Very interesting statements but as usual with PM Meloni, they are statements that raise more questions than answers, and here are a few;
- How does it make sense to state that on the one hand she absolutely supports International law while at the same time support the Venezuela attack and taking their leader hostage. Why can’t she simply articulate the difference in her mind between her stance on Greenland and the one on Venezuela? Shouldn’t take too long…
- If the suggestion – though not clearly/thoroughly articulated – is that the U.S. self-defense necessitates action due to issues related to drug trafficking; what about ICC rulings against the Israeli PM, baring in mind that this is not a matter of national interest (though perhaps could be categorized more as an ultra-nationalist interest) but a matter directly related to international law (Italy is after all is a “proud” signatory of the ICC since 1999 as far as I’m aware). In fact and in my opinion in this specific situation national sovereignty should take precedence where there maybe a threat of forceful foreign intervention to the country – this is unacceptable under. any pretext – no if’s or buts. So if she happens to agree with trump on Venezuela and disagree on Greenland someone’s clearly confused despite the theatrical performance cause it doesn’t help the argument in this situation. I do actually love watching this Italian original version of the clip with the cute hand gestures and such like; but then again I recognize that nonsense is a universal language that applies here too.
- When considering national interest ain’t international law and the consistency in applying it part of that national interest thing she’s overly excited to defend or does national interest require adapting stances on issues to suit the overall role at play; which may require “leaders” to constantly roll away? And how about protecting Italy’s sovereignty if other bad/powerful actors accuse it of being a threat to their national interest, would it then be a legitimate target or will you cry foul in reverting back to the narrative of International law as your protection? You see how it cuts both ways?
- Geopolitics and alliances does not translate to following blindly like sheep and if for her it means that she’s there to state agreements/disagreements with an ally on behalf of Italy without taking any action/stand because of the special relations at play, the question then becomes; does that mean that if trump attacks Greenland she’ll be more than happy to immediately call trump over the phone or online to forcefully reaffirm her disagreement? Well, that’s an idea…. But then the question takes yet another curve to something along the lines of; ok, but then who precisely is leading Italy? Compare that with the stance country’s like Spain, Belgium, Norway & Ireland took on the genocide in Palestine and its recognition as a state and not just indicating their displeasure by taking a photo with a red card and emailing it to biden or trump; did they need to storm McDonalds, cut off ties with the U.S or just take a firm stand on policy rather than rollover with a gentle slap on the hand? So the question is whether she’s there to make amends or just follow the “geopolitical” path carved for her by others in the hope that it would eventually/somehow serve Italy? And if she ever hears “gossip” about her political “philosophy” being a detriment to the new world order currently being redefined, she should take on the chin and not worry about it.
I end this post with a little challenge for PM Meloni; instead of her constant theatrical lectures in the media why not have a proper public debate with experts in International Law – maybe also including Jeffrey Sachs – to discuss her approach to foreign policy issues/regional conflicts of our time (mainly Ukraine, Palestine, Iran, Venezuela and Greenland + what follows until/if the event ever takes place) and whether or not her philosophy is actually consistent with International Law; as well as discussing the relationship between International Law and National Interest. How about that? That I would absolutely love to watch and if she learns of a similar proposition and choose to make it happen I’m sure many around the world would love to understand her approach to foreign policy formulation and the philosophy surrounding the 2 topics mentioned above (International Law and as it relates to National Interest) specifically in relation to conflicts mentioned above. No theatrics, no cute gestures, just a serious open debate for her fellow countrymen & women and for the world to be inspired by a rising political star of the EU.
In my humble opinion as a political layman and after all the criticism a laid above of the Italian PM I do believe that PM Meloni is actually extremely consistent in 1 key way; she only considers following international law & national interest where it does not collide with her ultra-nationalist/race oriented tendencies/ideology and her ideological clan (national or foreign); that’s just my view and if true she’d be following the same path as other leaders with a similar agenda. It may be considered oversimplification but I truly don’t think it’s overly complicated. It ain’t about balanced/pragmatic policies/postures but rather an ideological end goal that needs to be reached irrespective of anything else cause “that’s the bubble she’s raised in/understands well”.
Bottom line is that this is a time in human history and with a world growing ever more complex by the day people should cease to be too impressed with theatrics/soft clever talk and more keen on open, constant/consistent reality checks with leaders in critical well-informed/open-minded manner because false narratives, confusion about laws and the distortion of universal human values are driving the world into a gigantic metal wall.
That’s my theory anyway.
Democracy’s Major Upgrade (a proposition)