We live in a time of change. Many certainties that have accompanied us until yesterday no longer seem to hold up in recent months. The "hole in the ozone layer", climate change, excess CO2, the Green Agenda, the UN, OTAN, the OMS, Europe, Davos, world hunger, all "MUST" that week after week are losing their luster and substance. All it took was a Trump to call into question years and years of beliefs and overturn the obvious. Not even the recent Nobel Peace Prize was free of comedy. And as spectators of this little theater where the actors, no longer having a script, find themselves acting off the cuff, outbursts are the order of the day. It's a real laugh.
So one morning you wake up and discover that the war in Ukraine isn't that important anymore. The Palestinian issue resurfaces, a problem the Israelis would like to resolve once and for all, but...
They barely have time to strike the final blow when an Iranian problem arises, distracting them. Then, still in the same area, Syria falls overnight; the day before it existed, the next day "poof." Some flee, some stay, the conflict continues. On the other side of the world, Venezuela changes its look overnight; it wasn't stars and stripes enough. Some flee, some stay, the story continues. There's still the Canada question: whether to absorb it de facto or play with it a little longer, and then, last but not least, the GREENLAND question. This could be the most amusing of all, as one state can wake up one morning and complain about an island, I don't know... for reasons of national security... wherever the state is located, and especially wherever the island is located. It could then be that, with the same attitude, China decides to finally "annex" Taiwan, or that Argentina brings its troops back to the Falklands, or Italy claims Corsica.
There would be nothing surprising about this situation. Public opinion would barely have time to formulate a position on one issue before others, both similar and completely different, would systematically emerge. We have entered the magical world of the absurd, where declarations about the change in interstate commodity interest rates are already on the London stock exchange. But is this whirlwind of events and declarations factual or congenial? Let's return for a moment to the example of GREENLAND. An island that I believe few Italians have ever seen or know exactly where it is, who lives there, and why. An island of approximately 2,200,000 square kilometers is not exactly a small island. Just to give you an idea of its vastness, we could easily say that its territory would still be slightly larger than Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark combined. So, an island slightly smaller than India, with a frightening rate of youth suicides.
A practically deserted island, given that there are just under 60,000 inhabitants, almost all of whom live in a few coastal towns in the south. But that's not the point. The point of this star-spangled tirade concerns an island with its own autonomy and history. Technically indefensible from a military standpoint, but with interesting underground deposits. Its only fault is being "in the middle" of the firing range of two potential aggressors, China and Russia, who, if launching a missile attack from the north, would be intercepted well in advance, assuming the satellite reconnaissance shield were functioning. A bit like Russia's need to keep NATO out of its sights and demand a "belt" to protect it from short- to medium-range missile attacks. No interest in Inuit culture, no interest in stimulating tourism or limiting alcohol consumption.
No interest in solving the Greenlanders' real problems. Just a chess game for chess professionals. As with Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and all of Central America, it's simply a matter of "National Security." Keep the bad guys as far away from the country's vital areas as possible. And obviously, we're not talking about your nation, but "that" nation. This, in its current absurdity, might even be understandable, as it makes a certain amount of sense. But by the same logic, what if, for reasons of "security" and control of its eastern front—since NATO seems to have lost all reference to American directives and given the 102 American bases still present in Italy, many with nuclear stockpiles—the leader of the stars and stripes were to decide on our island of Sardinia as a strategic location? A not exactly trivial outpost, protected but at the center of the Mediterranean chessboard, from which to effectively gain control of several hot spots.
What would the Sardinians say? What would the Italians say? What would European say? The descendants of the Shardana, like those of the Inuit, could join hands and live as the Palestinians live today, refugees in their own home in the name of a God who is not theirs and for a "Good"...a higher one.
Franco Dal Col
