Crisis in Afghanistan

 Crisis in Afghanistan: decline of the West?

by Renzo Pegoraro

The withdrawal of military contingents from Afghanistan, after twenty years of mission, has affected world public opinion, many Western citizens and observers. The modalities and times in which the retreat took place took on the characteristics of a military defeat, a fatal blow to the credibility of the West, to which the Afghan people had clung to to see the light of a better future on the road to democracy and of modernity. Of course, the long period of Western military and civilian presence has fueled many expectations of change, in particular in the young Afghan generation that was born in this period and in the female universe that now sees the fundamental freedoms provided for by the universal declaration of human rights precluded. (UN, Paris, 1948).

But the disengagement of the US and NATO is not just about Afghanistan, it is a process that disrupts all the balances of the world order. This is a very complex problem that cannot be examined in this short article, but from which it is possible to draw some immediate reflections. First of all, it is necessary to highlight the objectives that the military intervention promised itself; that is, effectively countering international terrorism, after the attack on the twin towers (11 September 2001), by hitting the springs and the principals in the places where they operated. The Taliban had established an autocratic regime in Afghanistan which, according to international intelligence services, represented "the breeding ground" of Islamic terrorism linked to Al Qaeda, a declared enemy of the West.

The military intervention initially succeeded in expelling the Taliban from the country, but, retreating to the borders of Pakistan, in the impervious valleys and in the Afghan mountains, they continued to mark their presence with attacks and bloody massacres that took them by surprise Western soldiers, causing numerous losses (fallen: 53 Italian soldiers, 500 British, 2500 Americans, etc.). However, this situation has increased the importance of another important objective of the mission: to bring peace and prosperity to the Afghan people, through the control of the territory with the military presence of NATO and other multinational contingents, to provide aid and skills aimed at social development. and economic of the country. Meanwhile, international support was to favor the reconstruction and modernization of local institutions on the Western model, counting that time was "gentleman" and, in the long run, the new Afghan authorities would be able to govern their country autonomously. However, in recent years, for many and varied reasons, the initial drive for change has been fading, also due to the inability of the new rulers to make use of Western support, without resorting to clientelism, corruption, illicit trafficking, etc. .. At the same time, the illusion has arisen that the problems of internal security, support for the economy, infrastructural and cultural development of Afghanistan could remain a prerogative of the new "liberators". The sandcastle upon which the new, shaky institutions, including an army of 250,000 men, rested, melted as the Westerners announced that they would vacate the field. At this point, all roads reopened to the Taliban, including the possibility of taking possession, without any resistance, of the means, weapons and materials, even of the latest generation, donated to the country by the West, in particular by the United States. 

In this brief examination the inconceivable way in which armies of professionals have faced a retreat, in an uncoordinated way and without a programmed exit strategy. This sudden departure underlined above all the insufficient knowledge of the local situation, the improvisation in organizing the transfer of asylum seekers, the distance between the objectives of the military contingents and those of the Afghan population. The autocratic regime of the Taliban scored a first victory, probably not decisive. They will have to demonstrate that they are able to build institutions capable of governing 38 million citizens and giving them a future, possibly not of hunger, terror, abuse and tyranny.

Many commentators on the Afghan question have seen the defeat of the United States, as the world power promoting the intervention, neglecting the co-responsibility of the other participating countries. In fact, the US and Europe are closely linked to each other, particularly in the Western defense system (NATO), but also in the UN and the OSCE, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which represents 57 countries. It should be remembered that the "out of area" missions, over time improperly called "peace" missions, were decided with the adoption of the new strategic concept of NATO, approved in Washington in 1999, before the intervention in Kosovo. The most evident paradox, after the twenty years of Afghanistan, is to note that the fight against terrorism has been assimilated to this type of mission, establishing similar rules of engagement for combat in the operational theater. Peacekeeping missions generally do not have a well-defined enemy, but are interposed between two or more warring factions (Kosovo). After all, it is known that terrorism acts by surprise, in the least expected places and times and therefore it is an invisible, devious and deadly enemy in concluding its actions. For its contrast the reactivity of the forces is rewarded, but above all a valid and efficient intelligence service . The failure in Afghanistan, therefore, calls into question both the new NATO, which while remaining a defensive alliance has been used in an offensive way against terrorism, and the use of substantial military forces to promote the pacification of the scattered Afghan tribes on the territory, with the ambition to build a new democratic state; that is, a radical change in Afghan society that requires at least the continuous involvement of several generations.

From the geopolitical point of view, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is undoubtedly the release of the great American power from Asia, now fought over by other emerging powers such as Iran, Russia, China and Turkey. This separation, however, had already been predicted by presidents Obama and Trump; the latter, in fact, had characterized his entire tenure with the "slogan America first ". It should also take note of the new US policy, which seems to give up his messianic role aimed at disseminating the planet ideals of the free world. Now is starting a new Cold War, no longer based on the values of the West and the Soviet Union, but for the economic dominance of the United States and China. This contention is needed more and more the voice of Europe, politically united and strong even at the level defense.

Europe in Afghanistan was conspicuous by its absence and the lack of a foreign policy and defense, long overdue, but never realized for the individualism of its 27 members. However, among the many difficulties in this regard it is necessary to consider that the majority of European citizens, according to a recent survey (reported by "Corriere della Sera"), has no interest in a European defense system, need instead to rely more on the scene World and ensure peace.

Hope for the future

 At the beginning of 1990, a book published by the unknown teacher of Arzano (NA), Marcello D'Orta, caused a great deal of attention, in which he collected some themes, written with the peculiar and authentic language of his students, in which the poor social reality of the place. These children, although resigned and sad in their condition of indigence, told with ungrammatical, distorted and hilarious what the teacher explained, hiding between the lines a strong desire for redemption, the desire to soon reach a more gratifying future than the reality in which one they found. In this period of pandemic, surely we too, at times, have gathered courage by repeating the most significant phrase of that book, "I hope that I will get along", confirming the wisdom manifested unconsciously by those children in their themes, the meaning of which explicit is embodied in the hope of a better fate in the future.

Hope (combined with faith and charity) is one of the cornerstones of Christian theology and, as we know, it is the last feeling to die. Therefore, it cannot be assimilated to generic formulas such as: "everything will be fine", aimed at exorcising an unexpected and unwelcome present, but represents a challenging and courageous awareness of a reality yet to be built through the experience of the past and based on the current situation. This is what our society needs in these uncertain times. Instead, we are invaded by a phony concreteness of unstable numbers and predictions, especially on the fight against the virus that has changed our existence. The vaccine that will save lives is rightly targeted: some say it is ready in Russia, but others fear that this is not sufficiently tested. It is therefore considered safer to wait for the one being tested in England, which could be distributed at the end of the year, or rather, in a year or perhaps two. Young people, always cited as full of high hopes, do not care about the pandemic, they prefer to have fun today, then we'll see tomorrow. Adults who manage this eternal present, without a clear vision of the future, are careful not to invoke hope so as not to be considered cowardly. The older ones are the only ones attached to hope, to try to survive. Hope cannot arise from uncertainty, it stands on solid foundations previously built.

"Society cannot accept a world without hope", said Mario Draghi, at the opening of the C.L. meeting and, in the continuation, underlined that "participation in the society of the future will require, from today's young people, even greater capacities of discernment and of adaptation ". In conclusion, it seems appropriate, first of all, a precise and public investigation into the reasons for what is happening today, as these, once defined, will make us look at the future differently. But, in particular, it is necessary to support cultural enrichment, a more accurate preparation of the younger generations, aimed at filling the gaps of a hedonistic society, of profit and consumption, to respond to its needs for structural change, in order to grasp those opportunities to be utilize for the future.

NATO: 71 years after

The Alliance was founded on 4 April 1949, as a system of collective defense concerning the metropolitan territory of the Member States, on the basis of the criterion of mutual aid: in the case of an armed assault outside one or more members all the others are committed to intervene to ensure the safety of the attacked members. The answer is not automatic but must be preceded by political consultations. In 1969, NATO took on unlimited duration (with the power of withdrawal by members).In 1991 he established a Partnership for Peace with Russia and began a process of enlargement to the East, including all the countries of  the Ex War Pact, the three Baltic countries and some countries of the former Yugoslavia. At the same time, cooperation agreements have been initiated with Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Mongolia. In addition, starting in 1999, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, for the first time it intervened militarily outside its area of competence, against Serbia and against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Today, NATO continues to be the world's leading collective security system, with the highest degree of standardization of its national forces and carrying out functions to contain Russian military and political influence in Western Europe (small NATO contingents have been deployed in Iceland, Poland and the Baltics). However, the Alliance also presents internal contradictions: Turkey's uncertain political position, following Ankara's veiled accusations towards NATO that it supported the failed 2017 coup and the purchase of missiles from Russia; Trump's call with Europe for more contributions to the common budget and finally, the start of other systems of cooperation between European countries, such as the Trimarium,a pact established in 2018, essentially of an economic nature, between the countries of the old Habsburg Empire. This groupes twelve countries, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, touching the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Adriatic. 

COVID-19 in Africa and Russia

Even in the event of a pandemic, it is normal for some geographical areas to be reached more slowly by the wave of infections. However, Russia and Africa are no less linked to China than other countries (such as Japan, South Korea and the United States) that are now grappling with high levels of EU transmission of the new coronavirus. What are the reasons why limited COVID-19 cases are occurring in those regions?

The first reason that comes to mind - and also the most dangerous - is the lack of testing of suspicious cases, or the lack of transparency in reporting them. In many countries, only citizens with a history of travel in the worst affected areas, or those with already severe symptoms, are subjected to tampons. This leads to an underestimation  of the cases of contagion intended to prolong the time of the fight against the pandemic.

In some countries, there is a lack of resources to tackle large-scale testing campaigns; others fear the economic repercussions associated with reporting cases (such as the contraction of tourism) or do not want to draw the world's attention to health systems unprepared for the impact of COVID-19. This lack of transparency risks creating other areas where the new coronavirus will continue to proliferate even when we have left the most critical phase.

A second reason could be the geographical factor. Most cases are recorded today above the Tropic of Cancer. Only 1.29% of global cases are concentrated in tropical or southern hemisphere countries. This may be a reflection of more poor ties with China, or rather of the type of climate, but it is also possible that other infections spread in these geographical areas will mask COVID-19 infections, mistaken for other diseases.

If the cause were limited contacts with China (which does not seem plausible), then even in these areas the cases should increase in the next two weeks, brought by Europe. If it depends on the climate, we should see a change in the situation with summer (ours) and southern winter; if, finally, other infections (or drugs already taken to stem them) have to do with them, the number of new cases should remain small.

Status of relations between PRISTINA and BELGRADE

In 1999, NATO intervened to stop the conflict between the two countries,  after claiming more than 10,000 lives and leaving more than 1 million people homeless. Kosovo's independence, declared in 2008, has not been recognized by Belgrade, Russia, and five EU nations. The United States and more than 110 other countries have recognized Kosovo’s independence. Brussels started mediation in 2011 amid strained relations between Pristina and Belgrade.

During his first visit to Kosovo on January 30, in 2020,  Borrell, the European Union's chief diplomat, continued the EU's policy of mediation, which has sought to bring the two countries back to the negotiation table after talks broke down in November 2018 when Pristina imposed a 100-percent tax on Serbian goods over Belgrade’s refusal to recognize Kosovo’s independence.

Josep Borrell, has emphasized the need for bilateral dialogue to resume between Serbia and Kosovo, saying it was the most effective way for them to mend ties. "My duty, my task, my endeavor, my objective, is to accompany, facilitate the negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo," Borrell said, after meeting with Kosovar President Hashim Thaci. "Because the problem can only be solved by Serbia and Kosovo…and the result can only come from an agreement between the two of them". "There is no other solution." Borrell said.

Deterrence and nuclear proliferation

On 7 September, the UN General Assembly in New York, with 122 votes in favour (out of 192), one against and one abstaining, approved the "Treaty of The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons", making atomic weapons illegal, in the same way as other weapons of nuclear weapons. mass destruction. The Netherlands, the only NATO nation present at the summit, voted against it. The five nations recognized by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the US, Russia, France, Britain and China and the four unofficial ones: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea did not participate in the work in New York, as well as their allies, including Italy and other European countries. The Treaty mentioned above is a compromise aimed at limiting the construction of new devices and easing existing arsenals, while allowing member countries to withdraw if 'extraordinary events related to the subject of the Treaty have compromised them' interest,( art 12)'. This last clause, and the non-participation of NATO countries and those in possession of the weapons in question, make much of its effectiveness lost even before the Treaty was ratified.

A new cold war is upon us in the Arctic?

In August 2007, a pair of Russian submarines dropped to 14,000 feet at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean and planted a titanium flag at the North Pole. The fact, transmitted by the media throughout the world, obtained an immediate and strong condemnation in the West despite it had no legal weight. But 12 years later the Russian move is easier to understand. The 2007 was one of the hottest year and the summer artic ice pack was reduced to the lowest levels ever recorded. The frozen polar sea seemed to melt and Russia, in this move, was claiming whatever lay beneath the mud.

In the decade following that shock event, the Arctic underwent a major transformation, due to rising temperatures and attracted international attention. The countries with the Arctic territory and some nations without polar boundaries, have worked hard to take advantage of the last frontier of the Earth, through access to the rich deposits of the region of fish, gas, oil and other mineral resources.

Now the race for the conquest of the new world is underway. The Russian fleet with about 61 ships and another 10 under construction with icebreakers is the largest in the world. The Norwegian fleet has increased its capacity from 5 to 11 ships. South Korean shipyards are engaged in the construction of ice-breaking merchant ships and China has invested billions in Russia's liquid natural gas network.

Other Arctic nations, including the United States, Canada and Denmark, pay much less attention to their northern territories

The imbalance in the approaches to Arctic resources worries some observers who describe the polar cap as a cold theater in which nations will confront each other in the next Cold War.

In August 2018, NATO conducted an exercise in Norway, called Trident Juncture, with the participation of 50,000 soldiers from 31 nations. The huge operation provided a scenario in which northern Norway was invaded by enemy forces, prompting the Allies to run in its defense. Although the enemy has never been named, Norway shares the Arctic and maritime borders with Russia and tensions between the two nations have increased in recent years. Some observers fear that future disputes between neighbors about fishing or mineral rights could bring NATO into a conflict for which it is unprepared.

Iran USA agreement on nuclear capability

Iran and a group of six nations, led by the United States, said they had reached a historic accord, on Tuesday 14^th July 2015, to significantly limit Tehran’s nuclear ability, for more than a decade, in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions.

The deal culminates 20 months of negotiations on an agreement that President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Whether it portends a new relationship between the United States and Iran — after decades of coups, hostage-taking, terrorism and sanctions — remains a bigger question.

Mr. Obama, in an early morning appearance at the White House that was broadcast live in Iran, began what promised to be an arduous effort to sell the deal to Congress and the American public, saying the agreement is “not built on trust — it is built on verification.”

As soon as the agreement was announced,  in Vienna and on the streets of Tehran, its harshest critics said it would ultimately empower Iran rather than limit its capability. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called it a “historic mistake” that would create a “terrorist nuclear superpower.”

American officials said the core of the agreement, secured in 18 consecutive days of talks, lies in the restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep for the next 15 years. The current stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia. That limit, combined with a two-thirds reduction in the number of its centrifuges, would extend to a year the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for a single bomb should it abandon the accord and race for a weapon — what officials call “breakout time.” By comparison, analysts say Iran now has a breakout time of two to three months.

Compared with many past efforts to slow a nation’s nuclear programs,  including a deal struck with North Korea 20 years ago,  this agreement is remarkably specific. Mr. Kerry said he had insisted it must be “airtight.” But some mysteries remain. For example, it is not clear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers who were believed to have been at the center of an effort by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.

Croatian and Slovenian dispute over Adriatic sea

On 6 June 2010 referendum Slovenian voters have backed an agreement with Croatia to settle a long-standing border dispute between the two countries through international arbitration.
The agreement, under which the dispute over the maritime border in the Adriatic Sea is to be solved by an EU-led arbitration panel, won the support of 51.5 per cent of voters
The two countries have been at loggerheads over their maritime border in Piran Bay, and over small terrestrial border disputes, since the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991.
Slovenia has claimed that the dispute was preventing its ships from gaining free access to the Adriatic.The dispute over the maritime border in the Adriatic Sea has in the past prompted Ljubljana to block Zagreb’s accession talks with the European Union, fueling tensions between the two neighboring countries which have no history of past conflict.
The deadlock was broken last November when Pahor and Kosor agreed to allow international arbitration settle the matter.
But while both the Croatian and Slovenian parliaments approved the agreement reached between the two leaders, the Slovenian government decided to give the public the final say.
The European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso described Slovenian voters’ decision to support the deal as “an important step forward” for the Balkan region.
"This is an important step forward. I very much welcome the support that the Slovenian people have given in the referendum on the Border Arbitration Agreement signed by the governments of Slovenia and Croatia," Barroso said in a statement. He added that he was looking forward to a final settlement of the dispute which would represent "an important signal for the region and the relations between Slovenia and Croatia."

Libya political and diplomatic crisis situation

In 2011, the world once again turned against the Libyan government over its use of violence against the popular uprising against the Colonel, inspired by the anti-authoritarian protests sweeping through the Arab world.

The UN Security Council passed a resolution authorising Nato air strikes to protect civilians. After months of near-stalemate, the rebels stormed into Tripoli in August 2011, and several weeks later Col Gaddafi was killed when his last holdout was overrun.

A transitional government took charge and had the challenge of imposing order, disbanding the former rebel forces, rebuilding the economy, creating functioning institutions and managing the pledged transition to democracy and the rule of law.

Elections for a General National Congress were held in July 2012, the country's first free national election in six decades. The congress appointed a prime minister, Ali Zeidan, in October, who formed an interim government tasked with preparing the ground for a new constitution and fresh parliamentary elections.

However, tensions between nationalists and Islamists have stymied attempts to produce a stable government, and in 2014 the country was riven by fighting between rival militias. Central government collapsed, and the United Nations has struggled to bring political factions together.

Can astronauts survive in space with diplomatic tensions between US and RUSSIA?

While the United States and Russia traded sanctions this week ( 22 March 2014) in a burgeoning crisis over Crimea, astronauts from both nations rose above the discord in their sanctuary hundreds of miles from Earth.

Experts say mounting political and economic tensions between the old Cold War foes are unlikely to upset cooperation in space at the moment.  But  is something which   would be damaging to both sides.

Not that talking politics is taboo aboard the International  Space Station (ISS), where Americans and Russians share close quarters, orbiting at an altitude of 248 miles (400 kilometers) over the Earth.

"We could talk about anything. We'd talk about politics," said retired US astronaut Leroy  Chiao, who commanded the ISS for six months in 2004 and 2005.

"With something like this going on, I am sure the crew is talking about it, you know, in a friendly way."

American astronaut Mike Hopkins, upon returning from the ISS earlier this month after a half-year stay, said he considered his Russian counterparts "close friends" and described cooperation as "very strong."  But the real conditions  to live up there is not easy.

"It is like a divorced couple trying to live in the same house," he said. They both own the house. They both operate the house." ( AFP 22 Mar 2012)

KOSOVO SECURITY FORCE ROLE

Today, some 5,000 troops from the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR), provided by 31 countries (23 NATO and eight KFOR partners) continue to contribute towards maintaining a safe and secure environment and freedom of movement for all citizens, irrespective of their ethnic origin.

Following the unilateral declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, the Alliance reaffirmed that KFOR shall remain in Kosovo on the basis of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1244, unless the United Nations Security Council decides otherwise. In June 2008, NATO agreed to take on new tasks in Kosovo. These new tasks included the standing down of the Kosovo Protection Corps and the creation of the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) as an all-crisis voluntary, professional, multi-ethnic, lightly armed force with a mandate encompassing crisis response, assistance to civil authorities in responding to natural and other disasters and emergencies, explosive ordinance disposal and civil protection. These tasks, together with KFOR’s overall mandate, have not been affected by the ruling of the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010: the advisory opinion of the Court on the legality of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is that it did not violate international law, nor UNSCR 1244.

Throughout Kosovo, and bearing in mind its operational mandate, KFOR is cooperating with and assisting the UN, the EU and other international actors, as appropriate, to support the development of a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic and peaceful Kosovo.  In April 2013, Belgrade and Pristina reached an Agreement on Normalisation, which will help to improve relations between both parties while giving new momentum to the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans. NATO and, in particular, KFOR will stand ready to support the implementation of this latest agreement to the best of their ability within their current mandate.

 

Syrian refugee are incresing day by day

One million Syrians have fled their homeland, the head of the United Nations refugee agency today said, warning that in the absence of a political solution, humanitarian workers need additional funds to help the refugees and support the countries hosting them. ”With a million people in flight, millions more displaced internally, and thousands of people continuing to cross the border every day.

Syria is spiralling towards full-scale disaster,” the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, said in a press release.“We are doing everything we can to help, but the international humanitarian response capacity is dangerously stretched. This tragedy has to be stopped. ”The number of refugees increased dramatically since the start of the year, with more than 400,000 people fleeing Syria to neighbouring countries – Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt, and increasingly to North Africa and Europe, according to figures reported by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR).“This number translates into one million people who are dependent on the generosity of host countries, the response of humanitarian agencies and the financial support of governments and individuals,” said Mr. Guterres, who will be travelling to the region later this week to visit UNHCR operations in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.

In Lebanon, the population has increased by as much as 10 per cent. Jordan’s energy, water, health and education services are being strained to the limit. Turkey has spent over $600 million setting up 17 refugee camps, with more under construction. Iraq, already stressed by a population of one million internally displaced persons (IDPs), received over 100,000 Syrian refugees in the past year.

Communications and Society

In August 2012 Aspen Institute hold  a Forum on Communications and Society (FOCAS to discuss the movement towards open and innovative governance and develop tangible proposals and recommendations to increase transparency, promote smarter governance and enhance democracy. Participants included media and technology experts, government officials, academics, and leading NGO directors. Notably joining the conversation was President of the Republic of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves, White House Digital Strategist Macon Phillips, Ushahidi Executive Director Juliana Rotich and a number of up-and-coming technology innovators with expertise in designing platforms and applications for open governance systems.

American democracy is premised on informed citizens engaging in self-governance. Yet  today many citizens are disenchanted with their governments at all levels and are uninterested in participating. At the same time, citizens’ use of mobile and digital technologies is creating a significant communication gap between governments and the governed. And governments find themselves strapped for cash and unable to respond to these tensions in constructive ways. 

On a more encouraging note, however, there is now a burgeoning “open governance” movement to use information and communications technologies to foster accountability, transparency and trust, to open up traditionally closed systems, and to transform governance. Collaborative technologies such as social media are now enabling two-way information channels between citizens and governments, helping to solve problems at the local, state and national levels. Digital technologies also have the potential to reduce costs to governments and citizens, and to create enormous opportunities for more transparent, participatory and responsive governments.

Some national governments are already embracing the open governance movement. Estonia, for example, is a leader. The nation has transitioned beyond 20th century bureaucratic rules and redesigned its government service systems online. Estonia boasts an electronic identification system for its population and an e-healthcare system where citizens own their own data. The nation operates a digital healthcare prescription system, 25 percent of the population voted online in the last elections, and its education system is anchored online. 

Challenges of U.S. Administration

With the confirmation by the Congress of John Kerry as Secretary of State of the new Obama Administration, it was put in place an important piece in the puzzle of the government team, and this help to stir the waters not always clear of U.S. foreign policy when there are growing international tensions, uncertainties about the confirmation of Chuck Hagel to the Department of Defense. In addition, it is needed  the redefinition of the overall priorities of the Country, to face the renewed tensions with China and the uncertainty about how to handle a relationship more clearly problematic, the file still open, on nuclear and options involved in the outcome of the upcoming Iranian presidential elections, the resurgence of hostilities in Syria and the risk of a widening of the crisis after the Israeli military action of 30 January, the potentially destabilizing of the situation in Egypt and the French intervention in Mali ... These are just some of the issues - in substantial continuity with what has been the experience of its predecessor - the new Secretary will be confronted in the coming weeks. The major  issue is, rather,  "how" Kerry wants to tackle the various agenda items. Also on this floor, a substantial continuity with the line of action of Hillary Clinton seems almost obvious.

The U.S. Administration is, today, faced with a dilemma. To focus the attention to internal affairs as it was said in  the inaugural address on January 21, it  does not mean (obviously) the abandonment of an international dimension, for the United States, that is a necessity. This dimension must, however, find a balance with the constraints imposed by an increasingly evident understretch. At the same time, the second Obama Administration is called upon to deal - at least until the next  mid-term elections - with the tensions arising from the polarization between the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate, with the need for the President to negotiate each time the consent of  theCongress, apparently not willing to make concessions, even on sensitive issues as the sum of the measures taken to early January to avoid the dreaded "fiscal abyss" (fiscal cliff). In the difficult search for a squaring of the circle, John Kerry is finally called to take into account the higher margins of action that generally benefits from a President second mandate. In fact President is no longer beset by the specter of re-election and often, on the contrary, he is  searching the opportunity  to link his name to some significant results, in both domestic and international level.