Orazio Gnerre. Millenium Project

Millenium Project

inteview with Orazio Gnerre

Could you tell something more about Millennivm project and Nomos magazine? What are them and what are their purposes?

Millennivm is a political project that answer the need of defending the communitarian and traditional principles of the peoples opposed to the nihilistic tendencies of postmodernism. In this sense, it forms its members preparing them on the relevant themes of geopolitics, geostrategy and international relations (as well as in the historical analysis and in the philosophical deepening). The project, as international entity, consists currently of  members also on non-Italian territory. Millennivm proposes itself as a think tank, through meetings, conferences, internal and external training lessons, and the publication of its own material. The bulletin of studies and analysis Nomos falls into this perspective. The scientific works content in it – which largely range from international politics to theological study – fall into a view of formation on the one hand technical-strategic, on the other cultural and ideal.

What are the most significant geopolitical conceptual centers and ideas in present-day Italy? How strong is represented the idea of geopolitical integration of an area between the Atlantic Ocean and Vladivostok?

In this way I can answer for the Millennivm orientation: the best prospect that is hoped for the Italy is surely represented by the reconquest of the sovereignty respect the North Atlantic alignment. Secondly, it would be necessary to refound the European Union on new basis, whereas the communitarian structure of the Western Europe today more than ever does not correspond to the interests of the nations which compose it, and ends to represent the will of a few states or, worse, of international finance. Millennivm do so hopes that Europe will join successful in the transition to multipolarism, fulfilling its natural function of “great space”, alongside countries (like Russia and China) that not only are riding in the best way possible this process, but are also reconverting it into that “alterglobalism” necessary for the dismemberment of the mondialist phenomenon and for the re-establishment of the identity of the geopolitical formations primarily on the basis of cultural sovereignty. As for the idea of geopolitical integration of Europe from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, we have to say that although the Central Asian region is definitely not unlike the European one, geopolitically it corresponds to a specific identity. While a geopolitical perspective “from Scotland to Russia” certainly appears attractive, we expect more realistically an integration Europe-Eurasia on the basis of the cultural factor and of the economic partnership.

How do you see the geopolitical coherence of today's Italy? It's legitimacy is questioned by the “Padanian” separatists in the north on the one hand, and the by Bourbon-oriented legitimists in the south on the other hand...

Talking about geopolitical coherence for a country that has forgotten all the strategic agreements of understanding with Jamahiriya’s Libya seems excessive to me. Italy urges to be able to identify its own strategic paradigm, and possibly place it in the changing world. Our previous government stood out for its excellent close relations with Russia, with the former Soviet bloc countries like Belarus, with Turkey, with North Africa (before the illegitimate aggression of Libya by NATO ), with China… Now we have instead a technical government imposed on us by the Europeanist line, composed from person who worked for NATO, finance and multinationals. Our own prime minister Mario Monti has been called “the man of Goldman Sachs”. It is clear that these conditions do not grant the formulation of a coherent own geopolitical line. With regard to the Padanian independentism, it had its political representation in “Lega Nord”, a party that was in government with the previous executive. As its first instances were to be ascribed to secessionism, it now proposing a less improbable federalism. However from the resignation of former premier Silvio Berlusconi the popularity of “Lega Nord” is declining, and in these days were consumed a series of scandals (whose timing might seem “artificial”) that have seen the collapse of its credibility. As regards the phenomenon known as "neo-borbonic" (but you can say the same about "neo-Habsburg"... ), this is not inserted in the political scene at all, but results from a fair recovery of regional cultural identity and from a more honest confrontation with the flaws of the process of unification of the nation, founded on liberal, capitalist and anti-popular ideological basis (in this regards the opinion of Antonio Gramsci about the “Southern question” are illuminating). We have examined the subject in some of our seminars, analyzing the relationship between the Italian Reunification and geopolitics, emphasizing the Anglo-Saxon interference in the politics of Piedmont, and the influence it exerted on ideological groups that have played a key role in the unification process, contextualizing the event in the global scenario that the British Empire was shaping according to its business interests, since the Crimean War (see "The Two Sicilies and the Crimean War” by Angelo D'Ambra, Nomos III and Nomos IV). Altough each independentist proposal found to be inadequate to the reality of facts and is definitely outdated compared to the necessity of creation of large strategic poles functional to the transition to multipolarism, we can not but recognize that local sovereignties were the first to be swallowed by the centripetal force of the mondialist process, which saw in the British trade policy the precursor of the next U.S. unipolarism. The Napoleonic Jacobinism on the one hand, and every liberal ideological derivative the other have played a prominent role in this process, now on behalf of France, now on behalf of England – in each case on behalf of an illuminist and ideological worldview, based on the dogmas of the Rule of law, of the economics divorced from organic or state constraints, of the need to create a global supranational organism. Anyway any recovery of the local culture is desired, although it must always be framed in a correct view of international politics, in a total alterglobalist proposal and, last but not least, in a healthy clarity of analysis to compare it objectively with reality , a feature that in most cases in these circles is missing.

Are the Adriatic Sea basin and Western Balkan countries still valid for Italian geopolitics? 

With the expansion of European territories following the accession of Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary, in 2004, Italy was affected by the risk of marginalization, considering the European center of gravity has been moved by force of circumstances beyond the north of the Alps. The solution is in sight for Italy, to remain the protagonist of the communitarian scenario, is to promote the stabilization of the Balkan territory, through the creation of an "Adriatic corridor" that, through the integration favored by the economic partnership, allows it to assume the leading role in this process. Clearly the historical relations between Italy and the Western Balkans can only facilitate this process. Already in 2000 was launched on the Italian territory, in Ancona, the "Conference on Development and Security in the Adriatic and Ionian Seas", with Italy, Greece and Slovenia as EU member states, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Montenegro as non-EU countries at the time. Certainly the interaction between territories rather than between states is an important step in the construction of multipolarism. The integration that goes with it, in fact, must take into account the importance of the geopolitical factor even more than international relations.

How do you see the possible geopolitical organization of the Mediterranean? - I mean the form of relations between Europe and Muslim countries of the region. What is geopolitical meaning of the last conflicts in Libya and Syria? What should be the solution for conflict in Cyprus? 

The only possible organization of the Mediterranean was in effective construction due to the regional stabilizing force that was Jamahiriya’s Libya. Gaddafi had evolved a "Pan-Africanist" conception on the model of nasserist pan-Arabism who was heir, that not only would allow the creation of a North African pole coherently oriented to strategic partnership with its neighbors in southern Europe (first of all, Italy), but it would also assisted the construction of a unitary African organization, also thanks the help of South Africa. Now any kind of confrontation with the region is impossible: the country that stabilized the region is in the hands of armed gangs and illegal political entities. You can not open diplomatic relations with these factions. If it were not for those European countries that have cooperated to the annihilation of the legitimate government of Libya in exchange for participation in the division of spoils, Europe itself could assist the creation of a new political order for the country, in exchange of new privileged partnership relations and regional security in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, as I said, there is no unified European policy, and an option that would support the whole Community is sacrificed to the economic interests of a few states. As for the civil conflicts in Libya and Syria, the only key whit whom understand them turns out to be the phenomenon of global controlled insurgency also said "Arab Revolt". In Libya there was an evident succeeded phenomenon of destabilization, and it paid with a NATO attack the consequences of its waiver of developing a military nuclear program. The interest that some EU member states had on Libya, which were mainly energy resources, were definitely inferior to the North Atlantic need to contain China's policy on Africa, to sever diplomatic relations that existed with the BRICS countries and Italy and, last but not least, to delete permanently a not-aligned State from the board. This latter reason may also be coherently related to the Syrian case, but we must add there are more important factors that come into play: the fall of Syria is the first step towards the isolation of Iran, that remains the target on which all the attention of the United States are focused. As regards Cyprus, the problem is far from being solved: the hegemonic role that Turkey would like to assume in the process of integration of the territories belonging to the passed Ottoman Empire does not allow any concession. Clearly, however, the recovery of the Cyprus problem part of our direct interest, considering that Cyprus is in any case member of the European Union.

Should Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia still play an important role in Italian geopolitical thinking? What do you think about the concept of Eurafrica? 

All the European countries that border the Mediterranean can not fail to relate with African countries on the other side of what is, after all, a large lake. Italy has always had a special relationship with the countries of North Africa, from Roman times right up to the colonialism of the last passed century. It is clear that a colonial model would no longer have any reason to exist, as though it is equally clear that Italy itself can not ignore those countries with which, for better or for worse, has always had exceptionally close ties. It would be appropriate to develop a cooperation organism that represents the common interests of Europe and Africa, to arrive finally at the construction of the Eurafrican geo-economic area. As I said before, I repeat that today the conditions are far from favorable, but we must try to force them in that direction. In this supranational structure that preserves the common identity of the great spaces that comprise it, Italy should have a prominent role, according to historical and geographical position.

What is your opinion on the idea of Alliance of Europe – a kind of geopolitical confederation between European Union and Russia, which has been proposed by prof. Sergei Karaganov in July 2010, and is supported in Poland by president of Institute of Geopolitics, Mr. Leszek Sykulski? In what relation should it be to China? 

It is crucial to reiterate that Europe and Eurasia are distinct geopolitical poles. Them should push for the great multipolar global project, with the EurAsEC for one, with a still deficient European Union for the other. I do not consider appropriate to integrate Russia into European geopolitics, especially as it is effectively already building up his great regional space as well as drawing from the model of European Community. China also needs to go in this direction, strengthening its influence in geopolitical areas that compete it. But what we have to to guarantee is the evolution of a process of cultural rapprochement between Russia and Europe, which should lead toward a great historic and we also hope religious reconciliation (for which promised to be a promoter President Lukashenko during the visit of 27 April 2009 to the Holy Father Benedict XVI), to not forget our common cultural roots. Only Russia can indeed act as a mediator for the creation of a large eurasianist "ecumenism", in which the spiritual category of Latinity and the deep roots of the Eastern culture can meet again.

How should look like relations between Europe and Latin American countries? What do you think about ALBA? How do you see the role and the future of Quebeck? 

Europe should know how to propose itself as interlocutor of the BRICS. Relating to the economy on the rise is no longer an optional choice, but it becomes a requirement in the current global reality. The only choice that stands before it is to integrate with new business models, or perish with a system in decline. Brazil as a member of BRICS and all Latin America are central poles of this process of global change. Europe, far from learning something from the South American lesson, perishes now under the strokes of Finance and under the weight of public debt. Each international interaction that is inspired from the common principles ​​of social justice is an effective potential. In the case of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, we have the example of a concrete project for Latin-Caribbean common territorial development, successfully promoted by Venezuela and Cuba. The leading role that these two countries is assuming clearly represents the turning point to which the region is going to encounter, well as the undermining of the North Atlantic influence in the south of the World. As for Quebec, the phenomenon of autonomism is not payable by a simplistic delegitimization: the French cultural identity is a factor with which we must report, and that requires real solutions.

What role should play the religious factor, especially the Roman Catholic Church and roman catholic countries in formulating of geopolitical identity of Europe? 

We have already said that Europe has to re-edify itself on new foundations, and this should be done primarily on the cultural level. It is no longer acceptable (if at all it was) to adopt of sociocultural models historically alien for us which can be summarized in the dogma of the World as a big supermarket. The culture must have in this sense the role of building a shared identity. As for the Eurasian region for the ethnic components the unity has always rotated around the “oikoumene” of Orthodoxy, so the peoples of Europe have been able to build a civilization on the basis of Catholicism. The true Catholic Europe, borrowing the Latin imperial model, has been able to preserve and enhance all the different historical, cultural and ethnic identities into a single political project, the Holy Roman Empire. The great European divide is following the removal of the rulers from the Rome principle, and the consequential abandonment of ethical orientation it imparted in the social and political sphere. The largest repression of protesting peasants took place at the hands of the German princes, legitimized by Luther. Other hand, the Church had been able to build an organic system of "social security" still today without historical comparison. In this sense we must never forget to emphasize that Western capitalism is son of the Anglo-Saxon liberalism, and not of the European civilization. No coincidence that the most important theorists of the European communitarianism of the XX century have taken a lot from the Catholic doctrine or from its social products. Two examples may be the neo-Thomist communitarianism by MacIntyre (in philosophy) and the feudal socialism by Otto Strasser (in economics).

How do you see the idea of geopolitical axis Berlin-Warsaw-Moscow as the foundation of Greater Europe? How do you see the possibility of establishing of the Kaliningrad Security Sphere (KSB) with Germany, Poland and Russia as the pillars of regional stability in northern part of Central Europe? Do you see a possibility of coordinating of activity of KSB countries with Italy and Turkey in the form of Pentarchy, to guarantee a regional stablility in the sphere between the Adriatic Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Black Sea?

In the Second World War both Germany and Russia have claimed their right to carve up Poland, against the territorial dictates established by the Treaty of Versailles. The era of bipolarity has seen Poland became a Soviet republic, siding with the Eastern bloc. Today it is necessary that Poland, established their own cultural identity, still heir of a centuries-old traditions and of a millenarian Faith, wisely be able to dialogue both with the countries of the Western Europe than with Eastern Europe. On the one hand, the Polish opinion, preserved for a long time from the Western influence by belonging to the Soviet Union, now opposes the Europeanist secularization, which manifests itself through the negation of the traditional and religious principles, the imposition of financial subservience, the cultural liberalizations; on the other, mindful of gone historical events, turns his back to the East, identifying it with despotism and foreign occupation, and sustains its own European identity. Both are opinions that – apparently discordant – in essence demonstrate the existence of a positive tendency, for which in Poland is alive a deep cultural identity, which over the years of the past century has taken root. The problem is that these views may derive from two myopic positions: a radical anti-Europeanism for the first, an unjustified Russophobia for the second. The more coherent example to follow is, in this case, in Viktor Orban's Hungary, who, in open struggle against the bureaucracy of Brussels, however understands how is necessary the European communitarian structure for relating with eastern neighbors already successfully launched to multipolarism, so to propose itself as an excellent partner of both Russia and China. The former eastern bloc membership has not meant that Hungary has forgotten their roots purely European, or that it has not remembered the political and cultural relations which existed with the other countries to the east of the Iron Curtain. That is the Hungarian winning model: not a Eurosceptic secessionism, but a concrete brick for the construction of a new Europe. If Poland, as Eastern European country, emulates this political option, it would be another step forward both for European integration than for Euro-Russian relations. In this sense, any policy conglomerate aimed to stabilizing the economic and strategic relations close on the continent can only be looked favorably. Italy, moreover, followed this path through the thick economic relations that had twisted, among others, with Russia and Turkey, and it's evident that, as physical extreme of the continent and direct outlet to the Mediterranean, its role in dealing with these countries is inescapable as necessary to any policy of macro-continental breath.