In presenting the budget manoeuvre, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni significantly stated: “We are ready to do what is right for the nation and not for us. We take responsibility for making choices even if it costs us in electoral terms”. Between the lines, then, President Meloni says that her government will continue to be driven by that ‘autopilot’ invoked by Mario Draghi. Which still means neoliberal austerity. Despite the fact that Italy would need policies of the opposite sign to recover. But the Meloni government as some observers had speculated seems to want to be the political version of Mario Draghi’s ‘technical’ government.
The imprint of the Meloni government, despite its pre-electoral proclamations, is in every way identical to that of previous governments that for over thirty years, from the right, from the left or from the seat of the experts, have conducted a progressive dismantling of the welfare state and an attack on workers, their rights and their wages, which is turning poverty, precariousness and unemployment into structural elements of the lives of most Italian citizens.
Labour sociologist Domenico De Masi interviewed by the newspaper ‘La Notizia’ states that “This government is displeasing both workers and employers. Because it would like to be on the side of the employers but they ask for money only the money is not there so Meloni can only make promises. She does not have much to give and what little she had to give she has already given. On the other hand, the poor are in turmoil because they are losing the Citizenship Income. What was predicted is happening in practice. That is, that the policy that Meloni promised in the election campaign she cannot do because there are no resources”. So no increase in wages or reduction in working hours. “All this is called neo-liberal policy”, De Masi concludes.
The neoliberalism of the Meloni government and its substantial continuity with the Draghi government is also highlighted by the former mayor of Naples Luigi de Magistris in an editorial in Left magazine: “The citizenship income is cancelled, with stadium cheering from the government peons. A measure that can certainly be perfected, having also experienced its limits in recent years, but certainly its cancellation is an odious act towards the most fragile and causes a rise in social tension. It is also a political mistake to throw economic and social incendiary fuses on a powder keg of dramas and hardships, especially in the South. There is no serious and adequate taxation of the extra profits of the large multinationals that have profited from the economic-financial speculation of the drugged gas and energy markets. A government that no longer has anything of the social right of yesteryear would perhaps not only have given a signal against the richest in favour of the popular classes, but would at least have hypothesised the nationalisation of these common goods. Instead, in case anyone still harbours doubts, this is a neo-liberal government in perfect continuity in economic-financial terms with the Draghi government. The apotheosis of the strong powers in command”.
In his editorial, the former mayor of Naples also points the finger at the foreign policy of the Meloni government, which announces itself as even more Atlanticist than its predecessors: “President Meloni, therefore, on the one hand is with her head bowed towards the Atlantic pact and NATO, confirming, should anyone have any doubts, their subalternity, which seems to me to be the opposite of autonomy and sovereignty. It is one thing to be friends and allies, quite another to be subaltern. Then she reassured Europe and its lobbies that she is not a rebellious right-winger, but a good political schoolgirl who has accepted and shared the neo-liberal dogmas of predatory capitalism”.
An Atlanticist and warmongering line confirmed in Parliament where the centre-right majority approved a united motion committing the government, among other things, “to support the regulatory initiatives necessary to extend until 31 December 2023 the authorisation, subject to an act of address by the Chambers, for the transfer of military means, materials and equipment to the government authorities of Ukraine under the terms and in the manner established by Article 2-bis of Decree-Law 25 February 2022, No. 14′ and «to take all necessary initiatives to achieve the objective of defence spending equal to 2 per cent of gross domestic product by 2028, including by promoting, within the framework of the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, the exclusion of defence investment spending from the calculation of budgetary constraints and to increase the human and financial resources allocated to foreign policy, as a fundamental instrument to protect the national interest”.
The Movimento 5 Stelle spoke harshly against the majority supporting the executive led by Giorgia Meloni: “The Meloni government must come here to the House and explain what it wants to do. We are against the sending of new weapons and we ask for a vote of the Chambers so that everyone can take responsibility in front of the citizens” – attacked M5S deputy Marco Pellegrini, speaking in the Chamber during the general debate – “We consider the West’s strategy based on military escalation to be harmful. We are sorry to see that there is a deep continuity between the choices of former President Draghi and the current President Meloni. We hope for a reversal of this trend, especially with regard to the sending of weapons”.
The continuity with the Draghi government is a point that the Cinquestelle have emphasised by virtue of the criticism levelled at the former Prime Minister, guilty, in their opinion, of having acted on the Ukrainian dossier by means of decree-laws, avoiding coming to Parliament to listen to the critical positions within the Chamber. It is no longer admissible – Pellegrini emphasises – “to deprive Parliament of its authority over decisions concerning war and therefore national security. We did the right thing, but in that resolution it was stipulated that the Italian government’s efforts should be directed towards de-escalation. It is absurd that the only vote dates back so many months, to 1 March. The current context has changed profoundly. We want Parliament to become central again in these choices. After five decrees on the sending of weapons, a confrontation in Parliament between the various forces is unavoidable”.
But the Meloni government “will not change foreign policy”, as Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani stated the day after the new Italian executive took office. “We – said the minister – will do whatever it takes to ensure the defence of Ukraine, because if Ukraine defends itself, it can deal with Moscow. If, on the other hand, it is invaded by the Russians, there is no longer peace and the ultimate goal is to arrive at peace”.
A political line that flattens Italy on the warmongering positions expressed by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, and of governments that aim at military escalation like that of Poland. Exactly as it was when the Italian government was led by the quisling Mario Draghi.
On the other hand, the line of warmongering continuity had been preannounced by Meloni herself at the end of October in the aftermath of Berlusconi’s statements on the situation in Ukraine. «On one thing I have been, am and will always be clear. I intend to lead a government with a clear and unequivocal foreign policy line. Italy is fully, and with its head held high, part of Europe and the Atlantic Alliance. Those who do not agree with this cornerstone cannot be part of the government». And then add: «Italy with us in government will never be the weak link of the West, the unreliable nation so dear to so many of our detractors. It will restore its credibility and thus defend its interests». A fair statement in principle but one that clashes with the reality of the facts, which see Italy trapped in the cage of European neo-liberal austerity and subject to the diktats of the United States and NATO that in fact determine Rome’s foreign policy.
In the ‘Quaderni dal Carcere’ (Prison Notebooks), Antonio Gramsci wrote: «Another element to be examined is the organic relationship between a state’s domestic and foreign policy. Is it domestic policy that determines foreign policy or vice versa? Here too, a distinction must be made between great powers, with relative international autonomy, and other powers, and again between different forms of government».
As we have seen, Italy cannot express an autonomous foreign policy. So arms to Ukraine and sanctions to Russia, even though these hit Rome much harder than Moscow. In fact, next year the Italian economy will go into recession, while due to exorbitant energy costs, there are numerous companies that risk closure. With many families struggling to heat their homes and inflation at its highest level in 40 years.
It is precisely for this reason that the new Italian government, while operating in full continuity with previous governments in terms of its submission to NATO and the absurd neoliberal budgetary rules of the European Union, will try on some issues to raise some smoke screens in the media, in order to accredit itself as an executive devoted to the defence of Italy’s national interest, as demonstrated by the controversy with France on the issue of African migrants transported to Italian shores by NGOs operating in the Mediterranean.
The US decline and the European self-sabotage (imposed by Washington) open up new and at the same time interesting scenarios, but in Italy the still unfortunately prevailing idea is that a medium power with few resources at its disposal must remain closely tied to its major ally, the true Dominus, the United States of America. And that therefore those in government have no choice but a strict adherence to the most extremist Atlanticism. A short-sighted vision, to say the least, in a historical phase marked by the end of US unipolarism. In this regard, Italy could turn its gaze towards that group that embodies the new multipolar world, namely the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). A project that promotes, protects and enhances the identity of its member states; it values national sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence, unity and sovereign equality of nation-states. By adhering to the BRICS coordination, Russia and China could give Italy back its historical role of barycentre, conjunction and stabilisation of the Mediterranean. A project also aimed at further enhancing ‘champions’ such as Eni and Leonardo, as well as the agrifood market and the tourism sector.
Moreover, in the Mediterranean there is another country, Turkey, which has begun to integrate into Eurasia, and is a candidate to join the BRICS, while it is still officially placed in the Atlantic system. A country that shares with Italy geopolitical priorities in the Mediterranean and that like Italy is a maritime power. Rome and Ankara together would have the ability to stabilise the Mediterranean, defeat the imperialists and turn it into a sea of opportunities as intended by the BRICS.
