National sovereignty as an instrument of international relations

Trump's address to the United Nations becomes the manifest of international political change in action: what brings the sovereignty and the interests of the individual country as the most important element of the political action of a government or a movement that wants to achieve this goal . This is a major change on the diplomatic scene, in the context of the seemingly established tendency, that it wanted to favor a co-operation between nations in a regulatory framework that involved the sale of part of state sovereignty in the name of common interests. Trump's slogan was "America first," a focus of economic and political nationalism that had to steal the United States from external co-operation and progressive disengagement from the international scene. If from the point of view of military and even economic interests, pressure groups have forced the president of the United States back several steps, the field of international organizations' policy seems to have been entirely left to the will of the White House. The talk held at the Glass Palace was the contradiction of years of international political caution, which all previous administrations, albeit with different nuances, had always practiced. This may also be of little relevance, if it does not represent the eloquent signal of a trend that is occurring throughout the West. The European cases have been different, both among those who have stood in the elections, such as the Hungarian and Polish cases, and those who have gone out of the competition, as in the case of Marine Le Pen and its movement in France. There are several movements in other European countries that call for greater national sovereignty preservation than that which is considered to be an invasion of the European Union. Even in other parts of the world, this phenomenon is steadily rising, thinking about Russia and the evolution of Turkey. A common fact is that the affirmation of national sovereignty as a distinctive element of a government goes hand in hand with a compression of the rights and the right of criticism, so as to identify these executives as righteous and also, often influenced by religious components of traditional type. This aversion to supranational organizations has justifications of departure, which can hardly be contradicted. Trump criticized the United Nations' poor activity, but did not propose a change that is increasingly needed and would take away the influence of the United States; in Europe, Brussels's activity was perceived, certainly not as wrongly, as an instrument that has helped the big financial institutions through a budgetary rigidity that has worsened the lives of citizens. The same reasons, for the rest, have led to Trump's election, because Clinton has been identified as the representative of the wealthy classes, the ones who have gained the most from globalization. The contradiction is that often, being elected, they were just components of that part of the companies that hold most of the wealth of a country, only by intercepting the discontent of those who have experienced an increase in inequality. Certainly, the lack of proposals from the left has influenced how it affected the general identity crisis and programs of democratic movements. Trump to the United Nations has proposed a model that sees a set of states totally holding its own sovereignty, operating for the country's exclusive welfare, according to the president of the United States, these features would be sufficient to maintain a level of peace and collaboration between states. But this view does not take into account the conflicting interests between state entities and the need to correct them. Thus, in an even closer relationship, the European Union finds great difficulty for the real power imbalance that exists between the states. Is that the solution proposed by Trump and all those who claim greater state sovereignty or, conversely, greater collaboration between nations? Certainly a regulatory framework that establishes the rights and duties of states within a common partnership seems preferable, even at the expense of giving up parts of national sovereignty; but to overcome the diffi- culties and instincts of nationalism, tangible results are needed in preventing conflicts and solving existing ones that are impossible to achieve without effective control and address structures.