Il National Security Strategy document of the administration published on Friday aims to “restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere”, explicitly relaunching the Monroe Doctrine, created to counter any European interference in the Western Hemisphere and later used to justify US military interventions in Latin America. At the same time it indicates an explicit bye bye to the old European partners.
The fragmentation of the world market and the imperialist reorganization based on regional, economic and geopolitical blocs is taking shape rather clearly.
But if in Latin America we return to hegemonic ambitions and nineteenth-century languages, it is precisely in Europe that the 33-page document uses new language, defining it at risk of “cancellation of civilization” due to economic decline, the demographic crisis, permissive migration policies and the erosion of freedom of expression.
In a paragraph, slightly more reassuring for the European governments already in panic, it is written that “Europe nevertheless remains strategically and culturally vital for the United States”, but the report manifests a rather different vision compared to the past, subjected to judgments that are certainly not flattering for the historical European partners hitherto considered reliable, since the post-war period onwards, by every US administration.
The new US National Security Strategy indicates a picture of the contemporary world that leaves no margin for ambiguity. The United States intends to reaffirm its centrality and economic, military, ideological and technological supremacy, putting an end to every multilateralist instance which – although always subordinate to Washington Consensus – until a few years ago it had managed what was defined as globalization.
The premise of the document explains how today US national security does not arise only from military power, but from the internal strengthening of the nation, the reconstruction of its industrial apparatus, the defense of borders, the safeguarding of cultural identity and the protection of critical technologies.
Therefore the “containment” ofChina and redefinition of relations with Europe they become the pillars of a strategy that aims to reaffirm US priorities, countering the idea of an “American decline” and revising the idea that Washington must bear the weight of the international order alone.
The passage dedicated toEurope, from “our parts”, it is probably the most indigestible but significant of the document. We no longer find affirmations of loyalty to NATO as an almost sacred bond. On the contrary, a rather disenchanted if not openly critical attitude prevails.
Washington considers Europe as a strategically important area but profoundly weakened by internal contradictions. These include economic stagnation, demographic decline, political instability, limitations on freedom of expression and waves of migration towards the old continent. It is difficult not to admit that these factors of crisis in Europe concretely exist, and you certainly don’t have to be a “Putinian” to say so.
The war in Ukraine itself is described in the document as a further accelerator of dependencies (e.g. energy), political crises and economic fragilities that undermine internal European cohesion.
The US strategy, contrary to European governments, pushes for a rapid return to stability in Europe and to re-establish relations between Europe and Russia.
The passage in which the future of NATO must no longer be defined by continuous expansion, but by the European ability to assume much greater responsibilities and costs on a military level is emblematic.
Europe remains, in Washington’s eyes, a still useful partner on a commercial and technological level, but it is no longer the heart of US strategy in international relations.
In this redefinition of priorities, China appears as the real challenge of the 21st century for the United States. Beijing is no longer considered an actor with which to find stable balances, but a systemic competitor determined to question US supremacy in the world.
According to the US National Security Strategy, decades of economic opening have not brought China closer to the liberal international order but, on the contrary, have accelerated its rise as a superpower. International production chains are being restructured to give China increasing control over emerging markets and critical raw materials. China’s industrial capacity, combined with massive investments in technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum, robotics and space, now forms the heart of the competition with the United States.
In the document the latter openly admit that they have lost ground and announce a large-scale economic and technological counteroffensive of which the reconstruction of US national industry becomes a strategic objective, as well as the reduction of critical dependencies on Chinese supply chains.
The declared objective is to prevent China from achieving economic and technological supremacy that would make its global leadership inevitable.
On a military level, the US strategy appears even more explicit. The priority is to contain China and prevent any attempt to alter it status quo in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
Competition is no longer limited to the military dimension alone, but involves the entire military-industrial system: production, innovation, logistics, economic resilience. The document does not contemplate conciliatory scenarios with China and the confrontation between the two powers is considered inevitable, continuous and structural. The United States considers it essential to maintain a qualitative advantage in naval platforms, space assets, new generation missiles, technologies,
But if European governments have gone haywire, those in Latin America should be even more worried.
The National Security Strategy of the United States states in fact that a “Trump Corollary” will be applied to the Monroe Doctrine, which, starting from 1820, consolidated their hegemony in Latin America, since then considered the “backyard” of the USA and from which to keep the European powers away. On the basis of that doctrine, the United States has intervened militarily dozens of times against Central and Latin American countries or has organized coups d’état against governments not subordinate to Washington.
What we are seeing in recent weeks in Venezuela but also in Colombia, Mexico and Honduras confirm this attempt to return to US hegemonism over Latin America.
To this end, it is written in the document, Washington will readjust its “global military presence to address urgent threats in our hemisphere and will move away from scenarios whose relative importance to U.S. national security has declined in recent decades or years.”
The Trump administration also wants to end mass migration and make border control “the principal element of American security” – states the new US national security strategy – “The era of mass migration must come to an end. Border security is the main element of national security.”
The historical phase of concertation and globalization is now definitively behind us, we have fully entered the phase of global imperialist competition based on different and opposing economic and political blocs.
– © Reproduction possible WITH EXPLICIT CONSENT of the CONTROPIANO EDITORIAL TEAM
Last modified:
press
