Interview with Professor Ivan Cardillo, President of the Think Tank “Institute of Chinese Law”
By Pietro Fiocchi *
The significant, recurring, and even recent popular initiatives demanding, from the streets to international organizations, an end to the blockade against Cuba, suggest that the time has come to turn the page…
To better understand the complexity of the ongoing dynamics and to gain a particularly competent perspective, we turned to an expert, Professor Ivan Cardillo. A university professor of Chinese law and comparative legal systems, president of the Institute of Chinese Law (www.dirittocinese.com), and president of the Italy-China Business Development Forum, he is an active promoter of international channels of dialogue, in which high-level experts from various fields participate.
Professor Cardillo, what is your opinion, from a strictly legal standpoint, on the existence of an economic, commercial, and financial blockade against Cuba for over 60 years—an imposed reality that effectively makes the development of the Cuban people and the full achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals almost impossible?
The United Nations has repeatedly called on the United States to end the embargo against Cuba, and almost every country has spoken out in favor of the island. The embargo only directly affects trade between the United States and Cuba, but indirectly it affects the entire international community, which, for fear of secondary sanctions, restricts its trade with Cuba.
In total, there have been 31 calls to end the economic blockade. The blockade affects all aspects of the country: economy, transportation, food, healthcare, education, etc. The European Parliament unequivocally condemned the blockade as a violation of human rights.
The legal perspective is always very complex to analyze in these cases. On one hand, we have the right to development of a country, Cuba, and on the other, the right to security of the United States, which feels threatened by Cuba.
This feeling of insecurity stems, evidently, from the cultural and political diversity that characterizes the island, geographically too close to the Americas to be ignored and left to its own devices and self-determination, which would place it within the sphere of countries and cultures that the United States has always opposed.
It is the dynamic of the conflict between Self and Other, of fear of the other and of diversity. The value to be sought in this context is tolerance.
In the realm of international relations, faced with acts of arrogance and political violence by powerful nations against smaller ones, does the law always succumb, or can it, with the right strategies, offer effective instruments for achieving justice?
International law is voluntary in nature; that is, its compliance is entirely subject to the voluntary acceptance by States, which must remain sovereign. This is why there are no truly coercive global judicial bodies. Many international institutions experience periods of paralysis in their operations because the underlying balance of power was seeking a new order.
In this sense, the economically strongest country dictates the general course of action, which is often driven by the need to maintain that superiority and dominance.
Currently, the world order is shaken by new tensions. The American order, unipolar and founded on a specific value system and the Monroe Doctrine, which theorizes expansionism and intervention, feels threatened by the rise of China, a country inspired by different values, followed by many so-called developing or Third World countries.
These countries represent a larger population than the G7 countries. The democratic mechanism should recognize their greater value, but this does not happen because other parameters are also taken into account: wealth, military power, and political power, including soft power.
A multipolar international order would undoubtedly be more democratic; the poles could limit each other and contain the abuses of power.
It’s as if the monopoly on world order disappeared, and all citizens could benefit from competition between systems. In this plurality, justice would be easier to achieve.
The tools available in this regard are regional alliances, trade agreements, and the permeability of economies. Only by achieving a certain specific weight in terms of GDP can emerging countries gain negotiating power in the international arena.
[ SOURCE: from the author of the article and conductor of the interview, Pietro Fiocchi ]
Pietro Fiocchi (born 22 May 1964) is an Italian Entrepreneur and politician. Born in Milan, after graduating in aerospace engineering at the University of Missouri of Rolla, he entered the Navy in 1990, serving as a Sub-lieutenant on the San Giorgio landing ship until 1992 and working with the San Marco Battalion and with the Comsubin, an Italian special forces department. He is a researcher and writer based in Italy.
