The western detachment towards the facts of Algeria, Libya and Sudan

If, during the Arab springs, Western governments proved more involved and even interested in a development of the situation that could evolve the systems of government of the southern Mediterranean countries in a democracy, currently the upheavals, albeit different in their form, which concern Algeria, Libya and Sudan are observed with detachment. One of the reasons is a general one: the expectations of an evolution in a democratic system close to the Western ones have been disappointed by the poor attitude of large parts of the population to political systems never practiced and viewed with suspicion by the only movements capable of orienting the people, those of a religious nature. The Egyptian case is more explanatory: the Muslim Brothers who went to the government thanks to the democratic vote have assumed every form of power, relegating minorities to the margins and trying to impose Islamic law, the consegunete reversal of this executive has materialized thanks to the intervention of the armed forces that have re-established a different but always dictatorial regime. The American isolationist attitude, clearly changed compared to the Obama presidency, causes the lack of a leading country in the field of Western democratic institutions, causing the lack of a towing effect for other Western countries. Finally, Europe, torn apart from within, shows all possible concern for a new wave of migration, caused by the Libyan conflict, which cannot be managed by Italy, both because of the aversion of the Rome government and the refusal of the others countries to take on the problem of irregular immigrants. A further danger is represented by the potential presence of elements linked to Islamic terrorism, ready to embark to arrive in Europe. The issues are not secondary, if Rome continues to keep the Italian ports closed it will be necessary to see what the attitude of the other European countries and of the Union itself will be: without a common agreement the tensions already present within Brussels are likely to explode; it is necessary, then, to keep in mind how the European parliament that will come out of the May elections will be composed. Moreover, the European elections and the issue of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union represent political factors that distract the concentration necessary to deal with African issues, both directly and as an element of pressure at the United Nations. If we can at least partly understand this detachment, we certainly cannot share it: the stability of neighboring states, which are also suppliers of energy raw materials, is an element that cannot be ignored and this should require a greater commitment on the part of Brussels, which seems to have little presence. Certainly the means that would allow effective action do not belong to the Union: the absence of a foreign policy and of its own armed forces unrelated to national logic, greatly limit the scope of Community action. Furthermore, the national interests of European countries are often at odds and the underground maneuvers functional to individual interests do not help the necessary leading role that Brussels should interpret. The action is thus left to states that move in a way that is not too hidden and that have interests that are contrary to those of the Union. Without the help of the United States, which has not yet understood that their isolationism damages first of all themselves, Europe is in a position of excessive weakness, but this is not a surprise, since the lack of tools to make up for the American absence was already well known.