While the Assad government, thanks to the support of Iran and Russia, has reconquered about 75% of the Syrian country, the part that includes the most precious deposits, in addition to having always maintained the outlet to the sea, the part of Syria remained under American control includes desert territories and oil fields that contain crude oil with lower quality; this motivation, together with the fact that the program to overthrow Assad has failed, has determined in Trump the decision to withdraw the approximately 2,000 American soldiers still present in the Syrian territory. The question, however, has raised internal and external objections, which could create changes in the White House. The official reason supported by the US president is that the fight against the Islamic State ended with the defeat of the caliphate, but the presence, though small and in some remote areas, of some groups does not allow to state with Trump’s certainty, the complete annihilation of the militia from the territory where the US military operates. From the internal point of view, the assessments of the American military leaders consider this move to be a mistake, similar to the one, for now prevented, of the withdrawal of the troops from Iran, both for contingent reasons, such as the residual presence of the Islamic State, and for the repercussions on military alliances with the Kurds, which for the action against Iran, especially in defense of Israel. The Kurdish question does not allow an attitude based only on the evaluations of the exclusive convenience, above all financial, which are at the base of Trump’s decision (which once again reveals itself as a short-sighted politician in the long run and also a poor connoisseur of international political dynamics ). The commitment of the Kurdish fighters directly on the ground has allowed the United States to avoid the direct deployment of American soldiers in the Syrian fighting theater, the Kurds have revealed themselves, as well as on the occasion of the invasion of Saddam’s Iraq, the main and more efficient US allies, far above the fighters belonging to the Syrian democratic forces, who have never managed to provide adequate assistance to the Pentagon’s military. The Kurdish question, however, provides Ankara’s profound opposition to the possibility of an autonomous Kurdish entity on its borders. Turkey welcomed the possible US retreat, glimpsing the possibility of a direct military action against Syrian Kurds. Erdogan has also requested the dismantling of the military bases set up by the US for the Kurds to end the Kurdish fighters weaker. Turkish action would be justified with the usual excuse to fight Kurdish terrorism. The Kurdish strategy was then to re-establish relations with Assad, with whom the Kurds had, however, a certain autonomy. The military of Damascus approached the Kurdish areas, on which the Syrian flag was waved, thus creating the conditions for a confrontation with Turkey, which, in the end, threatened an action in the territory of Syria. It is not necessary to remember that this could also imply a response from Russia and Iran, which are present in force on the territory of Damascus. Trump’s decision, therefore, could reopen a new chapter in the Syrian war, interrupting the current deadlock. The American requests to Turkey seem to have little, to avoid Ankara’s aggression of Kurdish territory: the Turkish government has already rejected these requests, creating a clear and further problem to the American international prestige. No less important is the question posed by Israel on its own security, because the American retreat would leave space for Iran in Syria, especially from the logistical point of view to supply the Shiite militias in Lebanon. At this point the questions on the real convenience of the withdrawal of American troops from Syria seem to be too many and this could force the next program change President Trump, who would see another commitment made in the election campaign, impossible to maintain.
The vote of UK parliamentarians on the agreement signed by the British Prime Minister with the European Union is approaching, while the fear of a further possible postponement remains, after the one that took place last December. The risk is to leave the country in a deep uncertainty, which favors the economic recession; however the greatest fear in the government is to face an unpredictable situation if the agreement is rejected by the House of Commons. This is a probable prospect, which at the moment is justified by the evaluation of the voting numbers, which highlight the lack of the possibility of reaching the favorable majority, due to the skeptics present in the conservatives and the aversion of the Northern Irish party that supports the government. This scenario would be the basis of the reasons that could determine the new postponement of the vote, to allow time to be spent on the executive; choosing this option, however, could weaken the prime minister too much and would most likely open the political crisis, with consequent elections. In this case, Brussels could do nothing but take note of the failure of the negotiation with London, even without the vote of the House of Commons. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that Europe will still be able not to define the issue, procrastinating the decision while waiting for a new executive or a new referendum. To be against the referendum is the premier in charge, but a possible fall could direct the country to a new referendum? Both the conservative party and the Labor party appear to be against it, even if in opposition formation there is a rift between the leadership in office and the party base, which pushes for a new vote. The head of the Labor Party does not seem to be keen to stay in Europe, because it has a negative view from the left, identifying the Union as an expression of financial power, considering the positive sides of Europe not enough to undergo its laws. However, there is a very strong contrast with the moderate part of Labor, who were among the biggest opponents of the referendum result. It must be acknowledged that the question of the referendum, as it was formulated and for the superficial explanations of those in favor of the exit, which were the ones most exposed by the press, allowed the voting of the English people in a distorted and uninformed manner , a situation that could be verified because the elite in command of the nation, have underestimated both the scope of the vote, which, above all, the outcome, taking for granted that there would be the victory of those who wanted to remain in Europe. On the part of the working classes, the right to information has not been exercised and the majority of voters have been carried away by an anti-European feeling experienced as an insult to English sovereignty, which did not take into account the economic consequences of leaving Europe. For these reasons, the repetition of the referendum, with a more aware electoral audience would seem more just. It must also be remembered that the United Kingdom has always enjoyed in regard to the other members of Brussels a different and particularly favorable treatment, which, although unjust, was justified by the Eurocrats with the need to keep the United Kingdom within the political borders of the Union. In other member countries the perception of an English membership based on elements of exclusive convenience and not of a convinced adhesion, corresponds to the truth and is one of the characteristics of apparent hardness and determination, however justified, that has marked the modalities of the negotiations with London from part of Brussels. Any new British membership of Europe could only happen without those privileges that have characterized its participation until the outcome of the referendum: a complete application of obligations and duties, which until now were applied in an incomplete manner. In any case, there is also the need to discourage other possible attempts to exit the Union and for these reasons, in the event of failure to ratify the agreement, it is virtually certain that the United Kingdom will be treated with an exemplary severity, which, added to the effects of the lack of benefits of accession to Europe, could put in great difficulty the Anglo-Saxon country, its social fabric and its economy, whatever color the current government will be.
The UN Secretary-General’s message at the beginning of the year touched on the various critical points that contribute to endangering world peace and stability. The message states that the same problems were highlighted the previous year and that remained to make most of the planet insecure. This finding highlights once again the increasingly marginal role of the United Nations, hostage of a Security Council where the policy of cross vetoes is in place, functional to the interests of permanent members and which therefore denotes the need for a reform capable of account of the large variations present in the current historical period compared to the end of the Second World War. The responsibilities of geopolitical divisions, climate change and profound inequality are the triggering causes of conflicts, of ungoverned migrations and of social injustice, which, without being resolved, produce instabilities that can range from regional to wider scale. Having ascertained that these issues are actually the cause of situations made even more serious by the single contingencies, it is necessary to question what the role of the United Nations can be in contributing to the resolution of conflicts and the management of dangerous situations in a preventive and not subsequent manner. The fundamental question is what role can be exercised and claimed by an organization which, despite representing the highest summit of international organizations, suffers from obvious limitations to its action. If the presence of an organization that has to be above the others is a necessity, in order to maintain a neutral meeting space between opposing powers, it is necessary to verify if there is space to make its policies effective and to give them autonomy. greater to achieve the results. The UN Secretary-General has spoken of signs of hope for the future of the world thanks to the agreements reached between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for Yemen, for the agreement between the parties to the conflict in South Sudan, for the potential consequences of the Conference on climate of Katowice and the progress of the agreements for migrants. It is, no doubt, tangible facts, which, however, are conditioned too often by the limited participation of great powers or the only verbal assent of different nations, which then, in practice, disregard what has been signed. It must be recognized that the action of the United Nations, in a very fragmented international context and profoundly different from bilateralism following the Second World War, is much more difficult precisely because of the multitude of subjects involved in the various emergencies present on the diplomatic scene. More subjects present mean greater interests involved, interests, in turn, conditioned by the needs of the historical moment, which no longer concerns a medium or long period but is conditioned by the need to achieve results in the short term, be they geopolitical, military or financial. These variables are decisive in the action of an organization that has increasingly limited resources in the face of the emergencies it faces and the availability of resources of the subjects with whom it must seek agreements. However, an action aimed at finding spaces for negotiated solutions, also through the contact of peoples put into communication with each other, often by word alone in the form of negotiation, requires a greater international involvement that must be sought through the overcoming of the logic of the functioning of the Security Council. The global world, precisely because of its definition involves a multitude of actors that can not be influenced by the decisions and privileges of permanent members, elitè now too restricted of the world assembly and therefore absurd and insufficient to decide on issues so broad and with too general consequences. Supranational subjects such as the European Union, but also the Arab League or the African Union should be the interpreters from which it should start pressure for a reform of the United Nations, responding to current needs consistent with the historical period we are living. Only in this way will it be possible to see a UN action with a greater chance to fulfill its task, through the result of increasingly concrete results.
The presidential term of the European Union that is about to start will see very important issues on the negotiating table: first of all the definition of Britain’s exit from the Union up to the topic of Serbia’s entry into the Brussels forum. In such a delicate period the rotation scheduled to hold the presidency of the Union will touch Romania, a country with great internal difficulties and with some European standards, to which will be added the difficulties that the Romanian bureaucrats will encounter in order to deal with such intense problems. difficulty. Bucharest is grappling with the most serious protest since the fall of the dictatorship in 1989. It is estimated that the Romanian people’s demonstrations against corruption, the laws that provide for the decriminalization of some crimes and against the abuse of power have gathered in the squares even 600,000 people at a time. Romania became a member of the union in 2007 and progress made against corruption, the country’s evil endemic, stopped for about two years with the rise to power of the socialist party, whose leader was ineligible for a conviction for the crime of electoral fraud. The Romanian situation represents a clear situation of how Brussels failed to impose its constituent values, something which is also common in the countries coming from the Soviet bloc, and how it can not even make them respected. Continue to admit the presence within the Union of nations that enact laws that do not respect European values is very dangerous, both because of the disruptive effect that contributed to the affirmation of populism, and because the perverse mechanisms of the distribution of power they do not provide for suspensive rules for those countries that do not meet European standards. Up until now, it has only been close to a situation like the present one, but with the establishment of Romania as president of the Union, a new level of the effects of the legal mechanisms of Brussels is reached and the absolute lack of countermeasures studied to face the verification of eventualities of this kind. The fact that this coincides with the moment in which the exit of Great Britain will have to be managed, assumes an even more peculiar value that recalls the urgent need to revise the European laws, both for the management of power, and for the acceptance of new members and also for the elaboration of effective sanctioning mechanisms towards those countries that do not adapt to guarantee civil and political rights, freedom of the press, mutual support among member states and the fight against corruption. As can be seen if these assumptions existed effectively, the list of European members would be shorter and this would only be a benefit to the functioning of the Community institutions. The fundamental question is whether the countries that have been governed by dictatorships have developed a real democratic sense such as to produce political classes capable of identifying themselves with the founding ideals of Europe. If this did not happen, it is also the fault of Brussels, which, in spite of enlarging its economic zone, has tolerated the entry of unprepared countries and with the sole intention of exploiting European contributions, without providing for a protection mechanism that could sanctions until expulsion. A weak government like the Romanian one, even if assisted by the specialists of Brussels, can manage the British exit, which foresees a series of norms that will inevitably fall on all Europeans, without incurring some problem of which it is already accused? The question is lawful and should not be underestimated, as it is not to underestimate the possible lack of ability to listen to the other members, a non-strange lack in executives who have proved to be insensitive to the demands of the oppositions. A lot of subjects to think about for Brussels bureaucrats.
The settlement in the United States House, as president of the Democratic Nancy Pelosi is bad news for the head of the White House, but it is also a fact that highlights how the American country is about to enter a phase of great uncertainty. The concomitance with the administrative blockade of the country due to the lack of financing of the wall along the border with Mexico, appears a worrisome coincidence. The work was considered by Trump to be one of the fixed points of his electoral program and was not implemented with the previous parliamentary structure, which allowed the executive to have a large majority. Currently, on the contrary, the Democrats can count on the majority in the House, while the Republicans maintain the largest number of seats in the Senate, where, however, there are many critics of the president of the United States, even if they are members of the same party. In this scenario, the construction of the wall is almost impossible, even under the less severe conditions proposed by Trump. The continuation of the blocking of the administrative activity appears, therefore, a certainty. If the republican party is anything but united, even in the democratic one there are quite evident divisions; among the new elected deputies, especially among the younger ones, there are several highly critical personalities with the leaders who led the last presidential primaries and who then led the electoral campaign that ended with the unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton. Many of these new parliamentarians come from the most radical part of the party, the one that refers to Bernie Sanders, defeated at the primaries by internal frauds in the democratic party to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, seen as a candidate of the financial system and against the demands of the classes more popular. Precisely these reasons have been identified as one of the major causes of the defeat of the Democratic candidate and the party itself, which has thus favored the rise of an outsider, strongly disliked even in large sectors of his party, as Trump unprepared to victory and to govern . The new members of the democratic party do not share all the politics that the most conservative of the democrats want to carry on, because they consider it too moderate, especially against a president of poor quality like Trump. For these concomitant reasons, the administrative blockade and the strong presence of radical deputies in the democratic ranks, increasingly increases the possibility that, for the US president can start the procedure called impeachement, which allows the indictment of the US president. Although this procedure has only been carried out twice in American history and there has never been any condemnation, the isolation in which Trump finds himself could facilitate the process. The many abandonments that the White House is collecting among its ministers do not depose on the credibility of the president, who fears strongly the investigations on his relations with Russia, with Saudi Arabia, on immigration policy and, above all, on his patrimonial situation, which has always obstinately kept secret. From the political point of view such an action could revive the democratic party at the national level and also the internal one, allowing to overcome the divisions between its currents, while for the part, certainly not secondary, of the Republicans who are against Trump it would be an opportunity to get rid of an inconvenient invader. If this possibility were to materialize, doubts about Trump’s management capacity to be subjected to these continuous investigations are certainly not in favor of the president, who has shown, in more favorable situations, that he is not up to pressure from the ‘public opinion. The American future is therefore very uncertain, at a global stage where it would require more leadership from the United States, to manage the Middle East scenarios and, above all, the issue with China, which is crucial for the economic development of the country.
In the speech at the beginning of the year the North Korean president Kim Jong-un affirmed his willingness to meet again with the American president Trump. The signal launched by Pyongyang highlights the need for the regime to see mitigated the economic sanctions that still affect the country’s poor economy. The speech highlights how the North Korean regime considers the United States, at least on an official level, the privileged interlocutor to resolve its situation. Despite the expressed intentions, to proceed towards a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it appears, however, highly unlikely that the Pyongyang regime would actually operate in this direction. Without the atomic arsenal, North Korea is an easily attackable country and the same ruling dynasty would have little, if any, chance of salvation; not for nothing one of the topics of discussion with the United States was the guarantee of the safety of the North-Western leader. The meeting that took place in Singapore with Trump was an epoch-making event, because it constituted the exit from the total isolation of the Pyongyang leader and consequently the country, famous for not having another international relationship, except with Beijing . The United States, despite the usual declarations, seems to have accepted the impossibility of North Korea to renounce the nuclear arsenal and so it seems also for South Korea, which has achieved the result of a situation that ratifies a pact of non aggression, after the repeated meetings between the leaders of the two Koreas. The situation at this time would seem to be quieter, even if Kim Jong-un’s appeal deserves careful consideration because it happened in the silence of China. One of Beijing’s fears is that the US can try to get the North Korean country out of Chinese influence. If from the economic point of view North Korea can only offer the advantage of labor at very low cost, but without specialization, from the geopolitical point of view the border with China can represent an instrument of attraction for Washington, with the White House more and more concentrated in the competition with China. If the historical ties between the Chinese and the North Korean countries represent an obstacle that is certainly not secondary, it is also true that current relations have not improved since Kim Jong-un took power. China does not appreciate the unpredictability of the current North Korean leader and the continued attempts at new non-Trump relationships increase the distrust of Pyonyang. On the other hand, for the United States it could be a tactical advantage, understood as a means of pressure and disorder, on China to reduce sanctions against North Korea and perhaps even to provide economic aid capable of reviving the economy of Pyongyang. Trump has no problem having relationships with dictators in other parts of the world to get benefits for the United States. Certainly this could raise the level of the clash with Beijing, because it would bring a negative news for China in its area of influence. The question of the commercial war between the two countries would see a geopolitical development able to raise tension: a scheme already applied by Trump in other contexts, that is to bring the contrast up to a dangerous limit, and then find an agreement. But if this system can have obtained favorable results (even with China on the issue of duties), it is not said that Beijing can respond positively to such an explicit invasion of the field. Moreover, if this hypothesis became real, the United States would find itself trying to exploit a highly unpredictable character like Kim Jong-un, able to take advantage of every opportunity to gain the greatest possible advantage and also be able to play simultaneously on several fronts. However, if the North Korean regime received economic aid deemed appropriate, at least in the short term could create the conditions to unnerve China and force it to some risky move. It will only be to see how much Trump will want to risk.
The Taiwan question risks becoming one of the central topics for the foreign policy of the year that has just begun. Beijing has never given up on the prospect of reuniting the island of Formosa within the administration of China, without any requirement of independence, but as a simple province. For all the Chinese governors, who have succeeded each other over time, the question can be summarized in the impossibility of renouncing the vision of a unique and indivisible China, which can not contemplate portions of territory outside the jurisdiction and administration of Beijing, without tolerance. In this perspective Hong Kong has also returned, which, beyond, of external conditions, is seeing progressive eroding the democratic concessions that the transition from the United Kingdom to China had to be guaranteed. For Taiwan, however, the speech is different: the island nation maintains its own autonomy gained thanks to the outcome of the conflict of 1949, when the communists lost power on the island. The question of Formosa is central to Chinese domestic politics, because it can not be the subject of repression, as happened for Tibet or for the lands of Chinese Muslims, where the double means of violence and invasion of the most faithful ethnic groups were used in Beijing, to cancel dissent and repress any rebellion; Taiwan, thanks also to its geographical position, has institutions totally independent from Beijing and also the international recognition of some countries as an independent nation. This state of affairs is experienced as a deep wound by the current Chinese president, such as to become a staple in his political program. Xi Jinping, however, can not directly threaten Taiwan and in fact confines itself to coaxing the one, which anyway considers a Chinese province, with practical and also economic arguments, remaining within the boundaries of the use of the great Chinese financial resources. In reality to have entered so clearly in the question, it appears an unusual fact for Chinese caution, despite the fact that Taiwan is considered part of China, it remains true that its behavior is in all respects similar to an independent nation. Taiwan has never formally declared its independence from China, but the incumbent government has repeatedly expressed its willingness to proceed in this direction and this represents the real danger for Chinese prestige, both outwardly, but above all inward . If the Chinese president spoke of peaceful means to promote reunification, he also talked about how the declaration of independence would bring obvious economic disadvantages to the traffics of Taiwan, threatening, not too hiddenly, to increase the tension along the two sides of the channel that separates the island from China. Xi Jinping has come to threaten the use of force to defend what he considers the exclusive sphere of action for Beijing. This message is clearly aimed at the United States, which is Taiwan’s largest military ally and intends to use every means possible to counter China’s political growth internationally, especially from the standpoint of economic competition. Trump, who wants to divest himself to some theaters of world war to concentrate the country’s efforts on issues considered more important, has understood well, as, moreover Obama already, that the area of the Eastern Pacific has assumed ever greater importance, both for the quantity and the quality of the traffics of goods, both for the essential functional reasons for contending China’s supremacy in the area; as well as having a symbolic value, operating directly in what Beijing considers its area of exclusive influence, there is also a practical value very much considered by the strategists of the White House, which is represented by the possibility of going directly to oppose the Chinese interests on the borders of Beijing . This is also part of the attempt that will increasingly take the form of trying to take North Korea away from Chinese influence, through economic concessions and the tolerance of possession of atomic arsenals. Here then is the importance of the Taiwan question, which forces China to play in advance and no longer rely on the usual waiting tactics; on what the developments will be, it is not possible to make sure predictions, except that Formosa will surely be one of the focal points of the upcoming foreign policy.
Western sanctions forced Russia to move closer to China. Moscow is the capital of an immense state with a great availability of raw materials, especially in the energy sector, but which continues to have large deficits from the point of view of industrial development. The Russian country pays for its politicians’ limited ability to develop industrialization plans capable of becoming an economic alternative to the preponderance of the primary sector. Putin’s geopolitical ambitions of Russia have created a difficult international situation for the national economy because of the sanctions that the West has imposed on Moscow for its behavior, especially for the Ukrainian affair and the plans and expectations of the Kremlin against of the US presidency of Trump, which provided for a rapprochement between the US and Russia, were frustrated by the distrust of the American administrative classes. The intrusiveness of the Russian international political action, carried out by means not even legitimate, is the signal of an unscrupulous activity that is carried out with obvious errors of calculation and evaluation in relation to the results obtained. In spite of international ambitions and an impossible-to-recognize activism, which has cleverly exploited the spaces left by Washington, the economic variable represents a value from which not even the new Russian imperialism can prescind. The only alternative to raise the balance of troubled budgets was to address the world’s number two power, China, which always needs to expand its commercial action and which, to do so, must feed its energy needs. The two countries, although often in agreement with the UN Security Council, are not allies and are not complementary, as their respective ambitions are often at odds, but must maintain a good diplomatic relationship based on their respective aversion to the Member States. US. If Washington is increasingly at odds with Beijing for reasons of commercial policy, Moscow seeks to exploit these disagreements through increasingly frequent contacts with the People’s Republic of China, but it is not an organic alliance based on common interests and the long term; rather we are faced with a series of single episodes based on mutual convenience. At the center of these exchanges are the energy raw materials, but also the Chinese will to penetrate, with its goods, a market that still has good potential like the Russian one. If these are the prerequisites, it is even more interesting to analyze the possible consequences of this relationship; one of the most probable scenarios is that the situation is maintained within these boundaries as long as the US continues in their isolationism, in fact it does not seem possible to break this situation by one of the two international actors involved. The scenario could be different if one of the two countries wanted to overcome the other for any potential reason: this hypothesis seems to be more difficult for Russia, which can not alienate the Chinese friendship and with it the economic advantages that bind it to Beijing. On the other hand, China seems to continue to move on non-interference and that its international policy is based on utmost caution; however, if there is a country that can undermine international leadership in the United States, this is certainly not Russia, which can only play leading roles on limited scenarios, as has happened for Syria. On the contrary, the Chinese ambitions will sooner or later have to materialize in some episodes of international significance and then Russia will only have to choose between a boundary neutrality or play a subordinate role, probably alongside China. The real risk for Moscow is to end up in a clear way as a secondary power, against all the demands of the Kremlin. But for the Russian country the role of superpower is no longer practicable in the US-China bipolar context and its economic situation is only the first clear sign of it.
The unrest in France caused the reverse, even if partial, of the government. The particular French case exposes a society in deep crisis, because in the government there is a character elected only to avoid the extreme right, but which does not represent in an organic way the social fabric of the country. The current French president, in fact, in the first round reached only 24 percent of the votes and reached the highest office of the state thanks to the conjunction of a fallacy electoral system combined with the fear of a political party too detached from the French political system. These considerations are not new and represent reflections already made on the French system, but it is good to always remember to avoid dangerous drifts like the current one. The current French president represents a mixture of technocracy and liberalism, which pretends to pay attention to the social and economic problems of most of the country, but which imposes solutions dropped from above, which seem functional only to a part, which is a minority, of the French company. The economic recipes of the President of France seem once again to safeguard the richest part of the country going to increase a too high social inequality, which is the main danger for the stability of the country. From here to getting to consider a democracy crisis the path is short. A crisis affecting European democracies, Europe, the left and the liberal right. The problem seems to be a too close link with the financial aspect on the political one, which leads to overturning the foundations of Western thought. Of course there was no need for the symptoms so evident in these days in France, where the protest is an expression of an autonomous form by traditional subjects, including the trade unions, and that does not seem to be governed by any entity, but pure expression of anger caused by an ever-increasing discomfort. This protest has also surpassed populism and indifference, which were also the greatest evidence of the failures of the democracy used in a distorted manner, to become a sort of oligarchy in the hands of finance. Often the phenomena that occurred in France were anticipations of events that also occurred in the rest of Europe. For the advance of the extreme right was not so, yet the explosion of anger seems to have only been postponed to these days, caused by those who had avoided the settlement of dangerous political party. Once again it is impossible to understand why we continue to propose economic recipes that aim to impoverish the most substantial part of a country, an aspect that is also reflected in Europe, producing an increasingly widespread discontent, which is difficult to contain. What is missing is a culture of redistribution, respect for work, too much taxed with respect to assets, merit, which is increasingly less important and finally the importance of the social elevator, too blocked in favor of the position rents of a part always smaller than the social body. These solutions have a wide range of potential applications, which should decree the difference of a more progressive political vision compared to a more conservative one or the contrary, but represent a series of common values, which should be those from which to start, to aggregate forces a time on opposing sides, but that the contingent moment should aggregate for the protection of democratic systems. The starting point is a vision that has at its core the wellbeing of the social body understood as the fundamental structure of society and which, necessarily, concerns the greatest number of people. This must be done with a political action untied by the interests of finance, which have too much influenced the development, unfortunately negative, of the political tissues, which have abandoned their main function: social welfare. Without these assumptions, the contrast to populism loses its departure and opens up unexplored territories in which these phenomena can also be overcome by scenarios of difficult prediction, but which do not exclude recourse to authoritarianism and even violence.
The Senate of the United States, where the majority is Republican, has approved, with 63 votes in favor and 37 against, a provision that provides for the withdrawal of American troops from the Yemen war scenario. US soldiers support the Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which fights Shiite rebels backed by Iran. For Trump it is an important defeat, because it signals a cross malaise concerning the American political class towards the alliance with the Saudi monarchy. For the US president, the relationship with Riyadh is a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East, especially against Iranian power. Trump’s change of policy towards Teheran after his election, he needed to strengthen the connection with Saudi Arabia, after relations with the Obama presidency had deteriorated due to the Iranian nuclear agreement and Saudi support for terrorist groups. Trump has never considered too much the contiguity of the Saudi regime with Sunni terrorism, as he did not take into due consideration the systematic violation of human rights perpetrated by Riyadh. The common reasons against Tehran have exceeded every objection from the US political class. The anxiety of senators and deputies has grown with the repeated massacres of civilians that were carried out by the Saudi air forces, but the fact that it made the protest explode was the barbaric killing of the Saudi journalist in Turkey, operated by members of the secret services , commanded by the crown prince. With the majority of Democrats in the House, it seems obvious that the proposal to withdraw American troops from Yemen is approved, which could take about thirty days. The administration of the White House, faced with the decision of the Senate, seems to have been taken aback: in fact the statements of the Secretary of State seemed inconsistent. The lack of certainty of the connection between the murder of the journalist and the crown prince, appears a worthless excuse, as well as the motivation that, without the American presence in Yemen, national security could be compromised, an explanation of circumstance appears, functional only to Trump’s reasons. It must be specified, however, that in the position of the current American president was also found Obama, when Congress had authorized US citizens to form a civil action against Saudi Arabia for the damage caused by the attack on September 11, recognizing implicitly the direct responsibility of Riyadh in the terrorist action against the twin towers. The most important aspect of the story is the great distance between the legislative and administrative political class, on a subject as delicate as that which concerns an alliance so close to a country like Saudi Arabia, which has highlighted more sometimes serious shortcomings against the United States. Trump’s attitude seems to be dictated solely by the need to safeguard against Iran, without any consideration for the international situation that has arisen around the Saudi kingdom. If, on the one hand, the obvious fact is to be noted, that there have not been any important official positions, apart from very few exceptions, it is also true that the United States is still the first ally of the Arab country and a different official position from the current one could potentially have favored a different attitude on the part of Riyadh. The question, however, is that the United States of Trump supports the war in Yemen, with all the massacres and the unsustainable situation for civilians, sharing the position and methods of the Saudis. Now the great distance that is created with this provision could further undermine the already poor international credibility of an American president who is less and less able to represent the first world power.