The recent report on the state of food security and nutrition in the world elaborated by the specialized agencies of the United Nations has shown a remarkable increase of the undernourished people in the world, that has reached the quota of 821.000.000 of people; a fact that brings the question back to 2008 levels. In essence what has been recorded is a substantial deterioration in the living conditions of a large number of people and indicates an economic and political retreat incompatible with the progress achieved in some parts of the world, openly in contrast to different parts of Africa and South America. If the situation in Asia remains stable, which does not mean that there has been an improvement, the condition regarding the satisfaction of the most basic needs of human life has generally deteriorated. The social implications of this retreat mean that deep economic inequality remains a problem that goes beyond social justice, but invests the survival prospects of an ever greater number of people. If moral considerations are not to be confined to an autonomous dimension, which does not appear sufficient to a global discourse, the consequences of this problem must also be analyzed with a view to political repercussions, both within states suffering from the problem of food resources insufficient, both to the so-called first world, that is no longer only the western area, but also emerging powers such as China, Russia, Brazil and several Asian states. The shortage of foodstuffs, which can not guarantee survival, can only generate migratory movements that are much larger than the current ones and therefore capable of greater political consequences in the national and supranational systems that are the object of the movement of people. Rich states tend to thwart emigration but, for example, on the effects of climate, perhaps the major cause of malnutrition, do not do enough to help reduce global warming, just as they can not find suitable tools to prevent wars, which are another determining factor for food scarcity. Even on the lack of development of economies often rich in raw materials, but which fall into the countries of famine, there are no projects that can create a return to income for poor nations, but there is an intensive exploitation that enriches and favors society belonging to countries of the first world, thus creating a sort of continuation of colonialism, for which, among other things, there were not even the right reparations. Economic growth remains the big goal of the rich countries, but it is a fake datum, which does not take into account the difficulties, understood as costs, caused precisely by the lack of food at the global level and all that follows, even at the political level. where legislative decisions are slowed down or diverted from issues such as migration. Certainly with the current national political systems that proceed on their own particular interest, to the detriment of the general one, the question of world hunger can not find a definitive solution, but only, at best, partial and localized remedies to particularly dangerous contingent situations for rich countries. Despite this observation, the UN goal is to arrive at the final elimination of the problem of malnutrition by 2030. There are only twelve years to reach this goal, which could potentially be achieved even before, if the collaboration between the rich nations was effective and the coordination capacity of the UN became effective. What we intend to do to fight hunger in the world is to take continuous actions to ensure the supply of food, which must also be of a certain quality, through actions that invest the affected areas. However, these projects must ensure adequate water supply, another theme intimately connected with hunger, a transfer of knowledge in the field of food production, the assurance of universal access to food resources and adequate funding to achieve all this. It is not an impossible program if the safety conditions are guaranteed for the operators and the inhabitants and this theme invests the relations with the governments and between the states, until becoming the first determining factor for the achievement of the objective.
Coinciding with the seventieth anniversary of the founding of Northern Correa, South Korea’s diplomatic activity continues to prevent the thawing climate between Washington and Pyongyang from being ruined by the slowing of the denuclearization of Pyongyang. The third summit between the two Koreas, after those of April and May, is scheduled between September 18th and 20th and will take place in the North Korean capital. The main objective of the President of South Korea is to avoid a new deterioration between Washington and Pyongyang due to the blocking of North Korea’s nuclear disarmament denounced by the United States. After last June’s meeting in Singapore between the two enemy countries, concrete actions were carried out that initiated the détente, such as the closure of the North Korean nuclear testing site and the interruption of joint military exercises between the US and North Korea. Despite this, according to the White House, Pyongyang would have slowed down the process of denuclearization and would have fueled Washington’s suspicions that Kim Jong-a was carrying out the North Korean nuclear program. This resentment has taken formal form with the cancellation of the diplomatic voyage to the capital of North Korea, by the US Secretary of State, which was to take place in July. Instead, North Korea challenges this reading, and claims the progress made and says it is ready to cooperate with both South Korea and the United States. The availability of the North Korean regime could be a tactic to take time and allow a concrete formulation of a strategy to tackle the diplomatic difficulties, which are followed by a forced decision, caused by the disparity of forces with the US and the contingency of the need to break the embargo to avoid dangerous drifts in a highly controlled population, but exhausted by years of famine. The central point is whether North Korea intends to give up its nuclear program, which is the only weapon of bargaining on the international scene and the insurance of the survival of the regime and of Kim Jong-un himself. The impression is that the North Korean dictator found himself practically forced to sign an agreement, without an alternative plan, from which the need to gain time. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un estimated that the denuclearization program could be concluded with the end of Trump’s mandate in 2012, this seems to want to be a tool to convince the American President through his ego. The short-term goal of South Korea is to obtain the denuclearization of the peninsula, but the most ambitious one is to reach the signature of a peace treaty, which definitively puts an end to the Korean war, which is still formally underway: in fact the end of hostilities is, for now, still regulated by the armistice signed in 1953. Seoul to get to the signing of the peace treaty must have the support of the United States, which will have to sign it as a nation that led the alliance against Korea of the communist North and its allies China and Russia. Therefore, South Korea has every interest in keeping the dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington open, but once again the unknown is on the real intentions of the North Korean dictator, who continues to be available to meet representatives from the south, because understands, that at this moment I am the only intermediary with the United States. Central to understanding the situation will be the role China will want to play, at this moment in silence on the subject; for Beijing it is important that North Korea survives as an independent state and there is no unification of the Koreas, which would mean a country on the border under US influence. If China intends to use the dictatorship of Kim Jong-un as a counter-instrument to the US, peace will be hard to reach, vice versa the continuation of the dictatorship in a weakened and less closed way could provide cheap labor and a new potential market for Chinese products, while the North Korean role of the Chinese ally and the barrier to American influence in the region would remain unaltered. This could be a compromise valid for all components only if the denuclearization process was completed and established in a secure manner.
The war in Yemen has been under way for three years, but has a minor resonance than the Syrian one; last August was one of the most tragic due to the sad accounting of the victims, which reached 981 dead, including more than 300 children. Civilian deaths are accidents justified by the Saudi military as legitimate acts of war, with cynical and insensitive bureaucratic practices, which are part of the strategy used against the Shiite rebels. That put into practice by the Sunni coalition, led by Saudi Arabia, which includes Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, is a conduct that combines military action with the inevitable indiscriminate reprisals, the use of the almost total humanitarian block to use hunger and disease as a weapon of war. This practice could however be framed within the crime of war crime, if there was a concrete willingness to pursue this path from the United Nations, perhaps a solution could be opened for this conflict; however the war continues almost ignored by the press and international organizations. Only non-governmental organizations try to carry on their work in increasingly difficult situations and with the real risk for their operators to be hit by Sunni coalition air strikes. The health situation in the country is collapsing because of cholera, which has infected at least half a million people and has caused over two thousand deaths in the last three months alone. An important fact is the economic one: Yemen is the poorest state in the Middle East and already under normal conditions the food supply is difficult, which makes it even more difficult to find food resources in a state of war where supplies are almost stuck, both by the military, that from the condition of the system of communication ways, which is damaged practically in its entirety. Politically for Arabia and its allies it is a war that represents the retaliation against Iran, but also against Russia, for the victory in Syria, which was a goal of the Sunni countries. A defeat of the Yemeni rebels of Shiite religion could be a weakening for Tehran, which sought a basis for countering the Sunni monarchies. Within the conflictual framework of the relations between Teheran and Washington, an American role within the conflict is present, even if defunct. Already with Obama the US had avoided interfering in the conflict, remaining neutral, not to increase the distance with Riyad because of the Iranian nuclear agreement, but with Trump president the feeling is that the United States are collaborating with the Sunni alliance in anti-Iranian optics. The lack of international sanctioning of Saudi Arabia for the practices adopted in Yemen can also be read as a strategic element against Tehran; this allows the Saudis to continue to oppose the opening of humanitarian corridors, both for refugees and for supplies of medicines and foodstuffs. The one practiced by Riyadh is an almost total isolation, which despite failing to overcome the military resistance of the rebels, reduces the possibility of survival of civilians, forcing them to enormous suffering. Another factor that exacerbates the situation is the presence in some areas of the country of groups of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, which being Sunni also incite themselves on the Shiite population. If the United Nations does not perform its function, because they are probably hostage to the US, what is astonishing is the silence of Europe, which once again proves fearful and unable to become an authoritative international subject, perhaps because of Arab investments present on the continent. The increasingly serious humanitarian emergency remains, because military violence has also increased, infringing international and humanitarian law in a context of absolute silence.
While the Russian aviation had already begun the bombing of the north-western part of Syria, the last still guarded by rebels against Assad, diplomacy still tries to avert the umpteenth catastrophe due to the Syrian conflict. The presence of 70,000 fighters, including several members of Al Qaeda, ready to announce a possible massacre that would be the natural consequence of the fighting, in which the death toll of civilians would certainly be very high. In the area there are about three million civilians, many of whom have reached this area fleeing from other areas of Syria and, therefore, are already in the condition of refugees. From the diplomatic point of view, the country that has more interest than the battle does not take place is Turkey, because there would be 800,000 people already seeking refuge in the territory of Ankara, located on the border with this Syrian region. But even from a diplomatic point of view Turkey is in a difficult situation: the contiguity with the rebel groups present in the area has provoked the request of Russia, Iran and the Damascus regime for a sort of preventive negotiation to avoid an already deplored battle. from the United Nations and the USA. Ankara has to deal with its tactic oscillating between the use of rebels against Assad and the subsequent dialogue with the Syrian regime: a behavior held to protect their particular interests, especially against the Kurds, rather than looking at the regional balance. The first consequence could be, in fact, a huge influx of refugees to its territory, a problem of difficult management, if combined with the already large amount of refugees that must manage. The interests of Moscow, Teheran and Damascus, however, go in the opposite direction and aim to resolve the issue of Idlib as soon as possible. For the Russians it is a question of ending as soon as possible a direct commitment to the theater of war, which has been justified by the geopolitical objectives of Moscow, but which is no longer seen benevolently by Russian society and begins to cause disagreement over the work of Putin in the middle east. Tehran needs to give the final blow to the Sunni insurgents and to give, through this operation, a clear and unequivocal signal to the Gulf monarchies, which, with this possible defeat, would definitely come out losers from the Syrian conflict. Damascus, directly involved, aims to end the conflict and re-establish its sovereignty over this region, even if it is likely to be a limited sovereignty in favor of Russia and Iran. If the start of operations seems, therefore, impossible to avoid, Iran, Russia and Syria itself wish to resolve the situation with the lowest possible human cost. These words of circumstance are in conflict with the first civilian deaths burned by Russian bombers. While outlining the humanitarian catastrophe, once again we can not fail to register as the United States abdicates its role as the main international power, since Trump’s plan for disengagement from Syria will go ahead anyway. The American president has only made an appeal to the three countries involved in the conflict to avoid the battle of Idlib, but it seemed only a formal act without any constraints or consequences. On the other hand, even the United Nations has limited itself to appeals of circumstance and to confirm a meeting of the Security Council that will end in a void for the Russian veto. The rest of the world, including Europe, is left to watch helplessly what is announced yet another massacre of civilians that will follow a serious humanitarian situation and the obvious persecution of the bloody Assad regime, still remained to hold the highest political office of the Syrian country.
Chinese policy towards Africa has had a long and patient journey, which has lasted for over ten years; in this period the diplomacy of Beijing has made a constant approach in the various African countries making almost eighty visits by the highest Chinese officers in at least forty-three countries of the black continent, as well as several diplomatic missions, which have the purpose of promoting penetration Chinese in African nations. For Beijing, Africa is considered strategic both in the short term and in the long term. The Chinese reasoning has, therefore, a double value both political and economic, but that moves from a vision of development that is convenient for the African countries, but, first of all for China itself. If we think about the short term, the availability of raw materials, combined with a very low labor cost, represent a reason of fundamental and functional interest in the growth of the Chinese economy, which is always the main reason that moves Beijing’s interests; however, short-term reasoning must also include the outlet of Chinese goods in rapidly growing economies that require large foreign capital to be allocated to their own development. The data that best illustrates this trend is that of the volume of economic exchanges between China and Africa: at the beginning of the 2000 it stood at 10 billion dollars, while in 2017 it reached 170 billion dollars. But China believes that this figure may increase again, in fact in the long-term vision of Beijing there is the assessment of the increase in the African population, which from the current billion, should go to double by 2050 and even reach 3 billion by the end of the century. This is a forecast that would allow the African continent to have more inhabitants than those of China and India added up: a potentially huge market, if supported by adequate economic growth. In order to support these objectives, China has decided to increase its investments in Africa, thanks to a great availability of financial liquidity, which is the real instrument of penetration on the continent. President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Africa resulted in a 60,000-million credit line to finance growth; previously a similar sum had been invested in favor of the African continent. However, only a part of these funds are without interest and this is considered a sort of danger for the sovereignty of the African countries, because China would have a position of advantage on the governments precisely because of the debt that these loans cause. The question poses geopolitical aspects that are anything but irrelevant: it is clear that Beijing is putting a serious mortgage on African countries and on the influence it can exert on them, both in absolute terms and in terms related to contingent matters, may arise in the future. It is no coincidence that the positive perception of China has dropped significantly in very important countries of the continent, such as Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Senegal and Tanzania. The Chinese maneuvers, however, are likely to significantly decrease the Western influence in Africa: it must be recognized that Beijing has operated wisely but not in a hidden way, certainly the great financial resources have favored the Chinese plans, but the response of the US and Europe has been too much less than what is offered by China; it is a political myopia that could have heavy repercussions in the long run because the garrison of Africa could, in the future, be decisive both in terms of economic power and of international political power; not for nothing Beijing is already operating a military base in Djibouti, which seems to represent the first point of support for the Chinese armed forces on the continent, which could be followed by other military installations. The dangerousness of this evolution must be framed in a context in which the Chinese country has diplomatic, economic and commercial relations with not only democratic governments, but also in countries where dictatorships govern it and there is respect for civil rights. On the other hand, even in China itself, rights are assured and this must be an alarm for a country that increasingly invests worldwide to become central and gain political significance not yet reached. Altering the African position in the world geopolitical framework can be a fundamental element to subvert the current delicate balances, but that represents a clear mortgage on the future not only of the African continent, but also on that of the global scenario.
The alarm for the danger of a European disruption due to growing populism is becoming increasingly clear. The growth of populist movements, which is accompanied by the equally dangerous movement of an increasingly extreme right, contaminated by fascism and Nazism, seems to have arrived as an unexpected and unexpected factor; in fact neither the institutions of Brussels, nor those of the individual states nor the progressive parties, those of the center and those of the moderate right have been able to build a valid strategy to predict, first, and then deal with the populist drift, with everything what it entails. The causes, however, come from afar and concern first of all the distortion of the objectives pursued by the left parties. The run-up to the center electorate, with needs also contrasting with those of the lower classes, the unemployed, workers and low-level employees, has shifted the attention from issues of great social value to more particular interests, which have disoriented the usual electorate of that political area. A sort of political abandonment has been generated of vast social areas, which have no longer seen their demands and their needs protected, generating a progressive separation from politics, merged first in the practice of abstention and then in the protest vote in favor of populist movements. Even those who were directly involved in active politics have left the parties and circles due to the abandonment of the central structures against the model of the widespread party in favor of lighter structures but increasingly distant from the peripheries; this separation has created leaders totally unaware of the real needs of the people, who, in the meantime, has had to face economic crises often caused by characters who have become close to the leaders of the progressive parties. Not only that, the recipes to remedy these crises have concerned penalizing measures for the lower classes and this has increased the resentment for the betrayal suffered. Instead of worrying about creating poles for social inequalities and for the redistribution of income, the parties that remained progressive only in the name, have implemented economic measures that have increased these inequalities, also harmful from the economic point of view, because they have never helped to raise the national economies with an increase in spending, never arrived by the wealthy classes. The English lesson, where Blair’s failure, has not taught anything to the progressive political forces, has determined the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, while on the continent it has reached a stage where the major countries, governed by popular forces or of the self-styled left, eliminated the union achievements and reduced the welfare state in favor of banks and finance, that is, those who were the material managers of the economic crises. If in the progressive parties there has been a transformation against nature, in the central or classical right parties there has been an equally clear transformation, which has betrayed the policies of social cohesion and meritocracy in favor of positions of convenience, which are often resulted in episodes of technocracy in favor of certain social sectors, and, however, that have gone, in the results, in the same direction of progressive parties. Therefore, the current prevalent presence of populist movements, which are increasingly joined by those of the extreme right, is an element of great concern, but from which we can not ignore a careful analysis of the responsibilities and the causes of their affirmation. Without this derives from the ideals of the left, center and even right parties, populism would remain a numerically contained phenomenon and confined to the margins of political and social life, just as there would be no recovery of the extreme right, able to capture the needs of the most unfortunate classes and address them against migratory phenomena in a war between the poor in a nationalist version. The discomfort and discontent of the European population is a tangible element that we wanted to underestimate in order to follow policies that have exalted inequality and still do not present effective corrective measures. A full assumption of responsibility with a consequent revision that starts, first of all, from political behavior and that invests the organizations of the structures of the parties, with a view to returning to the past to favor the territorial dimension, appears the starting point that must lead to a profound change oriented to the real problems of citizens, in open contrast with theoretical programs and detached from reality. Only in this way can a real confrontation be made with populist policies and, perhaps, prevent the dangers of their effects.
The underground war that is trying to distress Pope Francis derives from the sum of the interests of Vatican conservatives, together with the new racist, xenophobic and populist rights. The policy of the Argentine Pope, which is coherent within the prescriptions of the Gospel, appears to the right as the last real cultural obstacle, which is intended as a barrier to the influence of those who flow into the vast area of Western-growing extremism. . The reason is political and also cultural: with the progressive political parties now occupied to chase liberalist tendencies and to worry about the aspects of finance, rather than those of the rights of the social parties that should defend, the role of the Church has filled the emptiness of representation and of the defense of values, which correspond to a substantial part of the instances that once belonged to the left. If this is true from the political point of view, it is even more so from the cultural one, where the absence of persons responsible for presiding over the defense of rights has allowed the growth of a right bearer of an ambiguous message, but able to exploit the disorientation of the poorer classes, left too often to fight alone and therefore without organization, the emergencies derived from globalization, which led to a substantial worsening of life. The right, the extreme one has exploited this isolation of the poorest parts of society, to address this discontent to even weaker subjects and exploiting this situation to encourage the growth of anti modernism, disguised as protection of traditions, this has led to the return of a conservatism which seemed to have been relegated to secondary positions. With this scenario present in the secular world, within the Catholic institutions the attempt to create the conditions for re-establishing an almost pre-council Catholicism is pursued in a constant manner. Already the resignation of the previous Pontiff had been provoked by internal wars to the highest hierarchies of the Catholic Church, with the advent of Pope Francis the discontent of a substantial part of the Vatican apparatus seems to be even more tangible. The enemies of Pope Francis come from the hierarchies nominated by Pope Wojtila, who try to direct the financial and sexual scandals against the current Pope, of which they are often responsible. Their vision, social and political is incompatible with the policies and programs implemented by Pope Francis, from which they are in sharp contrast. The welding of these Catholic environments with the extreme conservative right represents the natural consequence of an identity of views on social and political issues, which invest the future of Western societies. It does not seem random that the attack on the Pope to have covered the sexual crimes of the American sacedoti, arrives at the same time the availability of the Italian Church to the reception of a hundred migrants, involuntary protagonists of a showdown of Europe by the Minister of the Interior of the Italian Republic, one of the greatest European followers, along with the Catholic and Polish leaders, the theories of Trump’s campaign strategist: Steve Bannon. His positions are well known and focus on xenophobic and sovereign theories that are the exact opposite of what a declared Catholic should be. To hide behind the religious observance the rejection of the migrants and the absolute economic and social inequality is a practice that can not be pursued if the main opponent is the Pope of Rome; what better way then than to try to discredit it with maneuvers that are easily unmasked. Both the Pope’s adversaries who come from within Catholic institutions, and those who come from the outside world, rely on the poor preparation and low level of who is the recipient of these maneuvers; however, for example, the latest revelations on the presumed will to cover the sexual scandals by the Pope, are easily refuted if you look at who were nominated the protagonists of those atrocities. But the war seems to have just begun and it is easy to predict that the attacks on the Pope will increase and force him to engage directly against these adversaries and this could also be good for stopping the menacing advance of the more retiring right.
The risk that a Shiite and a citizen of Saudi Arabia activists be condemned to death by his country, only to be a human rights activist, obliges to reconsider the issue of relations between Western and Saudi countries and supports Canada’s position against Riyadh . The tension between the Canadian and Saudi government is still underway, after the Ottawa government expressed concern and regret against a campaign of arrests of Saudi human rights activists, carried out by the government of the new Saudi prince Salman Bin Mohamed. Between the two countries the situation is still stalled, after the expulsion of the Canadian ambassador and the suspension of flights of the Saudi airline to the North American country. It must be remembered that Canada is not joined by any Western country in this battle for rights and against the new course of the prince to the government. In fact, despite some concessions of façade, such as the right of women to drive cars, the situation of rights in the Saudi country has not changed and Arabia continues to be one of the most illiberal countries in the world, where no form is allowed of manifestation to achieve social conquests; indeed the prince, in spite of the young age of just thirty-two, continues to perpetrate the politch of the kingdom where every benefit must be perceived as a concession of the royal family. In this scenario, every activity in favor of human and civil rights is also violently opposed. The case of the woman, for whom the prosecutor’s office, beyond the severity of the provision, also presents potential political complications, capable of also affecting the regional balance. The religious faith of the woman is in fact Shiite: in the Saudi country, majority Sunni, with the royal house that proclaims guardian of the holy places of Islam, the Shiites are a strongly discriminated minority in the treatment at work and access to the forms of welfare present in the country. Discrimination is due to religious reasons, which are strongly linked to political ones, to be framed in the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, even for religious supremacy within the Islamic faith. The facts for which the death sentence is requested, date back to 2011, when in conjunction with the Arab spring, the Shiites protested against discrimination by the Sunni majority; the human rights activist’s blame was to document the violence with which the police force reprimanded. It is understood that the mere celebration of the trial will be a source of tension between Teheran and Riyadh, with the former already accusing the second for raids in Yemen, against Shiite fighters, who have produced many civilian casualties, including many children. But beyond the issues of international politics, the story shows how the position of Canada against Arabia is widely justified and raises disturbing questions about the behavior of Western states. If the US does not expect official trump positions, because the White House has strengthened ties with the Saudi monarchies, considering them fundamental in the regional chess against Teheran, the most surprising is the European position, which continues to remain silent in the comparisons of Arab behavior. Brussels should take every possible opportunity to diverge from an ambiguous position vis-à-vis infringements of rights to assert the importance of protection; this attitude should be discounted, however, probably due to oil and Saudi investment, the European Union leaves Canada in an isolated position. The question is not secondary, because the fears already described could be added to other political opportunities consisting of internal assessments, certainly insufficient to maintain the current attitude. This silence is a sign of the deterioration of European institutions, infected by populism and nationalism, which restrict the political view to mere national objectives, which do not allow to maintain and express due attention on the issues for which Europe should, instead distinguish itself and be at the forefront. This ever lower level increasingly disqualifies the European institution in those who have placed their trust in the Union, moving it away from its citizens and drawing closer to the divisive objectives of the populist and nationalist parties.
Between Russia and Turkey there is an alliance, which seems almost obliged by the facts. The two countries have similarities in relations with the world, which derive from an isolation that must be fought out of necessity. If from a military and diplomatic point of view Putin’s moves have brought Russia back, one of the main protagonists of the international scenario, Moscow’s economy suffers a regression due to an internal crisis, but that is mainly due to the lack of diversification of the factors economic, too dependent on prices and the trend of raw materials: the only current economic engine of the former Soviet country. Russia pays for the lack of industrialization and the weakness of a manufacturing sector on which effective policies have never been undertaken. Turkey is experiencing a financial crisis, which could endanger the industrial fabric of a country that has grown a lot in recent years, but which has undergone significant social deterioration. The foreign policy of Ankara has had to suffer some not indifferent defeats, ranging from the refusal of Brussels for entry into the European Union, to the frustration of Erdogan’s aims to restore the Turkish influence on the territories of the ancient Ottoman empire. The Turkish president’s internal liberticidal policy has resulted in a closure of the country itself, which has produced very heavy frictions and divergences with the American ally, causing some analysts to question whether Ankara can still remain within the Alliance Atlantica. In fact, on Ankara’s reliability there are many doubts, above all for its ambiguous policy towards the Islamic State, for its relations with Assad and for the treatment of the Kurds, natural allies of Washington on the battlefields. If now the dispute with the United States also concerns economic issues, such as the duties imposed by Trump, which is consistent with its economic policy towards all foreign countries, this appears to be a natural evolution of a relationship that has become too much deteriorated. Relations between Moscow and Ankara have lasted for a good many years, and although they were endured by the Americans, they took place within a framework where the Turkish government was marked by the values of Western democracies and not by the religious nationalism advocated by Erdogan. For the USA, Turkey was necessary within the Atlantic Alliance because it represented a moderate Muslim country, where religion was secondary to the secular state and this was considered a determining factor in a strategic and geopolitical function. Although Trump seems close, as political manners, to Putin and Erdogan, the United States is endowed with a series of political counterweights, which in Russia and Turkey are missing altogether. Here, then, that the similarity between the two politicians, of Moscow and Ankara, made up of nationalism and the desire to be protagonists, both in the internal and in the foreign sphere, brings the two states closer together. The common interests of the Asian euro zone, that is to say to the states of central and middle east Europe, for the moment constitute a common ground, especially in key anti-Europe and anti-US; however, this very common ground could also cause deep disagreements between the two countries. For the time being, the economic aspects are valid, which constitute an excellent argument to bring the two countries closer together: Turkey is, in fact, the largest importer of Russian gas and has recently bought, infringing Trump’s directives to the allied countries, a sophisticated Russian anti-missile system. With China, which maintains an autonomy in foreign policy that makes it virtually unapproachable, the contact between Turkey and Russia seems to have become a real necessity for the two countries to stop international isolation harmful to both. It will be necessary to see what the times and the ways of this progressive approach will be and what it will entail in terms of international balances. For example, a posting of Turkey from the Atlantic Alliance could force Trump to review his disengagement programs in the Middle East, to avoid a preponderance of the presence of Moscow, presumably reinforced by Ankara. The situation is in progress, but it remains very difficult for Turkey to move away from the West without taking an unofficial way to become official.
The decision by President Trump to cancel the funds destined for the reconstruction of Syria risks opening up new scenarios for the Middle East, with repercussions also on Europe and the problem of migration. The loans, of about three billion dollars, decided by both the US parties, were directed to civil works, such as the restoration of the aqueducts, the removal of the rubble and the reclamation operations from the ordnance of the northern and eastern Syrian territories; the aim was to cancel the presence of the Islamic State and encourage the return of refugees who had fled to Europe. Although not enough funding for the reconstruction of a country that has just come out of a long conflict, aid was considered a political act to counter Russia’s influence on the Syrian country and not leave its exclusive presence in Moscow. The withdrawal of aid is perceived as a betrayal, from that part of the Syrian country that had also fought against the dictatorship of Assad and had hoped for a support, including military support from Washington, to be able to establish a democracy. In reality, American betrayal had already begun with Obama and Trump’s behavior is a consequence. With this provision, Trump intends, however, to send a concrete signal of American disengagement towards those scenarios that do not fall within the strategic interests of the current administration. For now it is a move away from economic aid, but in the future it will concern direct military engagement. The American intention is to directly involve states that have interests in the region on the ground, in essence Trump says that the US will no longer engage directly in the place of allied countries to protect its geopolitical ambitions. The contingent case foresees that in the Middle East the involvement concerns the armies of the Gulf countries, which although remaining allies of the USA, must make them independent. In the specific case it will be interesting to see the evolution of this policy in an area that has Iran as its main enemy of Saudi Arabia. The question is not secondary because the balance that Trump wants to entrust to the Arab countries also concern Washington and the armed forces of the Gulf countries do not seem able to handle situations where the Americans came out with difficulty. On the other hand, however, this direction of disengagement is part of the electoral programs that Trump enunciated even before becoming president. Also towards Europe and towards the Atlantic Alliance, Trump’s annoyance towards the lack of collaboration of the allies has manifested itself many times. It must be recognized, however, that until now, the American bureaucratic and military system had been a sort of balancing of the president’s wishes, succeeding in limiting action. The suspension of aid to Syria does not mean that Trump has won his battle by totally imposing his political line, but it marks a significant affirmation, because it has canceled a provision shared by the two political parties. A non-secondary aspect, which seems to assume strategic characteristics, is represented by the effects that this provision will take on a Europe already torn apart by internal discussion on the migration issue. One of the possible effects of the aid was precisely that of determining the return of Syrian refugees to their country, thus easing the pressure on European countries increasingly impatient towards immigrants. By denying the aid, Trump contributes to the division of the Union, a goal which has repeatedly been set to break up the most dangerous economic entity. The US president would prefer to have more bargaining power in negotiations, negotiating with individual states rather than Brussels; moreover, this objective is shared by Putin, who after the American decision immediately requested the Union a greater effort to support Syria, knowing full well how to arouse the opposition of the populists and of the countries that belonged to the Soviet bloc. It is clear from these signs that Europe must increasingly look for its own autonomous role that is disconnected from the logic of external powers, which also includes China, which can only be used as an economic partner.