Is it possible to think of the current and future role of the United States of America as the sole global superpower outside the professions of transatlanticism and anti-Americanism regardless of that which has marked (and often poisoned) public debate in recent months?
A positive answer would only be possible by living in one of the villas of Fiesole in which the heroes of Decameron sought refuge to escape the plague or, in the present day, sheltered from the tensions caused by the war in Ukraine, the economy and energy. The crisis, and of concerns about the scenario of a world boiling over, not only from a climatic point of view.
Talking about the role of the United States and assessing the congruence between the confirmed goals and the tools used not only raises the question of the political categories in which we read the world, but highlights the underlying contradictions and tensions in a cross-sectional way of our political alliances, restoring old lines to fractures and discovering new ones.
Personally, I think it’s honest to let go of the claim of having the ultimate truth in your pocket, and instead make your situation clear. My personal connections, my studies, and the positives I perceive in this country do not mitigate a sense of heavy criticism of the lines of foreign policy pursued by the United States in recent decades, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
Here, in my very doubtful opinion, American policy has shown such hypocrisy and contradictions that many statements of values and moral principles are invalid, which in themselves would be perfectly acceptable. Emerging from the collapse of the Soviet Union as the sole global superpower, the United States squandered symbolic capital in the countryside of the Middle East that would have allowed it to stand as the engine, steering wheel, and moral guide of that liberal global order that emerged. victorious from the end of the Cold War.
In an exercise in anti-reality history, which is sorely loathed by those who should know that history cannot be reconstructed with ‘ifs’, it is worth asking once what would have happened if the long process of European integration, rather than falling into a cumbersome expansion and semi-abbreviating itself exclusive to the monetary and fiscal policies of strict austerity, had he really been able to form a subject capable of a coherent and independent foreign and security policy. It is worth asking whether this topic has evaluated the differences between the interests of European states and those of Washington (in North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, for example) and trying to lay the foundations for a harmonious relationship between European states. Two beaches of the Atlantic Ocean.
Brexit, hastily dismissed as a ventriloquist response to arrogant islanders and ignorant peasants, appears instead as a perfectly coherent option for those who believe that strengthening the Atlantic axis is better than stronger central European integration.
Between one (false) slip and another, Biden has repeatedly left out the goal of US foreign policy, which was also addressed in the leaked NATO strategic document from the Madrid summit: a global function to attract the US Atlantic military alliance, identifying Russia. as an existential threat and China as a long-term challenge to interests and security.
Defending American sovereignty in the world translates into the idea of an all-out war to minimize Russia and perhaps try to provoke “regime change” (but without knowing who will put Putin in, you risk reacting about the mistakes already seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya), and preparing for the next major confrontation with China.
On July 4, 2022 marked by another mass shooting near Chicago, two points seem to deserve particular attention.
The first is the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the ruling in Roe v. Wade touches not only the bodies of millions of women and their access to voluntary termination of pregnancy and medical abortion. If you read the device with the other ruling limiting the powers of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and you agree to appeal some federal states against the plan to reduce emissions of gases to the atmosphere, it is also facing another step in trying to effectively convert the United States into a confederation, as It was the case in the days of Gone with the Wind. The tendency appears to be to leave individual states with a broader discretion regarding the definition and application of the fundamental rights of the individual. Decades of criticism, not only Republican, but also libertarian and even Democratic, against “big government” have not fueled the rhetoric of Donald Trump, who has said he wants to “clean up the swamp” of Washington and oppose the “deep state” in the corridors of power palaces. The dismantling of the central state, prepared by decades of cinema, television series and television media, is now also passing through the judiciary. It would be fatal to understand if and how this trend will develop, and whether presidential and parliamentary elections can reverse it.
The second point: How will the relationship with the BRICS countries, that is, the political coordination between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, change after the recent Beijing summit in which Xi Jinping promoted the Chinese model of multilateral cooperation and criticized the mentality of contradiction between international blocs? Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to declare that he opposes the “anti-American” drift within the BRICS group, but the previous US administration’s attempt, aimed at forging a strong Indo-Pacific alliance with India, Japan and Australia, has to deal with a much more complex picture of many simplifications Popular in our latitudes.
India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel and Turkey (to name a few) act independently, sometimes unscrupulously, based on their perception of the national interest at the moment. Africa presents a big question mark. In Latin America, the victory of many left-wing candidates (in one way or another more “left-wing nationalists” than Marxists in the traditional sense) is often the product of intolerance for American intervention. We imagine a world divided mentally and militarily between the West (free and democratic) and the East (authoritarian), between East and West, without really dealing with the shift of the world’s center of gravity towards a global South that thinks according to another logic, that we know less and try to understand less.
Will the United States be able to meet this challenge, or will its administrations of different colors tend to repeat the logic of the Cold War?
© All Rights Reserved
“Prone to fits of apathy. Introvert. Award-winning internet evangelist. Extreme beer expert.”
