Talking about defense is taboo

Why are so many social phenomena increasingly framed as matters of security?

Elisa Piras: Issues such as youth unrest or urban decay do not stem solely from security problems but are phenomena that conceal dynamics of exclusion and marginalization. Security, however, is the most readily available framework through which to interpret these issues, making it easier to identify specific, visible, and politically justifiable responses. This is one of the reasons. Another reason concerns the media’s role in framing a certain issue as a “security emergency,” even when the data suggests there is no ongoing crisis.

On the one hand, there is the ubiquity of the term “security” in public discourse; on the other, there is an inability to conceive of more comprehensive solutions in which institutions and law enforcement must collaborate with other stakeholders. Comprehensive responses to issues such as youth distress, urban decay, and the management of migrants and asylum seekers would require wide-ranging programs, which should involve institutional actors as well as civil society. These are not partnerships that are easy to establish, maintain, and communicate; therefore, policy makers often resort to the cognitive and communicative shortcut of identifying a simple problem to which a simple solution can be applied.

Security can be described as the absence of danger, but to eliminate danger we must also accept limiting our freedom, for example. What are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security?

Matteo Mazziotti di Celso: An interesting finding recorded in Sicily following the assassinations of Falcone and Borsellino showed that the overwhelming majority of Sicilians at the time declared themselves willing to reinstate the death penalty. In a context permeated by fear, the idea of liberal democracy fades, partly because democratic rules and procedures are very often perceived as obstacles to the rapid and effective resolution of crises. In reality, this is not always true, but in the face of fear, all our rights and democratic values are set aside. The survey conducted in Sicily speaks volumes: when faced with fear, we are willing to take a giant step backward from the civil rights we have achieved.

Matteo Mazziotti di Celso

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

In Italy, the military has often been deployed to carry out tasks that should instead fall to the police. How did this come about?

Mazziotti di Celso: The first was the need to find a legitimate role for the armed forces after the end of the Cold War: at the time, the military was used to support the police and in the event of natural disasters. Both were very popular and appreciated areas of intervention and allowed the armed forces to maintain a certain relevance in society.

The second factor is economic in nature: with the reduction in public spending, there was a need to spend less on law enforcement, while the armed forces were available to step in and fill these gaps.

The third reason is that, since 1992, Italy has faced a series of security threats: first the mafia in the South, and since 2001, terrorist attacks which, even if they did not strike Italy, justified a state of alert and terrorized the population.

In this context, two structural factors – limited economic resources and pressure from the armed forces – led policymakers to rely on the military for internal security matters.

Recently, things have changed somewhat: from an organizational standpoint, the military has begun to complain about having to perform these tasks, and from an economic standpoint, Italy is in a better position than it was in 2011.

Operations like “Strade sicure,” however, are extremely popular: polls show that more than 80 percent of the population supports the policy of using the military for public order operations. People don’t mind seeing military personnel on the streets, and politicians are unwilling to pay the price of ending this operation.

Matteo Mazziotti di Celso, you argue that in Italy the relationship between society and the military should improve. In what sense and for what purpose?

Mazziotti di Celso: There are two aspects: one is organizational, in the sense that the Italian armed forces are unable to be structurally effective because no one wants to join them. Italy has always had a problem with a lack of interest in the military, which it has addressed in the most varied ways: by offering permanent contracts immediately upon recruitment, “giving away” permanent positions to many people who were in the military for only a year, enlisting even those who were unfit or lacked any skills, removing certain physical and psychological entry requirements, and launching massive recruitment campaigns in Italy’s most deprived areas – but then again, there were no other solutions. Now, if we don’t generate some genuine interest in this type of career, the outlook is bleak: either we cut the armed forces by 80 percent, or our military contingents will always be made up of people seeking other goals and/or of low suitability – something that clearly no one wants.

The second reason there is a problem in the relationship between society and the armed forces – and this may sound counterintuitive – is that the public values them. People see the army making sure public spaces are protected. All polls show that after the police, the army is the organization that has the highest level of public trust.

Basically, people value the army because they believe they are an instrument of civil protection, for intervention in the event of natural disasters, or to support the police. That is not the case. That task should actually fall to the police and civil protection.

The military should serve a different purpose: national defense. If this misunderstanding persists, the whole foundation crumbles, because we have a military force that is appreciated for duties that are not their actual ambit. The military is appreciated, but on the basis of a misunderstanding.

In Germany, men aged between 17 and 45 will be required to obtain prior authorization for stays abroad longer than three months. However, as long as military service remains voluntary, this authorization is considered to be automatically granted. Other European countries are considering similar measures. Could this happen in Italy as well?

Mazziotti di Celso: The problem is primarily linked to NATO membership, which requires member states to meet certain requirements. Strong pressure is exerted on countries that do not comply. For this reason, Germany must increase the size of its armed forces: by 2035, it is expected to reach 260,000 personnel, an extremely high number. Mandatory conscription addresses this need, but it lacks any legitimacy in Germany. There have been many protests; I find it unthinkable that they could impose it, and moreover, they are struggling to find volunteers.

Italy, too, is facing the need to increase its military personnel, but compared to Germany there is a weaker perception of the threat and therefore less legitimacy for any kind of new military policy. Here, the debate is completely taboo; Italy has never managed to generate interest in the military apparatus. Compulsory military service was suspended in 2005 without considering alternative solutions, the train of thought being: “let’s just get rid of it for now and see what happens.”

NATO, however, will put enormous pressure on us; in some respects, it already is. The real question, in my view, is this: do we want to be part of NATO? If the answer is yes, then we must increase our troop levels. How? Germany offers up to 3,000 euros per month to those who enlist voluntarily – that’s more than a professor earns in Italy.

How much does the rhetoric of threat – often amplified by political and media discourse – factor in the formulation of security policies?

Piras: The latest strategic visions of NATO and the European Union seek to establish a priority alert regarding so-called hybrid threats, such as large-scale hacking that can paralyze entire transportation networks, power plants, or nuclear facilities, or disrupt surveillance systems. Malicious propaganda aimed at destabilizing regions near borders also falls under the category of hybrid threats. An example from a few years ago is often cited: since 2021, the Belarusian government has been encouraging the entry of migrants from war-torn Middle Eastern countries, settling them in areas bordering Poland and Germany to facilitate their passage into the EU, thereby contributing to the polarization of the public debate in those countries. The EU and NATO are aware that we are facing an increasingly hybrid threat landscape, one that does not rely solely on military means. Therefore, not only does the definition of the threat become very important, but it is also crucial that there be alignment between the threats we must address and the tools we employ. We have not yet achieved this alignment.

Elisa Piras

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

Is the United Nations’ international security system for peacekeeping now obsolete?

Piras: The United Nations is perhaps facing the greatest crisis in its history. We have reached a point where it is legitimate to ask what purpose the peacekeeping system – which was established after 1945 – serves. The permanent members of the Security Council are so divided that they will never reach a common position, not even on relatively simple issues. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, continues to urge members toward greater cooperation, but if the United States – which has been one of the pillars of this system – no longer pays its dues and does not follow procedures, we have a system in crisis.

It is a political crisis, but it is also increasingly becoming a financial and administrative crisis too. Not only peacekeeping, but also food security, the defense of cultural pluralism, the environment, and the welfare of children depend on the United Nations system and are put at risk by a Security Council that is so polarized and where, at the moment, there is no communication.

I cannot say whether it is an outdated system; I hope not, because the international law we have depends heavily on this framework, and if we were to admit the defeat of the United Nations, it would mean social fragmentation and destabilization for many areas of the world.

Elisa Piras, one of your research topics is human security. Can you explain what that actually means?

Piras: Human security refers to a concept of security understood not only in military and geopolitical terms, but in relation to many different dimensions, including the possibility of accessing high-quality education, having access to uncontaminated natural resources or those that do not pose health risks, and having models of efficient and sustainable mobility. For a long time, the EU was seen as an institutional system that transcended the classic concept of security – understood as the minimization of existential risk – and which promoted an alternative vision, rooted in the idea of living in open, free societies characterized by the welfare state.

In a time of crisis like the present, with war at our doorstep, the issue of human security inevitably takes a back seat and is often controversially portrayed as “a topic for the radical chic.”

Matteo Mazziotti di Celso, regarding war at our doorstep, you wrote that the war in Ukraine could be an opportunity for Italy to review its military policy. Has that been the case?

Mazziotti di Celso: No, I was surprised to not see any significant changes in the debate on Italian military policy over the past four years, nor any from an economic standpoint either. There is much talk of the budget, but it is not true that it has increased; in terms of GDP, it remains the same as before. From the perspective of relations with society, no one has raised the issue of the relationship between the population and the armed forces and analyzed it critically. It is discussed only in ideological and partisan terms. In Germany, there has been extensive reflection on this, whereas in Italy the issue has been removed from public debate and very few changes have taken place. And the few changes that have been made have taken place at the organizational level within the armed forces and have not reached the public. This is due to the fact that we do not perceive this war as a threat to our survival. All the polls say so: Italy is the European country least sensitive to this threat.

Elisa Piras, Matteo Mazziotti di Celso

Credit: Eurac Research | Annelie Bortolotti

Mazziotti di Celso: Security is an inefficient expense, in the sense that every penny spent on a police officer is not invested in other activities that would yield a much greater return. Utopically speaking, security apparatus should not exist because they are investments with no return.

Security grows in tandem with rights, not in opposition to them. We need to launch a serious debate and stop talking about security in emergency terms. Security can be interpreted in a thousand ways, and this needs to be explained. I’m stating the obvious, but information and culture are the only viable solution.

Matteo Mazziotti di Celso and Elisa Piras participated at “The Securitization of Urban Spaces” conference organized by the Center for Advanced Studies at Eurac Research.