Translator: Michele Gianella
I deal with geopolitics.
I will not bore you with treaties on what geopolitics is.
Fortunately, or unfortunately for us, it is a much-discussed topic today:
everybody deals with it, talks about it,
yet it remains a rather esoteric discipline.
We need to point out,
before I go on with my presentation,
that by "geopolitics" we mean
is the study of conflicts in a bordered geographical space.
Put in even simpler terms,
geopolitics is not the study of international relations as such.
But it helps to identify the constraints
forcing international players
to act in specific ways.
It's a dismal discipline par excellence, as you can imagine,
as it focuses on duties.
Today, with this definition in mind, I will talk to you about globalization.
We will try to understand what globalization is,
another big issue that is more or less popular.
Some love it - not so many; some others hate it - way more.
We will try to understand what it is, what its strategic substrate is,
and then which phase we are in, and how long it could last.
And above all, whether it is a new phenomenon or not.
On a geopolitical level, what you see behind me -
I am consistent with what I have just told you:
geopolitics is based on territory, space.
Everything we discuss must be associated with a map.
These are maps from "Limes", the geopolitical magazine I work for.
This map in particular
features a pompous-sounding term: "American Empire".
In geopolitics, the very word "Empire" does not come with a judgement.
It exists as such,
often against the will of its founders.
Americans probably didn't even mean to build an empire.
Yet they have got one, they built one.
And as it is always the case, they will keep it and die as an empire.
Who knows when: as late as possible, we wish them.
But what this map shows us - what we are most interested in -
is globalization.
This is what globalization is about.
If we asked - it is quite common in Italy -
to people who are not familiar with strategic issues,
to comment on a specific strategic issue such as globalization -
economists, in particular, who are all the rage in Italy -
they will tell you that globalization is that situation, that condition
where trade takes place in a single global market.
If we "dress" this assumption with an ideological explanation,
we could add that they do so because they get on well with each other
or because there is a human predisposition to trade.
The problem with such statement is the lack of the cause-effect principle.
How does globalisation come about? Why does it exist? How long will it last?
What you see on this map
is the division of the planisphere into U.S. Navy fleets.
Or how the Pentagon, long story short, looks at the planisphere
and how it divides it by the competence of its fleets.
Because - in a nutshell -
the globalization we are experiencing
is nothing more than the control over seas and oceans
by the United States of America.
That is it!
This is the core of globalization.
Why this?
Because today, so in 2019, not 100 years ago,
90 percent of the goods shipped across the planet
travel by sea.
And clearly, those who control the seas
where 90 percent of the goods travel,
so basically all of them,
can create a single global market.
The Americans did this at the end of the Cold War,
when they ended up being,
following the implosion - or suicide, you choose - of the Soviet Union
the only superpower on Earth.
They found themselves controlling all the seas,
and thought it fit to create a single global market.
Let’s take a step back.
Another prejudice on globalization,
if we analyze it in a non-strategic, non-geopolitical way,
is that it is an unprecedented phenomenon.
We are human beings:
social networks actually attest
we think we live extraordinary lives.
Otherwise, why take a snapshot of our dish of pasta,
or share who we fell in love with,
as if it was something special?
Likewise, we are convinced
that globalization too is exceptional:
it must be like this, who has seen it before?
Actually,
at least a couple of globalizations took place before the current one:
a technical one, which was the first one, the "Pax Romana",
the original globalization per excellence.
Back then, the Mediterranean sea
was by far the most important sea on the planet;
so controlling it was enough to create a globalization.
When Romans defeated Carthaginians, at the end of the Third Punic War,
and gained control of the whole Mediterranean Sea,
they created an effective globalization, in a technical sense.
That is, they became rulers
of the maritime trading routes;
and through them they created and managed a single market.
After Romans, there came the British.
The first instance of globalization in strictly geographical terms,
is the British one: "Pax Britannica" in Latin.
Not by chance, globalizations are defined using Latin words:
"Pax Romana", "Pax Britannica", "Pax Americana".
This indicates continuity,
exactly the opposite of the innovation we think is taking place.
Back then, the British,
by supervising all the seas and oceans
with their exceptional navy,
created the history's first globalization.
We're in late 19th century,
the so called Britain's Victorian Age.
These blue lines you can see on the map of the current globalization
are nothing but the main maritime routes of the planet,
because the goods of course, do not scatter across the world randomly.
Cutting costs is a pressing need:
the less we sail, the less we spend and the earlier we arrive.
As a result, there are sea routes that are mandatory and marked,
which are those you see in blue.
These are the sea routes controlled by the superpower,
all of them.
In a world that - this also makes us human -
seems very chaotic.
A world which seems extremely dangerous to us - and it’s hard to understand why.
Two or three generations ago,
our grand, great-grandparents would gladly accept -
those alive today would still accept -
to experience this condition, even if it looks very frightening.
It is placid, instead, especially at our latitudes.
But something that just doesn’t change -
in case we were under the impression
that today's world is drastically changing -
is the US control over the seas and the oceans.
This has been unchallenged for several decades now,
due to their command over those blue sea routes.
In particular, look at the circles,
namely the straits, the isthmuses of the world:
what does it mean for a superpower to controls all the seas and the oceans,
technically speaking?
No one can realistically have control over the seas and oceans
square kilometre by square kilometre:
it is impossible.
It means instead exercising control over those binding, inescapable passages
like the straits, isthmuses of the planet,
where ships are forced to go through:
the bottlenecks.
Suez, Gibraltar, Bab-el-Mandeb, Malacca, Panama.
We can name countless: Hormuz...
All those straits you're forced to go through.
And given the power they wield,
United States can prevent the passage of any fleet on the planet,
be it commercial or military;
each and anyone of them.
US unfettered maritime power is still unassailable today,
because the United States, as in any other globalization of history,
like Romans and British, are a "thalassocracy".
In other words, they are a mostly maritime power.
They gaze at the world from the sea.
Not only because - in a very violent way, like every great power -
they founded their own island
by exterminating or defeating nearby populations.
In fact, they currently live on a North American island,
they can only be reached from the sea,
so their perception has always been a maritime one;
they also judge others by their ability to sail the open sea.
Why is it so essential,
in any absolute domain that then leads to globalization,
an absolute control of the sea?
Because it's the quintessential strategic advantage.
First of all, it is easy to understand, maritime infrastructures exist as such:
they don’t have to be built, they cost nothing.
The sea is already there: you "just" need to learn how to sail it,
and it’s not that easy.
On average, you may die of fear, especially at the beginning,
but the infrastructure already exists.
In strict military terms, controlling the seas
buys you the ability to neutralize any coastal enemy.
Preventing them from leaving home.
Forcing them to leave the sea out of terror.
Being terrified of what may happen at sea
is common to all great civilizations and all major powers,
and not only in the early stages.
But often also dictates their fate.
The British, as we said,
created the globalization immediately prior to the present one,
which came to an end with the First World War.
Terraneous as they were, they deliberately became a maritime power.
They do so in 16th century, at the cost of inhuman efforts,
because the transition from land to sea power
is in itself inhumane, almost cruel.
Back then, the British - or better the English -
who built their maritime power,
took to the seas
out of fear of being attacked, once again, by enemies from the European continent.
The attacks against England from the European continent
have been a constant feature in English history,
to the point of distorting grammar itself;
the Norman invasion of England transformed English grammar.
In some cases,
it has even led the English people to place the adjective after the noun:
in English, "General Secretary" became "Secretary General"
because the Normans arrived by sea
and imposed French usage on English grammar.
When grammar is turned upside down, cruelty peaks.
So those who control maritime routes
can both create a global market, as the Americans did,
and dominate the planet because they wield
the tool that proved to be the most efficient - and evil -
one can count on today,
for all our talk of trifles
such as financial hubs, telecommunications hubs and the like.
These are the critical issues, for the existence of our planet:
they're sound, and they travel on water.
What we see here is an attempt of counterglobalization,
the current attempt at anti-globalization.
So let's delve into it: how long will this globalization last?
Where do we stand?
A small premise:
globalization has nothing to do with free trade.
Not only because free trade does not exist, and never did;
it is pure ideology,
all the countries of the planet
impose duties on something or against someone.
Every single one of them.
The system's pivots apply them the least - the US, in the case at hand,
just like Romans or British did in the past.
In order to make others dependant, these countries massively import,
so they cause others to depend on them;
and then, physically,
they hand their own currency over to them.
Someone is bound to object:
this someone, as of now, is China.
Chine is neither a maritime power nor a thalassocracy
but it is trying to defy the United States
by promoting a counterglobalization known as the "Silk Road".
China is well aware of how things stand,
and since it exports a good share of its GDP
and does it for 90 percent of its goods on routes controlled by the Americans,
you can well understand, it is under Americans' thumb.
One may well be thinking,
China has launched an offensive against US -
especially in Italy, where strategy isn't our strongest subject -
yet sea inexorably tells us another story and provides us with a map
that lets us understand what power relationships are really like.
Chinese aren't threatening Americans in the Gulf of Mexico;
Americans are preventing Chinese to get to Taiwan, actually.
That's the difference between them.
By building the corridors of the "Silk Road",
China tries to deals with US globalization:
and as you can see, its strategy is essentially land-based.
China plans to build land-based structures from its coasts to Germany
through countries that are not exactly at the forefront
in terms of economic and civil development.
in central Asia.
As it can’t control the seas, it is trying to go via land.
These are power balances.
Then there is also a maritime side of Chinese "Silk Road" strategy,
born of utilitarian considerations:
they don't openly challenge the American maritime power,
because it can't be defeated today,
and one can measure through that how long will globalisation last.
Well, I’m nearing the end.
Even when it envisages
a maritime dimension in its counterglobalization drive,
China does so by considering to build ports in the Indian Ocean
so as to reach Europe, more specifically Mediterranean shores,
where it already bought the port of Piraeus in Athens,
and is seriously considering buying the port of Trieste, in Italy.
Not being in a position to freely sail the sea, they "step across it".
Like when you are on the beach,
the sand is hot and you step from an umbrella's shade to the next one.
China tries to do something similar by building ports they can step on,
without sailing the open seas
and incurring American retaliation,
which may be meted out even so.
So at which point is globalization?
Globalization is not dying out because Trump imposes duties on others.
Globalization is not free trade:
it is the control of shipping routes by a single power.
It will only come to an end when Americans lose the ability, or the strength,
to control all seas and oceans,
as I have explained to you previously.
Since we had already spoken of China -
which remains a land-based country,
although it is rapidly building up its fleet -
when China manages to impede American
the control of at least a coastal sea.
When China "balkanizes" a part of globalization.
At that time,
globalization as we know it nowadays will end, will turn into something else.
It may become a 75 percent, or a half globalization;
or the United States will simply implode,
thus letting the world return to the pre-globalization phase,
the one where seas and functions
were shared out among different paxes.
What we need to remember
is that when dealing with globalization,
we should avoid being sidetracked by ideological issues
on free trade and the like,
and take instead a look at what is happening on the seas.
Seas will enable us assess where we stand
in terms of globalization and planetary domination.
Thank you.
(Applause)