Today, in the setting of the Capitol in Washington, the ceremony of simultaneous closing of the presidential mandate of Joe Biden and the beginning of Donald Trump will be held. In essence, what is commonly called an inauguration will be held, or, more precisely, the formal ceremony that marks the end of the mandate of a president, the outgoing one, and the beginning of the new administration of the one who will take over the office.
It should not be mistaken to argue that this seems to be, in all respects, the most significant moment in the transition of power, in and of itself considered, among government leaders in Washington. And in fact, despite having been the winner of the elections since November, Donald Trump will in fact be officially the forty-seventh President only from the moment he goes to pronounce the words of the oath.
It is no secret to anyone that Donald Trump is preparing to face his second term since, in the recent past, he had already characterized himself as the forty-fifth President in the years between 2017 and 2021. Likewise, JD Vance, chosen as vice, will also have to take the oath to formally assume the office conferred upon him. No question. Even more so when the issue seems to have a purely internal character. Yet in recent days, given the relevance that the event may have on a general geopolitical level, there has been a lot of talk about the circumstance, and perhaps also because, it would seem, according to what has been announced by the press, our Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, will participate in the inauguration ceremony of the President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, whereas, instead, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has not received any invitation, and with her, not even Keir Starmer, Olaf Scholz, Mette Frederiksen and Justin Trudeau, that is, the heads of government, respectively, of Britain, Germany, Denmark and Canada, all representing the Social Democrats or, in any case, the centre-left.
Among the notable absentees, the former First Lady, Michelle Obama, would seem to stand out, having reportedly communicated that she would not be present at the Capitol alongside her husband Barack Obama, the Chinese President Xi-Ji-Ping, in whose place the Vice President Han Zheng will be present for China, as well as the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who also appears not to have received any invitation. Among the other guests present, however, stand out Elon Musk, who appears to be taking up a position in the new Donald Trump administration, but also the CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, and the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos. No question, then. The inauguration would seem to be a purely internal issue. But probably for this very reason, that is, for the political and institutional weight of the great absent European leaders, the presence of the President of the Council of Ministers could have given rise to a debate on the opportunity or not to participate. Even more so, precisely, when other great European leaders, and the President of the Commission Ursula Von der Leyen herself, would appear not to have received similar treatment. And even more so when Giorgia Meloni is Prime Minister of a Eurozone country. Between pragmatism and the need to maintain dialogue, between Atlanticism and Europeanism, there would then seem to be a question whose development could face multiple eventualities. Many would seem rather convinced in believing that with Donald Trump in the White House, the Atlanticist phase (begun in 1949 with the signing of the Atlantic Pact) could end, resulting in a gradual disengagement of the United States of America from Europe and the Mediterranean in general. This latter circumstance, perhaps, holding a profane and probably naive reasoning, could induce a deeper question, that is, the one relating to "what" could have in fact changed compared to an era in which the United States had widely supported the alliance with Western Europe as a middle ground between two Worlds.
. Can the European chessboard really have lost its attractive character? If so, if not, the evolution of the times will certify it. But, beyond any further reasoning, probably in the game of forces in the field, today the so-called Continental Europe, which should present itself as unitary in its intentions, would seem to require an immediate change of pace aimed at carving out for the Old Continent a space of its own such as to be able to guarantee a position of valid counterweight between America and the Middle East. Not so much because Atlanticism as we were used to understanding it is over, but because probably, from 1949 to today it can have changed widely, requiring to be reinterpreted in the light of the geopolitical changes that have occurred in the meantime that would seem to require a certain balance of power between those who were their expression, including the European Union. Meanwhile, and probably, because the European Union should affirm its significance by asserting its autonomy with respect to the United States. So, why, probably, it should develop the capacity to do so, placing itself not in a position of opposition tout-court, but rather as a strong contradictor on the balance of interests being discussed from time to time. Furthermore, why, and consequently, it would perhaps be useful on a strategic level, to broaden, by diversifying them, the scope of international relations. Again, why, it should be able to boast its own security and defense policy. Finally, because in the context of what could present themselves as future dynamics, the cohesion between the various European leaders, an expression in their entirety of the European Union, should be reflected in unity while maintaining ideological diversity.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore - Lawyer, Nuoro
