Speaking of Defense and deepening the themes of international politics and geopolitics implies the existence of a community. Indeed, different communities that confront and interact at all levels, both in the small and in a global perspective.
The interaction does not concern only the code of relations governed by International Law and Public Law, but falls within the laws of coexistence, summarized by normative apparatus and also recognized in the logic of common sense. In other words, the relationships between human beings are not regulated only with the laws of the States and with the conventions among nations, but they recall natural principles that are good for everyone. It is no coincidence that the Civil Code speaks of "diligence of the good father of a family" precisely to identify laudable behaviors that are not explained but that they are.
Paraphrasing the concept, when we talk about defense doctrines, analysis and strategies concerning countries and alliances, we continually refer to higher principles that justify them.
More simply, we can say that there is no defense idea without values to defend. Values in a broad sense, of course. Sort of containers to be filled differently depending on the times and places but which should imply absolute mutual respect between men and the community of men.
The issue is proposed with greater urgency in periods of great demographic dynamism in which economic crises, famines and mass displacements alter the social balance and make it more difficult to reach a status acceptable to all.
The issue is complicated above all if we talk about massive migrations, with the consequent juxtaposition of different cultures; the use of universal principles in these cases could be convenient. At least in theory.
An example above all: "If cohabitation wants to be harmonious, then mutual respect must be a dogma".
Much is talked about at this time, in light of current events that represent the problem of the integration of Romani peoples in Italy, particularly Roma and Sinti. The Italian organizational debacle in the absorption of Gypsy peoples from the East is not new. The problem exploded in a striking way at the end of the 90 years, with the conclusion of the four conflicts of the former Yugoslavia and with the return of Romania to the western sphere. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and entry into the EU, fifteen years later, are two significant steps in this direction.
The phenomenon, which has gone unnoticed in Italy between malice and negligence of all kinds, has been the seed of friction that has now become unsustainable. Rom and Sinti, notoriously unloved in their countries of origin (in addition to Latin-Romania, practically all the Slavic republics of the former Yugoslavia), have been an issue open for centuries. It is useless to pretend not to know.
Evidence and laziness have always been ignored, as long as particular ideological contexts have allowed the limelight.
Among the absolute principles necessary for a peaceful coexistence, in the last decade it does not seem to have been mentioned that integration is possible if based on the duties of everyone and not only on the rights of some. Without exception.
The aftermath of a vaguely egalitarian and profoundly anti-egalitarian culture of sixty-eight allowed to glide on this point, keeping the question suspended and giving good two axioms, without guaranteeing an adequate internal comparison:
- Italy must transform itself into a sort of Placement Office for the planet;
- there is no identity to protect.
If the first point is even given for granted, mixing humanitarian rights with global needs that are not better defined, the second highlights a weakness typical of Italian society. Not immune to heavy political responsibilities, in the Italian culture the principle of identity often remains undefined, making it very difficult a simple declination of principles valid for all and therefore irrenounceable.
The theme is thorny and complex but is summarized with two questions that would make others smile in other countries:
- Do we have something to defend?
- what should we defend it from?
On the Roma question, the debate appears polarized: on the one hand, anger; on the other, the refusal to identify the "other".
It may seem trivial, but the splitting is upstream. To alarm more is not in fact the friction between a community and the other but that between those who outlines a code of behavior valid for a society (in this case the Italian one) and the fifth column of the single globalist thought, radically opposite to each identity form, in particular the national one.
It is evident that on this point, the comparison dies at the start.
If in front of episodes of brazen and repeated illegality even the indignation marks the step, one wonders how great the rejection of the idea of belonging. And above all because.
Identity and belonging are not an ethnic principle. They are a container of values, expression of centuries.
Who does not belong, has nothing to lose and has nothing to defend. Attachment to one's own things is a human factor already known to newborns, free from patriotisms, chauvinisms and various nationalisms.
Until there is a serious examination of conscience on this issue, it is not easy to imagine good balances in the short term. Identity suicide will continue and a sterile confrontation will still weaken the fabric of an increasingly unrecognizable and increasingly doubtful society.
Probably it is what you want, waiting for other deaths, other indignation, other hatred, other excuses.
Giampiero Venturi
