Changes in the foreign policy of Trump

So the United States shall respond to the announcement and hijack the direct American naval squadron to Australia and New Zealand, to the coasts of North Korea. Right now Trump judges Pyongyang the main danger for the US country, although most of Syria and the Syrian situation, where, however, has already passed to an assault by bombing the base from which would leave the Damascus raids with weapons chemical. This activism Trump, which does not coincide with what was said in the election campaign, but rather contradicts it cleanly, seems to want to be a return to the role of the International American country protagonist, a role which under President Obama, was resized. Trump wanted to understand clearly want to also act alone against countries that do not respect the rules of international law. If the intention, shared or not, seems to have some justification, it must be said that even Washington's conduct appears to violate any rule, because it is not supported by the United Nations. However, we have entered an era where international law seems to be worth less and less and the Trump actions follow, and maybe they want to balance what was done by Russia, Syria, Turkey and other countries that are to join in a list, unfortunately very long . The proof is that those who have violated international rules, then appeals to them when successive violations by other countries go against their international interests. We are in a phase of history that contradicts the one just passed, where violations of international law were more limited and the same qualms were consistent when they had to break them. The location of Trump, as in the net said contradicts what looked like its inspiring principles outlined during the election campaign, is located in this direction, it seems, now obliged, for those states that want to play a leading role on the international stage . The counter is made by the European Union that continues unabated to play a marginal role and limited influence on world events. The change of direction of Trump may have been dictated by many factors, the first of which changes the address of his staff, who probably have judged essential to the return on the world stage of the United States in a leading role. Besides the initiative of Russia now was a too big factor in the international balance, which could also allow the main achievement of the campaign stated by the sentence: America first. Certainly the program contained in this phrase seemed to relate to domestic policy and the economy, leaving implied an isolationist position as could cover the international scenario. However it was a contradiction in terms, that is still less time than you might expect. The international scenario can not be detached from the inside, but especially economically, especially if it is the number one world power. On the other hand focus on external issues, it lightens the attention from domestic ones: an old trick always used when campaign promises can not be kept. A further factor is that American power could not be mortified in an isolation that also meant downsizing of its military apparatus. When Trump had announced the increase of the defense budget, which already constituted a clear signal that the isolationist intent could not be maintained. Taking this road must now check the Trump intends to use military means to exert its influence. If the Obama presidency was marked for a softer approach, using more pronounced sanctions, Trump came on the scene in a more muscle with the Syrian bombardment and naval deployment in the face of North Korea. The tactic seems to be to make the shows of force to achieve the goal with a diplomatic action; the way chosen is however not so easy practicality: tensions with Moscow seem to be back to the level of the Obama presidency, relations with Tehran are again very bad, the ones with China do not seem to have good health, because of the excessive impetuosity Trump and Pyongyang could be the eve of a conflict. What is most worrying is that behind the moves of the White House does not seem to be a systematic plan characterized by a vision of the long term, but only extemporaneous approaches able to promote potentially dangerous situations.