If one had to define Donald Trump's foreign policy, one would most likely find oneself in the quandary of having to identify a univocal and sufficiently logical guideline to allow one to imagine a fundamental Plan. If during the entire electoral campaign that preceded his second term, the American President, presenting himself as a Man of Peace, had favored a narrative aimed at supporting the urgent need to put an end to the main international conflicts in progress, to avoid the start of new ones, while at the same time strengthening the military structure of the entire country with the sole more or less declared aim of spreading a certain deterrent potential and thus being able to guarantee a new international order capable of favoring the strong recovery of the US economy, even if through the imposition of duties, however, in practice, the situation would appear very different, especially in consideration not only of the growing difficulties in defining the Russian-Ukrainian conflict which, far from finding its resolution in the space of twenty-four hours, still persists in all its intensity, but also of the recent developments in the Venezuelan affair, which led to the capture of President Maduro, and of the potential possible similar epilogues, albeit pursued in different ways, in Greenland, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico.

The perception that one might draw from President Donald Trump's US foreign policy dynamics, if we were to define it as such, would seem to be one of fundamentally disinterested action, indifferent, to be precise, to any form of strategic sharing or collaboration with the European continent, which is viewed almost as a distant appendage, even if only for the purpose of reaching somewhat agreed-upon solutions aimed primarily at preserving a common interest that is increasingly difficult to perceive and even identify. Clearly, this circumstance cannot be ignored, especially considering that the European Union is still far from being considered a military power, despite recent efforts at so-called rearmament, not yet common defense, and this circumstance would appear to expose it to a significant degree of geopolitical weakness. And while it may seem very difficult to admit, it would seem to suggest the creation, probably desired by the American competitor (the doubtful formula is in order), of a rift, albeit still subtle, of compromise in terms of trust between the historic American ally and the Old Continent. The consequence is that Russia and China could directly benefit from the situation that could arise, within the context of a triangulation of spheres of interest that could indeed leave very little room for initiative to any other potential international competitor that is not equally strongly structured. Donald Trump's unprecedented external political action, essentially, seriously risks compromising the stability of the not-yet-federal Old Continent, also given the fact that, at present, any decision (of opposition or even of passive acceptance of American actions) could entail consequences that are difficult to manage immediately and may not always be unanimously supported.

Who would benefit from a new international order based on spheres of influence rather than on shared rules, which the European Union itself has championed over time, becoming a space of peace? The time for decisions seems to have come. The global context appears to have changed in all its complexity, and the interests to be asserted do not appear to be shared among what were previously known as historic alliances. The European Union now appears to be called upon to reevaluate its role in the Mediterranean.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata