This is a translation in English of the article published on the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano

The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor that represents the threat to human existence from dangerous technologies. It was created in 1947 by scientists who were part of the Manhattan Project, the project that led to the development of the first atomic bomb. The initial positioning of the clock was based on the threat posed by nuclear weapons, which were considered the greatest danger to humanity at the time. Today, the clock is set at the closest time to midnight ever, signaling an increased threat to humanity from a variety of sources, not just nuclear weapons.

This is a story of bureaucratic madness in which the obtuseness of procedures is linked to the IT domain that looms, always, over us all. Dr. Who is a Chinese citizen doing research and went to work in Paris on a post-doctoral fellowship. Last year, a temporary research position opened up in Italy and Dr Who won it. The research centre where he works instigates the procedure to obtain the nulla osta that is prodromal to the granting of the visa. The Nulla Osta, after various delays, is granted on 1 June when Dr. Who’s contract is supposed to begin. Dr. Who goes to the Italian consulate in Paris with the hard copy of the nulla osta and discovers that it must be sent to the consulate by the Prefecture of Rome (single immigration desk) via an internal computer protocol: unfortunately there is a computer problem and the procedure is suspended indefinitely. In the meantime, Dr. Who no longer has a job in Paris, cannot start work in Rome and will soon have to return to China as the extension of the visa he obtained in Paris also expires. The prefecture has been asked, as has the consulate, and the answer from both is that the computer problem is not their fault: a ticket has been opened (who did it? When will it be resolved? Mystery). The incredible thing is that there is no plan B: sending the Nulla Osta via a PEC, an email, an ordinary letter or even a carrier pigeon. None of this, it has to be done only via the internal IT route, which is currently broken down. So Dr. Who got to know Italy and got to know it so well that he will never go back, even if he is now a prisoner like Tom Hanks in ‘The Terminal’. For those of us who are here and have done everything we can to solve this stupid problem with dramatic consequences for Dr. Who’s life and career, there remains the humiliation of living in a country where the computerisation of public administration means putting citizens in the hands of nonsensical procedures whose responsibility lies with some obscure personage who can hardly ever be identified. 

Per capire come sia la discussione sulla guerra fuori dall’Italia è possibile ascoltare, ad esempio, un dibattito che si è tenuto poco tempo fa: si tratta di uno dei “Munk Debates”, una serie semestrale di dibattiti sulle principali questioni politiche che si tengono a Toronto in Canada. Sono gestiti dalla Fondazione Aurea, una fondazione di beneficenza fondata da Peter Munk, fondatore di Barrick Gold, e da sua moglie Melanie Munk.

Nel dibattito che si è tenuto il 13 maggio 2022, che ha avuto come argomento la guerra tra Russia e Ucraina, ed in particolare come risolvere la crisi in corso, hanno preso parte quattro importanti personaggi che hanno avuto una discussione sostenendo due “mozioni” contrapposte: da una parte Stephen Walt (politologo statunitense, docente di politica internazionale presso la John F. Kennedy School of Government dell’Università Harvard) e John Mearsheimer (politologo americano e studioso di relazioni internazionali, che appartiene alla scuola di pensiero realista ed è professore presso l’Università di Chicago; è stato descritto come il realista più influente della sua generazione) e dall’altra Michael McFaul (accademico e diplomatico americano; è stato ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti in Russia dal 2012 al 2014) e Radosław Sikorski (politico, giornalista e politologo polacco; è stato ministro degli Affari esteri dal 2007 al 2014).

Il dibattito si è svolto con una introduzione di 5 minuti iniziali per ogni relatore per illustrare la propria posizione, poi gli interventi continuano con un moderatore. Riporto quasi integralmente qui di seguito le quattro diverse posizioni iniziali così come era la scaletta degli interventi.

Prosegue qui