Pax Americana | News
blog,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,vertical_menu_enabled,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-10.0,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12,vc_responsive

Selecciona idioma / Select language: Ver la web en español Ver la web en inglés


The legislative elections this Sunday in Italy represent yet another stumbling block in the difficult path the European Union now faces. The local problems seem somewhat different but, in the end, the Italians face a crisis of almost identical roots to the one that has...

The pressure on David Cameron to force an exit from the European Union increased as the economic situation in the UK worsened. The debt crisis of 2008 forced intense budget constraints which, combined with drastic changes in the labor market due to disruptive technological change,...

A few days ago, the US Senate Intelligence Committee called top managers of Facebook, Twitter and Google to testify in relation to the use of their networks by foreign entities. "Are you aware of the massive use of your platforms by Russian agents in order to influence the general elections in France, in Germany, and now in the attempt to separate Catalonia from Spain?" The senators were referring to the recent massive spread of biased news and false pictures on social networks: Articles sent by media outlets such as RT and Sputnik, and subsequently forwarded by thousands of automated accounts and by influencers like Julian Assange, as well as by associates of the Chavist Venezuelan movement. And while such online manipulation came to compare Spain’s political system with Franco’s regime, Vladimir Putin sent out a more diplomatic public message, although finally spiced up by the Balkan comparison: "You should have thought about it twice before supporting Kosovo," he said in reference to "the big brother" – the US - and the great majority of European nations, and thus portraying the West as his direct antagonist.

"America first, but others too." This was the convoluted message the president of the United States just sent from Vietnam at the APEC meeting. Donald Trump keeps mentioning the slogan that helped him win the elections while, on the other hand, he is now trying to offer a rational explanation to world leaders about why his nationalistic vision is compatible with growing international collaboration. This is the basis of his proposal for trade: we do not want multilateral agreements because they imply common rules and these would damage noncompetitive national economic industries; We do seek to negotiate bilateral agreements to protect our weakest industries as much as possible, but you can also do the same.

Donald Trump's foreign policy is an unexpected anomaly; totally unclassifiable among all the ideological traditions of American history. Or isn’t it? Notions such as “The Withdrawal Doctrine” or "leaving from behind" try to explain the seemingly chaotic and unpredictable foreign approach of the President of the United States. But experts such as Walter Russell Mead have spent years analyzing the History of America’s main ideologies in international relations, and these can help clarify the policy being pursued today. Mead classifies these traditions into four streams: Jeffersonianism, Hamiltonianism, Wilsonianism, and Jacksonianism The latter is named after Andrew Jackson, president between 1829 and 1837, whose portrait is hanging on a prominent place in the Oval Office since January 20, 2017, the day Donald J. Trump took office.

Nationalism surged in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, when regions and ancient kingdoms grouped and formed new political entities of greater geographical extension. The regions that formed those new nations generally shared historical and cultural features due, among other reasons, to their geographical proximity. Thus Germany or Italy emerged. But the term also applies to an ideology that emphasizes the attachment to one’s land at the expense of the contempt for the foreigner, although this is a political phenomenon in clear decline in the twenty-first century. A decline that in recent years seems to be reversing, strenghthened by populism, in many places both in Europe and America. This nationalism is especially anachronistic in that it seeks to regain the pre-eminence of a nation-state system that officially emerged in Westphalia in 1648, but which naturally diluted in some respects after World War II to make way for a system of closer collaboration between nations. This evolution in the international political order that emerged in 1945 sought to achieve certain goals common to all states involved, such as peace, the self-determination of colonized peoples, and economic development.

Only just a few days ago, the 72nd UN’s General Assembly took place in New York City. The delegates from each member country listened to the President of the US addressing the Assembly for the first time, but it sounded more like a 1930’s speech than something that would be solemnly announced in the postwar period we live in today. Trump emphasized the return to full sovereignty of states and their national interest, precisely in the headquarters of the main organization that the United States and its allies promoted in 1945 in order to achieve closer inter-state collaboration for overcoming war between nations and ending colonization.

South Korea has an annual GDP fifty times larger than its Northern neighbor’s, but has a population of only twice as large. These magnitudes further complicate the difficult relations between the two nations, whose citizens observe how the increasing economic gap and the consequent imbalance...