paradox, that of the "blackmailer". Where is it the "war" risks being no longer subordinated to the Politics, but becomes a "tool" it's a business in the hands of actors without the state seal. At this point the raising of barriers and walls at the individual level becomes truly inevitable.
Taking a cue from these considerations, there is a close correlation between the level of globalization and that of democracy, at present we can hypothesize that the drift of the global process in the terms described above could irreparably lead to a polarization of the individual state entities. Obviously more and more towards identity realities, representing the beginnings of an increase in non-democratic countries. The global network therefore risks collapsing, harnessing the world in a state of permanent conflict.
In the light of this interpretative paradigm with misty hues, it is increasingly evident that it is not just a question of indices. The future of history is at stake. In particular, considering a likely increase in the risk of widespread wars on a regional and global scale, it is legitimate to question oneself on two gravid aspects accordingly. First of all on the type of future conflicts and their intensity level. Secondly, what will be the duration of this settling condition between Globalizers and Identitaries?
