The decline of national states and the new world governance

The weakening of the bonds that contributed to the establishment of national states has now become a commonplace of today's political debate. The crisis of the state-idea, which is alarming for some, has instead been welcomed by others as a new opportunity. You mentioned the possibility of creating a world governance, lingering on the fact that Globus et Locus comes into being from praxis or in other words plans practical projects. In developing its "Staff College" project that adjoins the United Nations, has Globus et Locus produced an analysis of the national state and of its crisis?

Our projects are not based on any analysis or ideology, if you'd like me to use this term. What we have done is starting to think and implement the projects, drawing some interesting reflections from them.

I am convinced that the experience of national states can still offer a lot before it is definitely superseded by the "glocal" asset, if it ever happens. We are living in a transition era. Nobody is however able to accurately predict how much of these states will characterize the society of the future. National states, which have predominated from the Peace of Westphalia onwards, risk surrendering to the organizational models that best adapt to this reality in evolution.

Speaking of the bonds that united national states, Michael Foucault, lingers on war, which he considers a powerful unifying force that was able to pour even its internal contradictions on borders and opponent states. The bonds between the institutions that detained the power, territoriality and war praxis are, as a matter of fact, very close. According to Foucault, the growth and development of the states from the Middle Ages down to the beginning of the modern era, have undergone a specific and strikingly visible evolution along with war practices and institutions. An evolution characterized by the fact that war practices and institutions were initially concentrated in the hands of the central power to the point that the powers of states were gradually, de facto and by right, able to start wars and control their instruments. This led to a statalization of war. Yet, this very fact eliminated what we could call the daily war, rightly enough referred to as "private war", from the social body, viewed as the relation between single individuals and between groups. As a result of these wars, war practices and institutions always ended by owing their existence to borders, that is to the extreme limits of large state units, thus becoming an expression of actual violence or threat between states. Foucault also adds that this could be regarded as a progressive transfer of the relations of power to the government, thus emphasizing that wars increasingly tended to be processed, rationalized and centralized in the form or on bail of state institutions (Bisogna difen-dere la societ..., Milan, 1998). Foucault basically claims that the equivalence power/war, in a specific historical and political context, was under the control of that powerful centralizing organism represented by the state-nation.

Today, however, things seem to evolve differently. International courts bring to trial heads of states like Milos‚vic. At a world level, we are witnessing the creation of a super-national "police" able to guarantee peace. Even as far as Osama Bin Laden goes, who is today the world's number one "wanted", many hope his trial will take place in an international court. After all, he is apparently the inspirer of the "most global" crime of all times.

It is obvious that the state-nation has lost its sovereignty in its most elementary function, that is the power to declare war on another state. Besides, even economic and administrative trends, federalism and regionalism adapt better to a world that is increasingly centered around the state. The concept of politics monopolized by national states and by their interests, often in contrast with the functional powers, with feet deeply planted in a specific territory and arms ready to reach out to the whole world, is becoming less topical.

Summarizing, some of the "strongest" aspects of the concept of State - territoriality, sovereignty and war - are loosing weight as a result of the redistribution of power at a world level and their submission to super-national commercial organizations or large aggregations of states like the European Union. Quoting Chiara Giaccardi and Mauro Magatti, I would like to add that "it is wrong to see globalization as a process with one dimension only. The weakening of national borders doesn't affect only economy, but also cultural reproduction, which explains the issue of political sovereignty. As a matter of fact, the restructuring of the economic and cultural ambits is increasingly disengaging them from single national states and increasing their independence and, consequently, deploying those government levels that increasingly tend not to focus exclusively on the state and national level" (La globalizzazione non Š un destino, Roma-Bari, 2001). Globalization is therefore a complex process but somehow also a "universal" one, because it affects the most important ambits of human interactions. I don't mean to say that the state is "dead" or that its bonds will be released in a near future, but I do think it needs to be reviewed.

As I have already mentioned, I think the bricks of the new world governance need to be found within the ambit of the UN, which, until very recently, was a mosaic of national representatives who defended the interests of their state-nations but has gradually given space to civilized society, for instance by establishing new relations with non-government organizations. The route is the right one. Even an initiative, like that related to the creation of a Staff College for the UN cadres in Turin, which will focus on the new approach to war through peacekeeping and peacemaking and somehow shares the same philosophy at the core of the creation of an International Criminal Court (TPI), shows that the "desire" to govern through the United Nations is becoming more popular in the world of international politics.

Your analysis on the weakness of states is ruthless, though you are obviously not the only one to share this opinion. There is also somebody claiming, and there are many of them, that the decline of the national state was inevitable due to the "systemic" nature of this crisis and its incapability to respond to the increasing number of demands of territorial or functional subsystems, the so-called autonomies. An incapability that derives from the fact that its logic is no longer aligned with the present-day one. Others believe that the strong impulse to an anti-state and pro-economy politics was given by governments like Thatcher's in the United Kingdom and Reagan's in the US. In other words, they claim that the state that was already suffering poor health lost even more of its power after the massive propagandistic attack aimed at "liberalizing" or deregulating commerce, finance, etc. Is it really necessary, at this point, to review the role of state? Don't you think that the proposal of initiatives opposed to century-old consolidated issues, which are somehow part of our DNA, could lead to strong resistance? In L'Italia si Š rotta?, which was published in 1996, you never once questioned national unit, despite your repeated criticism on the weakness of the bonds that hold the Italian state together.

The review of the role of the state can definitely wait no longer. What I said before on the actual powers of the global worlds, which are above states and indifferent to national borders, shows how inadequate the national states are at moving in a global context. I have never claimed, and I am not today, that the Italian state should dispute its unity. Lombardy will never form a territorial unit neither with Switzerland nor with Austria and neither with Bavaria, just as Piedmont will never become part of France. The issue lies elsewhere. The functions of the state-nation are no longer those of the past. Until not so long ago, the state managed everything. Economy, education and information were nationalized and centralized. Today, it is quite different. Italian unity will resist the "glocal" one that privileges a "light" and less invasive state in a completely new and diverse ambit. No "break-up" of Italy, but new opportunities for its regions, provinces and municipal authorities. Besides, we Italians, are a sensational example of real cultural unity that pre-existed a national state.

As to resistance, I am sure, we will face one, and a strong one at that. Those who work in state bodies and for the state will not be so willing to loose their power. It is only obvious that bureaucracy will oppose. There will also be great cultural resistance. It is obvious that all the post-Westphalia culture, and in particular political and social culture but also juridical culture and even literary culture, tends to associate territory with people, people with a power system and power systems with borders. The national state has convinced us that all these concepts were "natural" and eternal. Nothing could be more false". Italy, for instance, has a significant communal and moreover a Renaissance tradition. During these ages cities and principalities, which were limited both in terms of territory and of power of their armies, managed to establish one of the most profitable interconnections both to their advantage and to the advantage of the whole of Italy. Isn't this similar to our age? A Mexican President, like Vicente Fox, chose to visit Milan and Lombardy, thus purposely avoiding Rome and the Italian state; the Swiss Parliament behaved much the same way despite strong pressures. Facts that clearly show - in our cases, the two official visits, that our age has close connections with Renaissance. Besides, after years in which global capitals have been depicted as enemies and predators of human and cultural resources, today nobody would think of protesting against the Chinese capital invested in northern Italy. This is the result of the survey we carried out for our Polis logistic project that shows that an approach of this kind favors economic exchanges and, in the specific case of the area of Tortona, contributes to transform the neighboring area into an internationally relevant logistic node.

Obviously, we will continue to feel a "nostalgic" yearning for the national state for quite a long time, because this concept, as any other consolidated tradition, will be difficult to eradicate. Besides, almost everything that surrounds us clearly exhibits a national emblem, starting from the flags that flutter in the breeze down to all kind of pennants, which remind us, day by day, where we live and who we are. Then, there is our history, our battles and our martyrs. These belong to us and to nobody else. However, those who actively promote actions aimed at creating a new and different world, a globalized one, cannot sentimentalize or express timeless regrets. The state-nation, as it is, cannot possibly work in an interconnected world reality that derives its resources and dynamism from mobility. If the Americans themselves are starting to realize all this, despite their known and hyper-flaunted pride for their stars and stripes world, you can imagine what it means for us!

Recent economic and political developments have enabled some emerging regions to assert themselves at a global level. These "state-regions", which are often part of national states, have reviewed their approach to economy by investing their capital globally and waiving to defend their national spaces from the "global invasion". Don't you think that this is a double-edged blade, considering that these decisions on individual territories are sometimes taken thousands of kilometers away to the detriment of some segments of the population? You've been talking of world rules. It is undoubtedly a great idea. Yet, when thousands of people are left at home after being laid off or as a result of a corporate "reorganization" and nobody, at a political or social level, is accountable for it...

Wait a minute. I'm reminding you once more that Globus et Locus is not the daughter nor the mother of any ideology and doesn't want to defend one lifestyle model to the disadvantage of another. It does not protect work nor the decisions of the Minister of Labour nor the strategies of multinationals. It analyses the reasons that lead to the establishment of some economic realities, like multinationals instead of state bodies in a world dominated by mobility. Globus et Locus is not the busker of globalization. Our proposals, both those defined in our projects and those promoted by the intellectuals close to the associations go in a direction that is quite opposed to what you think. We stimulate reflections and debates in view of a regulation of wild globalization, regardless of whether this debate concerns the now secondary role of the state in modern society or other topics like the mobility of objects and people or even the aggregation of a people like Italics on completely new bases. I am aware I might sound boring, but I'd like to stress once more that Globus et Locus has implemented its projects only after realizing that some practical problems required prompt reflection and an equally prompt series of political proposals. As far as the "networked" global interconnection is concerned, I would like to quote my friend Magatti once more. "The network is only an effective model to co-ordinate action, but it is not able to offer sensible solutions. It offers a criterion for action, but says nothing regarding where we are going to. The network has no long-term aim or target, has nothing to do with collectivity. It only possesses the capacity of responding and of offering individuals the opportunity for action, with a strong imbalance to the advantage of contingency. Capacity of responding and adapting is exactly what constitutes the reference criterion. Yet, this ends in the establishment of a world that pays the growth of the individual action potential by waiving to understand what it is doing and where it is going. This leads to a demurred form of rationality that waives to the ambition of providing responses to the demands of social life". Yet, only a networked society can understand the problems of distant areas, provide information on them and even try to solve them. As far as we are concerned, the alleged "dissolution of society" that would be in progress, may find reason to assert that individualization is not such a univocal process as it initially appears, contrary to what many superficially claim.

Sure. This is Anthony Giddens's thesis.

The awareness of this issue has enabled Globus et Locus to promote an initiative like "Italici", aimed at recovering aggregating values that, in our view, should recreate a new and solid social tissue in all the world, even among people that don't speak the same language and have different nationalities. You are asking if our model of society is in danger in a transition phase like the one we are experiencing? Globus et Locus reflects and acts in order to facilitate the development of a new society that is more suited to accommodate the new conditions.

If the bond between Italians has been established - in some cases - and still is through dialects or pseudo-languages of dialectal origin like the so-called "taliano" spoken in Brazil, why not use them? Isn't pidgin English spoken today in many parts of the world more similar to a dialect than to Shakespeare's English?

I'm sorry, but I get the impression, from this conversation, that you, as a typical intellectual, tend to ideologize the proposal of Globus et Local. It is quite the opposite. The association has no ideological character. I would define it a fact. What Globus et Locus is proposing comes from the simplicity of the facts it analyzes, it "digests" and translates into projects, if particularly relevant. I would like to ask you a question to see whether you have understood what I am saying. What are we talking about now?

About the crisis of the state-nation.

You are asking me some questions on the crisis of the state in which we have been born and as it has developed over the last four-five centuries. What I am trying to do is to explain to you what Globus et Locus is planning to do in relation with "Staff College" or "Italici". Among other things, these two projects aim at creating a super-national organization like the United Nations and a culture, like the Italic one that can support a thought suitable to adapt to the problems of an age that will increasingly reduce its involvement with the states-nations as we know them and be more and more involved with global governance needs.

Then, I'd like to ask you a practical question. You have said that role of northern Italy is crucial for Globus et Locus' projects. So, what would you recommend to this state-region, if I can call it so, in view of this further "reduction of weight" of the national state? In other words, how should this territory move, in political and economic terms, now that it is no longer dependent on the decisions of Rome? It is so, isn't it?

Roic_, you are provoking me. You are provoking the nature and thought of Globus et Locus. The association, or rather its President Piero Bassetti, are not politicians in the true sense of the term, but they prepare the ground, they plough a humus that I would call pre-politic, in view of enlightened decisions suited to a world in transition. A change that is undeniably occurring on our doorstep.

First of all, we should call things by their proper name. The regions of northern Italy are regions and I don't think they would like to become states or group in a single northern Italian state. Besides, providing economic recommendations to inhabitants of Lombardy, of Veneto or Piedmont would be absurd. They know how to move and very profitably, be sure of that.

The regions or those bodies that you call states-regions, are certainly more suited than national states to campaign for innovative economic policies. Today, there is no fear for foreign capitals. Multinationals, which represent the vectors of said capitals, are welcomed with extraordinary warmth. The regions that do not get in the way of the functional autonomies expressed by their territories, the universities, Chambers of Commerce, etc. receive from these entities the know how that enables them to enhance their knowledge and strengthen economic exchange. The returns in territorial terms are inestimable. In line with Globus et Locus' focus on facts, I would like to stress that the diversity of its members will enable regions to interact, even within the ambit of pre-political associations like ours, with their functional autonomies in order to promote solutions for the new problems they have to face.

Is Globus et Locus an heterogeneous association? I had thought of it in terms of an hybrid association. In Greek, hybris also stands for a sin of pride. Basically, those who implement hybrid plans commit the sin of pride and, if we give account to the Greek, end up failing.

Roic", you pure intellectuals are really far-fetching. You open a drawer and out pops a quotation, a stern warning... You see, if someone said to me, like you are doing, that Globus et Locus is an example of hybris, of a sin of pride, well, I would say it is, as I am actually stating. Globus et Locus, at it is conceived today, is an association and a community of institutions that seem to have very little in common with one other in terms of levels, interests and power. The structure of our organization is, by all terms, hybrid. In my position as President, I am aware of it just as I am of the fact that the Board of Directors intends managing it as it is.

Today's politics, the same that maintain and promote a community of citizens and their laws, originate from the combination of the interests of citizens, of economic bodies and of their functional representatives within a specific territory. This is reality. We must accept globalization for what it is. It must be regarded as good or evil but rather a trend to development, a world trend, as stated by the Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan. You are wondering if anyone opposes all this and would prefer to go back? Of course, and quite a lot too. It is sufficient to think of what has happened during all the global summits of the after-Seattle or of the terrible consequences of the anti-modern "global" attacks on New York and Washington.

However, I can say one thing and with reason. It is extremely counterproductive to ignore implicit rules in the presence of a globalized world. Sitting down at a table, theoretically defining rules and applying them to the whole world would be illusory, because these rules are the expression of a trend of economy and society, which being universal originates directly by increasing mobility. Therefore they are not reversible, but can only be adjusted.

I would like to reply to the bitter opponents by quoting Parsi's thesis. "Similarly to what occurred, in practical terms, with the industrial revolution, even for globalization the empty and rhetorical use of Luddite claims will not help to stop its progress. Besides, trying to oppose something is the worst possible strategy. It would be more sensible to try and guide globalization in order to force the economic dimension to come to terms also with other variables, and sustain more balanced and solid development" (Interesse nazionale e globalizzazione, Milan, 1998). We should not forget that "globalization is not only a monolithic phenomenon, but rather a series of overlapped processes that cannot be regarded as inexorable or irreversible. As a consequence, they should be categorized in analytical terms to avoid confusion or simplistic necessitarisms. The impact of these processes and the intensity of their effects dramatically varies according to their context. Therefore, in simplistic terms, globalization is an uncertain process that affects some people more than others and that produces winners and loosers" (Interesse nazionale e globalizzazione, Milan, 1998).

Italics, a new people in a new world

I'm starting to have a clearer idea of the themes and projects pursued by Globus et Locus and in particular of the "Staff College" project of Turin and of the related issues connected with world governance. Now, I would like you to explain to me the reasons and the origins of your second large "global" project, named "Italici". In Occidente scomodo, which dates back to 1978, you had already asserted the need of a more "regionalist" and decentralized approach to international reality (that should be termed as global today). Not to speak of your subsequent texts, in which you claim the rights of regions, provinces and even municipalities and their populations. Today, you are proposing a project that aims at aggregating the "Italic" people. Leaving aside the name, which is undoubtedly a first-rate choice, this project brings back to mind literary reminiscences and appears, to uninitiated, as a simple means of promoting Italy abroad. If all reforms and if each practical project necessarily originates from a cultural horizon, then what horizon and parties would ensure the success of an initiative like "Italici"?

The second global project of our association is specifically related to that of Turin. Which people will prevail in a global society? People linked to national traditions or the new people that are the result of meta-national aggregations? And again, what kind of relations will be established among the members of this new type of people? These are exactly the questions to which project "Italici" will answer, starting from the basis of the historical experience of people with an Italic culture and tradition. The project aims at promoting a trans-national aggregation among the almost two hundred million Italics - which includes Italians, native Italians, Italian speakers, Italianists and Italophiles - scattered throughout the world (the estimate is obviously approximate, but the magnitude is quite accurate).

You asked me about the origins of project "Italici". Even this project is a result of direct on-site experience and praxis.

In favor of a regional culture

You believe that this world characterized by large political and cultural aggregations will favor the assertion of local and regional culture, once the state limitations have been set aside. Henri Beyle, alias Stendhal, fell in love with an ideal "Italy" that he could not forget. Do you think someone could fall in love with something that is typical of Piedmont or Sicily?

Why not? Globus et Locus promotes, as I mentioned before, political and cultural aggregation that is not based on hierarchies. Our "center" has the same importance as peripheries. Actually, it is a combination of peripheral peculiarities. As far as the "Italic" nature is concerned, this is nothing but a synthesis, an ideal of belonging to more specific realities like Lombardy or Tuscany, which date back to a past that precedes the constitution of the Italian state. For centuries, a united Italy has been nothing but an idea, with its pros and cons. At an everyday level, what developed greatly were the regional and even municipal peculiarities. In Brazil, it is quite common to find natives from Veneto or Piedmont who don't speak Italian but communicate in their respective dialects, the so-called "taliano", that is a new language all together. Is Renaissance culture a typical Tuscan culture or can be it regarded as applicable to the whole of Italy? Has the Vatican contributed more effectively to create the uniqueness of a city like Rome or should it be regarded as an experience of faith and thought that involves the whole territory? It is not easy to answer these questions. If we reasoned in terms of the interconnection between the large, the Italics, and the small, that is the regional or municipal cultures, we would stand a good chance of being able to crystallize the fact. I underline once more that our starting point is a fact: the 200 million of Italics scattered throughout the world with their regional values and traditions. The new political and cultural dimensions will certainly not be related to national states, but rather to the concept of a territory to define or extend. The Italics don't intend repeating the experiences of the English colonial power nor those that led to the aggressiveness of Napoleon's armies and certainly don't wish to share any of the folly of Hitler's dreams. The Italics, if anything, will try to draw inspiration from that very close and global bond that has managed to maintain the unity of a diaspora like the Jewish one (though Israel's experience goes in a totally opposite direction). Today, many feign surprise when the Roms claim they want to be recognized as a state and yet have nothing to do with a specific territory. Obviously, if we analyze the examples above from the standpoint of a state that regards the wealth and prestige of its people as a direct consequence of its territory, which should possibly be as vast as possible, from these weapons, that should be desirably lethal, we realize that states that adopt this view are "losers". The peoples without a land of their own still appear today at the mercy of more organized and powerful opponents. Yet, they embody modernity more than anyone else, given that modernity increasingly stresses mobility and communication to the detriment of territory.

In many of your speeches, you claim that dialects are an issue indissolublely linked with regional culture. You must acknowledge, though, that dialects are rapidly loosing ground in Italy, despite the importance they may hold for the diaspora.

There is no doubt about this. The reticular partition of regional potentials is, however, a recent phenomenon. Besides, in a centralized state like the Italian one, which has privileged for over a century a mutual language and culture, the space reserved to dialects is necessarily limited. Migrations and urbanization have contributed to this phenomenon that appeared inevitable just a few years ago. The intelligentsia, and not only the Italian one, has deliberately regarded dialects as obsolete, claiming that these were to be regarded as familiar expressions unable to express the whole range of emotions. This is in part true. However, it is also true that no dialect ever dreamed of replacing Italian, viewed as the "high" expression of thought. No Croce would ever have dreamt of writing a book like Estetica in a dialect.

We should not forget that "dialects" are not an exclusively linguistic phenomenon because their effects extend also to the literary, figurative and iconographic spheres. Italian culture cannot be limited to the cultural wealth of the country. Regional cultural expressions may be limited in territorial terms, but have sometimes had a greater depth in specific periods. The culture of Veneto or the Tuscan culture are undoubtedly complete cultures that are by no way inferior to those of any state. Their depth is, to some extent, even greater than that of the Italian culture.

The unifying leveling that the Italian population has suffered by effect of cultural standardization has a political reason. It was a matter of facilitating the "digestion" of a single law applicable to the all territory, of a national television in Italian, of playing on the curiosity of everyone, etc. In this process, regional or "dialectal" peculiarities acquired a secondary role. Today, these peculiarities are about to emerge even at a state level. In a very near future, the national television will loose its privileged and dominating position to the advantage of sectarian televisions and local ones that today have the opportunity, thanks to the reticular partition of information, of associating to distant realities that share their same interests. It is obvious that a local television channel of Lombardy will be of little interest to the natives of Sicily, but it may be appreciated and followed by the natives of Lombardy who have emigrated to Brazil.

In the last few years, we have witnessed, especially among the young, the development of jargon, which is a hybrid mixture in between English and the language of the country of residence. Don't you think that Italian and its dialects risk extinction or at least loosing ground to the advantage of this global linguistic mixture? And if this happened, don't you think we loose the availability of a vector that is essential in terms of the aggregation of peoples like the Italics?

I would like to answer this question with another question. A population can share the same concept of life, dress the same way, listen to the same music, praise the same God, but speak different languages. Just as it is possible to have a population that doesn't share the same concept of life, the same tastes and the same God but speaks the same language. Which is the most united population? Which is less dependant on the influence of the external world? I think my question also suggests the answer. I would like to add that language is important, especially for a community like the Italic one that doesn't identify with a single language but rather with a set of values, like the sense of family, which, according to recent studies, is much deeper in the Italic communities than in others.

Do you think I am underestimating the issue of language? I don't think so. I may agree that in some cases it has been excessively emphasized in some countries, like France, which are based on cultural politics that have not hesitated to impose the use of a common language in order to favor the center to the disadvantage of peripheries. In our case, the situation is different. We have a quantitative relation between our purely national literature and the combination of literatures based on dialects, which is quite different from countries like France. This is why I thought that our intelligentsia would have been better not considering the defense of Italian as opposed to the defense of dialects. I think it would have been better to cultivate different projects. For example, a project that aimed, in a more or less near future, at including the richness of the components of all the Italian regions into Italian, would definitely highlight this characteristic of our linguistic experience. In this case, Italian would not only be the single national language but also a vectorial kind of language, that is the maximum or minimum common denominator of regional realities. This is what the National Broadcasting Corporation attempted to do by imposing a languages filled with Roman expressions, which was very effective in terms of sealing the national unity.

Ferdinand de Saussure states that if we examine the ambit of a language, we will discover that there is always an individual and a social language. Forms and grammar exist only at a social level, but changes pass from the individual to the social level. In other words, if we consider a specific language as one of the possible forms we are imposing to the world, then we must accept that this form is modelled spontaneously, being the result of the unconscious contribution of every individual who speaks it. And, above all, we must accept that these languages change spontaneously and cannot be controlled.

You're absolutely right. A language follows the course of the historical, social and cultural events because it is the expression of the world that surrounds us. In some circumstances, it may even become a very important factor of unity. Yet, other values, like those listed, are however more "resistant" in time and therefore more representative of a people like the Italics.

According to Piero Bassetti, Globus et Locus should be able to reply to the question posed by the new fracture of modernity. What you call official culture based on models of thought widely dominated by national culture. Is your organization planning to revert this trend?

The drama of our age is that we are forced to interpret the present by using the categories of the past. We should never waive to universal values or to rights that have been acquired after long civil wars in the attempt of simply acquiring tools that can enable us to effectively interpret what happens around us at a political, economic and social level. Yet, a world where the paradigm is mobility cannot possibly share the same needs or values of a world rooted to the idea of national identity. This means that campaigning against a generic concept of globalization could lead to the risk of cancelling the best values of mankind. Even nostalgically yearning for the "conquests" attained within the ambit of national states and then lost does not allow to follow that very route that has been followed for centuries: the route of knowledge that helps us to understand the reality in which we are living.

In this sense, it is interesting to reflect on an issue that concerns English, which has been recognized as a universal language of communication at a global level. Back in the '70s, when I was President of the Regional Administration of Lombardy, I had proposed capillary teaching of this language in schools at a regional level. At the time, the project was never implemented due to the strong bureaucratic, political and diplomatic resistances presented by the French government through our Foreign Ministry. Today, the situation seems to have soothed down and English is regarded for what it is, a world means of communication and not a cultural Moloch that could crush anything that is not exactly Anglo-Saxon (besides, there is another language, Spanish, that is wide-spread throughout the world). At thirty years from Piero Bassetti's proposal, the canton of Zurich, the advanced canton of Switzerland, which is one of the most sensitive countries to the "glocal" approach, announced that English would be taught in elementary schools even if it were a matter of sacrificing the Swiss requirement of knowing at least other two languages of the Confederation.

Going back to Switzerland. I wonder what advantage the inhabitants of Canton Ticino would draw from culturally acknowledging Italic values. Being Italic, at least the way I view it, could mean having a friend, though perhaps at the far end of the valley. From this point of view, Italic would be of no use at all in everyday matters.

Who says that this friend cannot help you? By becoming Italic, the Italian-speaking Swiss will have a cultural card to play that is far more effective that those the current French and German majorities of their country can count on. This without having to give up the right of being, above all, Swiss citizens to all effects. The fact that Italics may communicate, among themselves, in English or Spanish with those who don't speak Italian, shows that such a complex aggregation like the Italic one does not limit its approach to a linguistic unity, but is something deeper when it expresses cultural and century-old values that can be easily expressed in any language.

To clear all possible incomprehension, I assure you that Globus et Locus does not claim that all the cultural requirements needed to make a project like "Italici" take off are available. At present, these requirements do not exist. Even Mazzini needed Manzoni to square the Italian "cultural figures". I don't think it is possible to determine how many "Manzoni's", possibly expert in IT, the Italics would actually need.

The Italics might be, please note the conditional, the protagonists of the new century, that seems to lay emphasis on larger groups and identities that are increasingly detached from their territories but increasingly linked with contiguous and interconnected cultures. A network of people, living in several parts of the world who share the same taste, the same values and the same interests could really have the opportunity of asserting themselves in an age like ours. Will they succeed? Or will they fail? Whatever happens, the aggregation will not be centered around a flag or a hymn, there will no Italic President of the Republic and there will be no President to set foot in an Italic Government. Instead, the Italics, once the aggregation has been completed - and this is the most interesting aspect of the project - will attempt to assert their presence within the ambit of the UN and culturally contribute to the UN itself with Italic values. Values that are, I stress this point once more, plural, peace, cultural, aesthetic and humanistic values made available to mankind of the future. Let's not forget that another initiative, "Umanesimo latino", which has been promoted by one of Globus et Locus's members, Cassamarca of Treviso, has successfully caught on in Switzerland. But the initiative has a global relevance because it aims at stimulating, from a different standpoint as compared to politics, debates and ideas, which ultimately focus on values that are comparable, to a certain extent, with Italic values. This is why we have been and still are very interested in the results.

Fragment from the book published by Giampiero Casagrande Publisher

Copyright c 2002