Unlike the hysteria still continuing in the United States, no one is claiming that Russia fixed the voting machines for Italians’ overwhelming defeat of a referendum handing over their laws, courts, and legislature to the European Union. But the promoter of the referendum, Italian Prime Minister Renzi, is just as surely defeated and resigning.
As Russian President Putin observed on the same day in a television interview, “We now live in different times…. The global balance is gradually being changed.” Obama has lost again; another leader on whom he had lavished praise has conceded defeat by “the new paradigm.”
That new paradigm rejects the old one — ultimately of British financial imperialism — which Obama has served: Sacrificing economies to global financial markets and institutions; sacrificing industries to “free trade” treaties; removing unwanted “dictatorial” governments by constant wars. Ironically it was the British electorate which began the rejection, now spreading throughout the trans-Atlantic countries, of this “globalization” paradigm.
The new paradigm is epitomized by the nearly 70 major new infrastructure projects China is involved in funding, and in building, in the nations of Eurasia, Africa, and South America — potentially, in North America when Obama is out of the way.
It could soon be expressed by the way Putin is forcing a resolution of the attempted regime-change war in Syria; and by China’s New Silk Road development thrust coming into the Mideast as well. The European Union itself has bent to this “changing balance,” and today offered a Plan B in which it will help fund the reconstruction of Syria and give up the demand for Bashar al-Assad’s resignation.
Donald Trump’s election is an opening for the fight for this new paradigm in the United States — he was elected by rejection of old globalization policy, and shares some aims of the new.
But the America and Europe-wide hope for this new paradigm, is the campaign for Lyndon LaRouche’s “Four economic laws to save the United States,” discussed in the dialogue of the LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee, immediately below.
Watch the LaRouchePAC Policy Committee dialogue from December 6, 2016
The smashing defeat of pro-EU oligarchies in the Italian constitutional referendum of Dec. 4 opens up a new phase in European politics and bears global implications. This is the third shock delivered by the worldwide revolt of the forgotten citizen against a political establishment responsible for an economic crisis and wars which are driving millions of people into poverty, despair and death. Not by chance, the highest percentages of the No vote came from southern regions, such as Sicily and Sardinia, which have the highest rates of youth unemployment and poverty levels, and from the northeastern region of Veneto, hardest hit by the post-2008 industrial desertification and a high rate of suicide among small industrialists.
With a voter participation of nearly 70% domestically (66% with voters abroad), Italians gave a lesson of wisdom by rejecting 60-40 a Constitutional reform dictated by the European Union and by investment bankers. If approved, the reform would have turned the Parliament into a mere executioner of dictatorial power, based not in Rome but in Brussels and Frankfurt (EU Commission and ECB). In fact, the introduction to the Constitutional reform bill states that its aim is “to exhaustively rationalize the complex multilevel system of governance, articulated among the European Union, the state, and local autonomies.” No less than four new Constitutional Articles established that EU law was on the same level as Italian constitutional law.
Now a turbulent new phase is to begin for Italy and the EU. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi resigned and State President Sergio Mattarella will have to mandate a new political figure or a technocrat to form a new government. The Lega Nord and M5S opposition parties have called for early elections, but there is still a large majority in the current Parliament to support a PD Prime Minister. Additionally, before new elections are held, a new election law would have to be approved, as the Constitutional Court has ruled that the current one is unconstitutional.
Moreover, it is difficult for Mattarella to dissolve the Parliament, when the budget law has still to be approved and the current banking crisis could get out of control.
The financial storm announced the vote in case of a Renzi defeat (Raffaele Jerusalmi, the CEO of Borsa Italiana, the Italian stock exchange, warned of “colossal short positions” on Italy, in expectation of a “No” victory) did not occur the day after. However, time is running for Monte dei Paschi di Siena and other banks which are expecting a solution for accumulated losses in ten years of depression and a EU-dictated “market solution” involving a bail-in for depositors is now more difficult than before. If the crisis precipitates it will spread contagion throughout the entire financial system.
Italy will shortly face a choice: either impose financial fascism or leave the euro and implement national emergency legislation, which include a Glass-Steagall financial reform and a large-scale plan for infrastructure investments and economic recovery, and that in cooperation with Chinas New Silk Road strategy.
In addressing the global strategic situation in a Dec. 4 interview with Russia’s NTV, President Vladimir Putin pointed out that attempts to create a unipolar world “have failed.” This was inevitable, he said. “We now live in different times…. Russia has always clung to a point that we must respect the interests of others, while defending our own. This is how we are going to build our relations with our partners,” he underscored.
As reported by Sputnik, Putin discussed why the West has often turned a deaf ear to Moscow’s position on resolving military conflicts, citing as examples what he described as NATO’s “law-breaking bombardment” of Yugoslavia in 1999 and its operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. The answer is quite simple, he said. “Only loud voices are listened to. But the situation is changing, and I think it’s not a secret for anyone that many of our partners now prefer to adhere to international law, because the global balance is gradually being restored.”
As he did last week at the Primakov Readings International Group in Moscow, Putin referred to the late Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov’s thoughts about the Arab Spring in the Mideast. The negative consequences of the Arab Spring, Putin said, occurred because key nations violated the norms of international law “to satisfy their geopolitical interests.” The Arab Spring led to the overthrow of the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, caused civil wars in Libya and Syria, and mass disorders in Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Oman, and other countries. “Using his knowledge about the region, and especially about the Middle East, using the experience and intuition,” Primakov could see what was coming, Putin explained. “No doubt, had his opinion been considered back then,” the situation wouldn’t have evolved as it did.
Russia, Putin said, “could not influence directly and practically the development of events, or our opportunities to influence those events were rather limited.” This was particularly true, he added, because key international players “preferred not to observe norms of the international law, but ….to follow their own geopolitical interests.”