The decision of the Israeli parliament to approve the law that establishes the Jewish identity of Israel opens disturbing scenarios on the future of the country and the Palestinian question and confirms the anti-democratic connotation of the majority that holds the government in Tel Aviv. It must be specified that the difference in votes in favor of the approval was minimal, but despite this mathematical fact, the direction that took the executive appears incontrovertible. There are exogenous factors that have favored this law: the coming to power of Trump, who replaced Obama in the White House, the immobility of the Organizations and international subjects, which could condition Israel to approve a law of this type, in addition to disorder which is in the Middle East, which has favored a sort of disinterest in the Israeli-Palestinian question; but favorable conditions have also matured thanks to the situation within the Israeli country, with the majority of the increasingly radicalized electoral body and a divided opposition, unable to exploit the incapacities in the economic policy of the government and which has not been able to take advantage of the scandals which concerned the prime minister. The Israelis have adapted themselves to be governed more and more by an almost theocratic right, coinciding with the most conservative religious circles, which has conducted a policy against the Arabs and in favor of the abusive settlements in the territories, to widen the expansion of ultra-Orthodox settlers and with the aim of increasing the surface of the territory of Israel. The government in office has not only followed these directions, but has become a promoter, maintaining an ambiguous conduct in the international arena, promising concessions to the Arabs, who have never arrived and obtaining, in fact, to procure the Palestinian question to gain time from to employ in the occupation of the territories. In this context it was possible to elaborate the law on the Jewish identity of the state of Israel. What we want to create is a homogeneous nation based on the peculiarities of belonging to Judaism; The concrete risk, even for non-observant Jews, is that the religious factor assumes too important a importance, capable of conditioning, even more decisively, the future of Israeli society. According to the new law every Jew who wants it will have the right to emigrate to the Israeli country and obtain its citizenship, this provision implies that it will be necessary to expand the territory of the country, which is expressly foreseen through the promotion of Jewish communities within of the settlements. The practice of subtracting territory from Arab communities becomes legal. It is obvious that this factor can not but affect the future of relations with the Palestinians, but also on the consequences that diplomatic relations will have on Tel Aviv. Making the prediction that this provision will only bring about alterations in the regional balance, it seems all too easy, but as long as the international community does not want to use adequate pressure instruments, the Israeli government will have the legitimacy to continue acting in this direction. It will be interesting to check how the national institutions will behave towards that minority, about twenty percent of non-Jewish Israeli citizens, which include Muslim Arabs, but also Catholics, Druses and Orthodox; political minorities, including Jews, have defined the anti-democratic law because it risks being discriminatory precisely because of the effects it may have on that part of Israeli society that does not coincide with the characteristics of Jewish identity. Certainly the conditions and rights of these citizens must be verified after the entry into force of the new law. The promulgation of this norm marks an anti-historical retreat of the positions of Israel and its will of closure, which, through the alleged search to protect its origins and its religious faith, aims to legalize the occupation of the territories of others against the right international in contempt of the international community and making only instrumental use of millennial values.
Against the intrusion of the President of the United States, Europe is currently opposing a strategy of trade agreements: a response that is only partly political, which is part of the greater room for maneuver, the economic one, available to Brussels. Certainly agreeing with China, the main economic adversary, of the US, is also a political act, which has a signified of an aversion to Washington’s politics. However, the new trade agreements with China appear to be an obligatory choice to preserve the economic benefits that Trump’s trade war risks to reduce. Of course, the agreement with Beijing is in the name of free trade and globalization and takes place on the basis of the philosophy of multilateral relations, in a clear antithesis to the protectionist measures of the North American country; but the nature of the agreement is also doubtful because it is stipulated between two subjects with visions that are profoundly different on the rights and also unbalanced in terms of costs and guarantees of the respective workers. The most important factor remains the market, which with its volume of trade between Europe and China ensures the value of a billion and a half of goods exchanged between the two parties. This figure is the most eloquent to find a sort of justification for the relationship with China: to continue to ensure a level of production that could be reduced by the duties that Trump wants to apply on European products. If, on the one hand, we can understand the desire to provide European companies with an outlet for their productions, we must also consider whether China can only be an economic partner or, through this relationship, does not want to be ever more influential in Europe. This danger is such because the European political relevance is still too limited by the room for maneuver that its members are unable to grant; it must be very clear that greater political integration, with a specific central institutional weight supported by the member states, guarantees to the central institutions a greater capacity for bargaining and for responding to external political demands. On the other hand, it is also necessary to safeguard the Union from the external attacks of characters like Trump, but also as Putin, who aim at a division of Europe to take greater advantage in economic and political negotiations, as well as having smaller and fragmented opponents compared to a unitary subject. The threat also comes from a front that can be defined as internal with the parties in favor of national sovereignty, closer to Trump and, therefore, hostile to agreements with China. The real danger is that the approach to China will become a further topic of division within the Union, a further factor of destabilization capable of compromising the current fragile balance. However, the need to maintain the current economic level can mitigate, at least in the short term, all doubts of the approach to China. One solution may be to take advantage of this period to open negotiations with Beijing on the subject of human rights, including them in trade agreements. Brussels, however, can start from the common vision with China on the theme of global warming and the fight against pollution, about which the European positions are close to those in China and more and more distant from those of the United States of Trump. Meanwhile, on the commercial front, Europe always looks to the east but with a subject, such as Japan, with which it has more similarities. After four years of negotiations, the agreement between Europe and Japan has been unblocked by US isolationist tendencies; the two parties have signed an agreement that has been defined as the largest ever stipulated between the two areas and which provides for free trade, eliminating tariff barriers in the automobile sectors, and in agricultural and food sectors, beyond the signing of several common policies regarding both regional and multilateral issues. These are unequivocal signs that the US allies are developing and developing alternative strategies that predict the absence of Washington from their negotiating tables and which mark a radical change in international politics regarding Western countries.
Austria, the country in office in the rotating presidency of the European Union, proposes the creation of deportation centers for migrants furoi from the European territories. The proposal aims to aggregate the right-wing and increasingly intolerant governments towards the phenomenon of migration, overcoming the conflicts generated by the European provisions concerning the division of refugees and the first reception system, which concerns the countries of the south, which generates the so-called secondary emigration to countries that do not face the Mediterranean, causing strong disputes among European member countries. It is a solution clearly coming from the right that tries to solve the problem with its almost complete cancellation. In practice, deportation centers should be set up outside the European territory to send migrants without the requirements to stay in Europe. The excuse to justify such a solution is the fight against trafficking in human beings, however, net of the hypocrisy of the Austrian proposal, its feasibility appears to be problematic, both with regard to Community law, and to the availability of finding practical solutions with the collaboration of others. States. Certainly there is the way of funding to those nations that could declare themselves available to such a collaboration, in part the experience with Turkey has taught a lot, but the aspects to be evaluated seem multiple: from the actual willingness of foreign states to build these deportation centers, under the conditions of these fields, both hygienic and sanitary, to the treatment of migrants expelled at these sites until the next moment after this phase of expulsion, which should provide for repatriation to their places of origin: certainly a series of procedures complicated, difficult to ascertain and do not prevent expelled migrants from attempting a new entry into Europe. A solution that seems even more difficult than alternative management. For Austria, the only concern is to officially avoid the presence of migrants on European soil to avoid conflicts between member states. But this solution has as its contraindication and main obstacle the inability to stop the migratory flows of the desperate who have as motivation the war, the famines and the violence present in their countries. It does not seem possible to stop those who leave their country for these reasons and the most immediate consequence will again leave the coastal countries to manage immigration. The Italian interior minister, who seems to like the Austrian solution, would show little foresight in supporting this management methodology, which would once again leave Rome alone in the face of migration. At the basis of this solution, then, there is also the criterion of limits of capacity for integration of migrants in the states, based on the fact that not all migrants have the same capacity for integration in Western societies, for Austria the level of of social peace and adaptability to European values, based on the origin of migrants; this criterion appears to be in contrast with Community legislation which does not discriminate, on the basis of the migrant’s identity, the possibility of remaining in the Union. These reasons seem to deny the justification of the fight against trafficking in human beings, because they highlight a will to close to other cultures, thought in a total manner, without even the filter of humanitarian motivations. As far as Europe is concerned, such a solution would further expose the danger of a forfeiture of the Schengen Treaty, with the consequence of the removal from the Union’s founding reasons. The migration theme is once again a limit to the very idea of Europe as it has been understood until now, threatening to overturn the European plant with dangerous consequences that go far beyond the migratory problems, often increasingly used as a means of imposing a new vision through which to discredit the European rules in force. But thinking about unworkable solutions, both from a practical and legal point of view, and without any hope of producing real results capable of effectively mitigating the migratory phenomenon, because they do not solve the causes but only the effects, is an indication of poor attitude to government and is the expression of a short-sighted and low-level political class, capable, and only partly, of looking not far in time and space.
China tries to play a leading role in international politics by making substantial economic aid available to some Arab countries and the Middle East. It is a scheme usually used by Beijing to establish good political relations with other countries, which can assure the Chinese power first of all good commercial prospects and also excellent developments in diplomatic relations. Until now, this method had been used in such a masked manner with the African states and in a less accentuated manner with the European states; entry into Arab and Middle Eastern countries is new and signals the Chinese will to broaden its range of action, even in potential conflict with the United States, which, traditionally, have strategic interests in these areas of the planet. Moreover, the isolationist will of Trump represents an opportunity to favor the Chinese plans to exercise a sort of soft power conducted through the financial means. Beijing’s investment is expected to be around seventeen billion euros, designed to support industrialization and infrastructure construction projects, which will be the driving force for the economies of the financed states. The goals, in fact, concern the creation of jobs, which must have the dual purpose of increasing the spread of wealth and, through this, ensure social stability, with the ultimate goal of arriving at a solution to the security problems of these territories . It is significant that the first tranche of this aid goes to Palestine with 12.8 million euro, while 77 million will be divided between Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. These are countries where conflicts are taking place or, in any case, they present situations of high instability and which, often, have constituted recruitment ground for terrorist groups of Islamic fundamentalism. It will be interesting to verify what will be, also the reactions of Tel Aviv and Washington to the financing to Palestine, which represents the entrance, for now indirect, of Beijing in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; It is easy to foresee that the reactions of Tel Aviv and Washington will not be positive for funding for Palestine, but China has never shown interest in entering the purely political issue, but it is clear that such an act can make it become potentially a new actor in the dispute. If one wants to enter the hypothesis it can be assumed that funding is the first approach for a direct commitment by Beijing to resolve the age-old problem between Israelis and Palestinians, to increase its international prestige. Chinese investment in the Arab area was preceded by growing economic relations, as bilateral trade growth increased by almost 12% in thirteen years and where Chinese companies in the power; in addition, in Djibouti, the People’s Republic of China installed the first military base outside its territory. In the Chinese strategy, the centrality is occupied by the construction and growth of the Silk Road, which aims to trace the ancient route that extended from China to the rest of the world and was the most important route for trade. To implement this project, the Chinese plan envisages the construction of a series of different infrastructures: pipelines in Burma, motorways in Pakistan, railway lines in Kenya and ports in Greece and Sri Lanka, but the centrality of the Arab states, and their energy availability, puts them in a prominent position in the Beijing project and the intention is to involve the Arab League to support Chinese intentions. But China also has a second goal, in addition to the commercial one, which concerns the aspect of security, intended as prevention of possible attacks against the infrastructures under construction, defined as maintaining stability; Beijing is worried by the high rate of radicalization in the area and will allocate around 130 million euros for security forces and surveillance systems. One of the reasons for concern is that of a possible weld between Uyghur extremism, a Muslim population living in the Xinjiang region of China, often subjected to harsh repression by Beijing and radical Islamic Islamic movements, a merger that could jeopardize or alter Chinese investments in Middle Eastern countries.
After the introduction of US tariffs, China abandons the usual diplomatic tone to attack Washington directly, through the “China Daily” government newspaper. The signal is clear: the commercial war has just begun. The accusation against the USA is that of blackmail and violation of the trade rules unilaterally, on the other hand the threats of Trump had already arrived for some time and the Chinese surprise seems surprising. If Beijing believed that the intentions of the American president were not true, he made an error of assessment, but the tones of the Chinese newspaper seem more to have the purpose of warning the United States of the retaliation, ever closer and, together, trying to earn a a sort of alliance against American arrogance, which has the European Union as its address. If Trump’s objective is to favor American workers and businesses, the result will be difficult to achieve, given that the Chinese response, moreover in line with the European one, will be to respond with other duties, which will increase prices in the country. the US, worsening company balance sheets and reducing workers’ purchasing power. In this Washington maneuver, one can not help but see a parallel with the exit of the United Kingdom from Europe, which is producing heavy consequences on the British economy and considerable change of opinion by the public. Trump does not seem to have reached such a low point yet, but if the effects of closing it on the market will be so negative, the next mid-term elections could prove to be a disaster for the Republican party. The Chinese action to counter the US tariffs will be of a similar sum, worth about $ 34 billion, to that suffered by Washington, which is expected to hit companies in areas where Trump has received greater electoral success. For now, China has followed the European response mode, that is to introduce symmetrical measurement duties so as not to raise the level of the confrontation; however, the White House has already planned to raise the Chinese commodity tariffs by another $ 16 billion in two weeks. As we can see, the most probable future scenario is that of an escalation of the commercial war, which can not fail to have political repercussions in terms of international equilibrium. In fact it is impossible not to think about the role of Europe in a situation that includes such a development. Brussels has also been hit by US tariffs and this has led to greater closeness with China due to the affinity that has developed on the issues of free trade. However, approaching Beijing must be treated with caution, given the undemocratic regime that exists in the Chinese country, with too many victims of repression and lack of fundamental rights. China can be a partner from the commercial point of view, with ample room for development, if we want to continue to overlook the lack of guarantees to its citizens, but it can not become anything more. On the other hand there is the historic alliance with the United States and the Atlantic Alliance, which remains a cornerstone of European defense; the removal caused by the trade war can also have repercussions on diplomatic ties but must not undermine the regime of military alliances, despite the many provocations of Trump, even if it is clear that the change in the international scene can lead to unprecedented changes. The success of nationalist and populist political formations, which are politically in agreement with the US president, could be a further factor in the development of the general picture: a weakened Europe in its central structures could choose, or could choose one of its members individually, to approach Trump through a policy of closing and opposing China and, ultimately, the whole scaffolding of the free market, in the name of a local protectionism, that is an exercise of national sovereignty interpreted with the closure towards the world. It is a possible development that the current political situation can favor but which would bring the world back to a previous situation that was believed to have been overcome. The question is whether the world economic system can withstand such a retreat without considerable social repercussions; the theme, that is, is whether the effects of a further increase in social inequalities are predicted, due to a general impoverishment caused by the ever increasing wealth accumulated in ever lower percentages of the population; because this seems to be the direction that the closure of the free market seems to be able to produce. An even worse effect of globalization than populism wanted to fight as the first enemy.
So the return of the will to assert its national sovereignty against European unity has highlighted how the right-wing parties to the government in Europe are, in words, in agreement, but when it comes to the moment to find practical solutions it is highlighted the profound opposition caused by the respective objectives, in mutual contrast. On the other hand, Italian interests can not be the same as those of Austria or Germany or the countries of the Visegrad bloc; the problem of primary emigration, that of those who arrive for the first time on European soil, is in open contrast with the interests of those who do not want secondary emigration, the one that occurs between the states of the Union. The political weight of the right-wing parties has led to less flexibility in the relations between states regarding the migration problem, establishing a rigidity of their respective attitudes due to the prevailing of particular interests over the general ones. The great responsibility for this situation can be attributed to the passive attitude of Brussels towards the states of Eastern Europe, which have refused the division of migrants without any sanction; along with this aspect must also be recognized a too condescending approach of Germany, as the most important European country, which has not taken a firmer position against the countries of Visegrad, perhaps to protect its economic interests. It must also be said that the Italian behavior of previous governments, even in a line of aid and support to migrants, has never been too firm with Europe, preferring, sometimes, to leave refugees free in other European countries. However, what central institutions do not seem to have understood is that immigration, despite being a real problem, is the means by which populist and anti-European movements use to discredit Brussels. In fact, the phenomenon is numerically still contained, especially when compared to the amount of refugees hosted in other countries of the world. The feeling is that we want to exacerbate internal situations, an example of all that of Bavaria, to force governments, even those who are not right, to lock themselves up and develop forms of recourse on the neighboring country. The situation between Germany and Austria exerts this scenario well, which can directly involve Italy. If before it was a conflict essentially between the countries of Eastern Europe and the other European members, now the feeling is that we are all against everyone, with the real danger of bringing the Union back to a situation further back in time ; in fact, if the free circulation were to come to an end, and it is a real danger, a condition that is considered essential for European unity would be lacking. One can not help but think that this eventuality is arrived at in a non-random but scientifically studied way to weaken Europe. Moreover, the European rights advocate a lesser European presence in the internal politics of the states, just to recover a greater space for maneuvering legislation and government and this is not a mystery but falls within their programs and electoral proclamations. At this moment, strongly critical of European unity, Brussels should take responsibility for the reasons that led populist formations to government and put into practice measures to remedy the previous political guidelines, beginning to loosen the budgetary constraints, sanctioning who does not respect the community directives and think about policies that do not penalize the southern members of Europe. At this stage it would be important for central institutions to exercise an effective role of mediation among the states, looking for opportunities to become protagonists and rediscover the lost relevance and authority. This is also because, once again, the feeling is that Brussels has an attitude of immobilism that seems to support the interests of the state rather than the European ones and in this way the erosion of power of the Union is facilitated. The issue of migrants appears even more instrumental if one thinks of the mass of reactions that has triggered, considerably lower than what was raised for economic decisions, which have had a much greater impact on the lives of European citizens and nations. In this historical moment, then only the European institutions can save themselves by concretely demonstrating all their specific weight for the continent.
The story of the ship refused by the Italian ports, beyond the certainly unfortunate situation, has had the merit of highlighting the hypocrisy of the individual states in the face of the migratory emergency and the political inadequacy of the European institutions. In fact it was enough that an Italian politician, minister for about ten days, would raise his voice to bring out all the contradictions about the European spirit, which until now have been carried forward in a false way. If on the human and moral side the ban on the Italian interior minister is deplorable, on the political side he has raised in a practical way the issue of the sharing of refugees and the problem of first assistance. Until now, and it is an officially recognized fact from Brussels, Italy, and Greece, have been left alone to face migratory emergencies simply because they are the southern borders of Europe, in particular Italy has lavish to face the greater influx of migrants because of the vicinity with the African coasts. The countries that have condemned the Italian state, France and Spain, have become protagonists in the past and Paris still today, of episodes of rejection far more serious, of serious behaviors of the respective police, who have operated violently and exceeding the limit of legality. Recall for Spain several episodes in Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish enclaves on African territory and the rejection of a refugee ship by the previous government. For France, the closure of the pass of Ventimiglia and the rejection of migrants who attempted the Alpine route in prohibitive weather conditions, can easily equate the politics of Paris with immigration to that of Austria and that of the countries of the Eastern bloc. Yet these behaviors, which created deaths and suffering, do not prevent the two countries from judging Italy, responsible for an act that is certainly not shared, but which did not produce victims. This hypocrisy, so manifest, denounces a poor or no reliability of France and Spain as interlocutors on the issue of the management of immigrants, and the Spanish gesture for now concerns only one ship and does not yet allow a positive judgment on the willingness to share the emergency with Italy. Even the attitude of Europe seemed fearsome and inappropriate, if we can positively greet the announced desire to revise the Treaty of Dublin and allocate a substantial sum for the management of migrants, we can not but think that this is due to initiative to block Italian ports. The previous Italian requests, beyond declarations that did not go beyond word solidarity, have always had limited practical effects. Unfortunately, the spontaneous thought that springs from it is that previous governments, which have always had an irreproachable attitude on these subjects, have erred in following the rules without ever opting for acts of force, even limited ones. No one comes out well from this situation, certainly not Italy forced to an action that was better never to see, France and Spain who turned out to be political dwarfs, trying to exploit a contingency on which they had no right to speak and finally Europe he denounced his structural limitations, accentuated by an embarrassing yielding due to an act, serious, but all in all limited. What authority can claim to have a supranational institution that changes its attitude to a decision that does not seem entirely legal? As for the attitude towards the eastern countries, Brussels shows to bow to those who raise their voices demonstrating to have a very poor political consistency. The advent of the Italian populist government is discovering a weakness of the European institutions, which even in a context of non-positive judgment, did not seem credible, a weakness that exposes the Union to the turmoil of a very difficult contingent world moment and expresses a once again, the need for a radical and effective reform of the European institutions, capable of governing internal and external emergencies.
That the question of immigration had been central to the Italian election campaign was well known: even for the previous government, which had a completely different direction towards refugees, it had repeatedly stressed how Italy was left alone, from Europe in the management of the migratory emergency. The aid was only of an economic nature and also insufficient, then Brussels did not go beyond the declarations of principle. On the issue of the fight against immigration, the Lega Nord, now the governing party, has built its own electoral success, with a good responsibility from the central European institutions, which have not been able to think of a policy of management of landings and of the division of refugees , lurking behind the justification, now insufficient of the Dublin Treaty. If in Brussels, but also in Berlin and Paris, they thought that even this government, after so many threats, continued the policy of welcoming the previous one, they elaborated a completely wrong assessment or, worse, they did not even try a different approach to a problem that affects the whole continent. The new Italian government must pay the bill to the electorate who voted for it and show that it maintains a rigid attitude with Europe and, at the same time, preserve the Italian country from the dangers that come with migration. Thus the case of the refused naves becomes the example that must serve everyone and must oblige Brussels to become aware of the Italian hostility inmodoreale. Even Malta’s target is functional to this intent, but the Maltese closure attitude begins to present little justification: with the excuse of its limited size in Valletta they have always refused to cooperate with Italy, without Europe reproaching this behavior. If the behavior of the Italian government is morally reprehensible it is not less that of France, which closes its borders or that of Germany, which continues to be very strict with the countries of Eastern Europe, whose presence in Europe constitutes economic benefits in Berlin. Despite the fact that European countries had been warned in the just past Canadian summit of the seven most industrialized countries, we did not want to believe in the blockade of Italian ports. One reason for this immobility can be the conviction that in the Italian government, formed by two political forces of different origins, there could be differences of vision that could exceed the intentions of the Northern League. The point is that this party, notwithstanding a lower percentage of votes collected, seems to have assumed the command of the government, probably because of the greater political experience of its members. The other party, the Five Star Movement seems to be being driven into an executive that expresses values of the right, in line with its proximity to the French National Front. The fact remains that if Europe were to make changes to the Dublin regulation, create the conditions for a fair division of migrants and contribute to prevention on the African territory of departures, would remove all excuse and reason to the government of Rome not to accommodate refugees . The future scenario could be a series of ships that roam the Mediterranean in search of a landing place? Italy can not be forced to open its ports without the will of its government and in doing so the moral rejection after Rome can only fall on all European capitals, so all of Europe will have to share the shame of the lack of acceptance, even those governments that have kept a politically correct line denied by the facts. Of course, if just a government put together in a cornered way, as is the Italian, to unmask the hypocrisy of Brussels, the need to rebuild Europe is even more compelling than it seemed.
At the G7 in Canada, the US was alone against everyone and almost completely disagreed on most of the points in the discussion program. The only convergences seem to have been found on gender equality, work and growth, which are important meeting points but also that allow a certain vagueness on the contents and that are not sufficient to bridge the distances that were already known, but which were highlighted even more so. Trump’s attitude was hostile even before the start of the summit, so much so that it was feared that only the vice president was present at the United States, as happened with the Peruvian summit of Latin American states. The real risk, that Trump does not sign the final document, rejecting the common declaration completely and, not only the climate aspect, as happened at the Italian summit of Taormina, has been verified. In addition to the climate, the most relevant topics were the duties and the Iranian nuclear treaty issue. The issue of protectionism, which Trump wants to pursue stubbornly, in addition to striking individually the state economies, including those of Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, ie the remaining members of the G7, risks compromise the agreements reached with China, about trade relations with Beijing. Washington has shown itself to remain unyielding on the will to impose tariffs against Europe and Canada in the measure of 25% on steel and 10% of aluminum and the European will to hit a series of American products with a total tax that rebalancing the amount that will have to undergo steel and aluminum from the old continent, the White House has threatened to introduce further tariffs on cars from Europe and Southeast Asia. One of the main effects, if this threat was implemented, could be the end of the World Trade Organization following a series of actions and reactions that would trigger on the global market. The possibility is that, in terms of international trade, we can go back several years, with the elimination of jobs and the inauguration of a phase of heavy general economic crisis. American isolation, however, is dangerous, first of all, for the US, because the tension with the Europeans could force the old continent to make ever closer collaboration agreements with China, condemning the progressive marginalization of Washington. It is not a remote hypothesis, China and Europe are already substantially in agreement with the climate and global warming and, with increasingly intense commercial and collaborative relationships, could subvert the current state of affairs. For the US, commercial isolation could also result in less political importance, if Europe manages to build its own armed forces and to find one, even minimal, on foreign policy. In this situation, it could also introduce Russia to bring division into the American allies. Trump insists, in his program summarized by the phrase “America first”, considering it impossible for historical allies to loose their contacts with Washington, even if they were the object of economic injustice; but the approval of the American president is always lower in Europe and these moves could accelerate the separation from the United States, especially considering the current historical context, where the logic of the opposing blocs has long since set and globalization has opened up scenarios completely different, with new logics, which can not separate the economy from international relations and defense structures. But Trump could overturn reality even more clamorously by opening a channel of privileged dialogue with Moscow, a factor hitherto prevented by the American bureaucracy, that the president is slowly taking on his side with increasingly frequent changes at the top. It has been said that Trump’s action is based on an increasingly used unpredictability, however the question is whether behind this use of unpredictability in massive doses, there is a pre-built project or if the American president is based on improvisation due at the moment particular and its momentary opinions. In any case, the US, with Trump in the White House. I am an interlocutor, always important, but always less reliable, from which we need to loosen the bonds as soon as possible, to form a West and a Europe capable of making independent decisions and being able to support them.
The distance that increases between European countries and the United States marks a novelty in relations within the Western bloc. The need to maintain greater convergence in security issues, however, remains a priority in the face of new global emergencies, the dangers of terrorism and facing international tensions, although of a world no longer in two parts, but with increasingly important players, like China. Within the West the role of the Atlantic Alliance retains its priority in matters of defense and security; if before the members of the alliance were substantially aligned, as well as on the military issues also on those of international relations and economic relations, the current scenario returns a situation that has progressively changed the respective needs of individual states in the face of globalization issues and internal politics. The conflictual relationship that began on the commodities, and on the relative duties to impose, between the USA and Europe, since Trump became the new American president, has outlined a distance between the two sides as had never happened in history; however, the Trump variable also provoked a strong difference in the assessment of the Iranian nuclear agreement: with Europe it is wishing to maintain its signed with Tehran, while the United States, closer to the Sunni powers and Israel compared to the Obama’s presidency, are now deeply opposed to allowing the civil development of Iranian country’s atomic technology. Another negative factor is the American negative attitude towards the climate agreement. At the summit of the Atlantic Alliance these tensions caused an alarm due to the fear of relapse within the alliance, considering the fact that Turkey has so far moved alongside Russia, a traditional opponent of the Atlantic Alliance, which has recently taken back a role of primary importance in the international scene and of the recent declarations of the new Italian government, which said it was in favor of a revision of sanctions against Moscow, imposed because of the Ukrainian question, an opinion supported by several states belonging to the European Union. The Secretary of the Atlantic Alliance voiced the growing discomfort within the organization, recognizing that the major divergences present must not compromise security cooperation, which would weaken cooperation among Alliance members. For the time being, international analysts believe that the issues that cause distance between the members have not had an impact on the functioning of the Atlantic Alliance, but that should an increase in disagreement occur, the next summit of the organization could be very difficult. There is also the problem of the American request, to the other states to increase military spending up to 2% of the individual gross domestic product. Washington has a double interest in these increases in spending: on the one hand a greater participation in defense spending, a legitimate request because up to now the US, also to maintain the status quo of the world’s first power, an aspect to which they care a lot , they have supported much of the financial effort to keep the alliance efficient, but there is also another, less noble aspect, which consists in wanting to target this expenditure in armaments produced in the US borders. This aspect could generate further conflicts because the obstacles for the European industries imposed by the US prevent access to the Atlantic Alliance market, going, in fact, to constitute a form of protectionism practiced by other means. The concern of the leaders of the Atlantic Alliance is, therefore, justified, and can be mitigated with a very difficult internal diplomatic action, also because the European Union, although still far away, has undertaken the direction of the creation of a European army, which it may not be framed in the Atlantic Alliance, either to make itself more independent of American aid, and to have room for maneuver and greater autonomy in international contexts. This goal is considered indispensable by Germany and France to avoid excessive dependence on subjects like Trump in the future.