The president of the United States, Joe Biden, delivered the annual address on the State of the Union last week, before the Capitol, in a joint session of the Senate (majority Democrats) and the House of Representatives (majority Republicans).
He said many things, almost all of them predictable, but the most important, albeit implicit, message is that he feels strong enough to run again in two years, at 82. He would be the oldest president in US history. It is true that his verbal and physical lapses cast doubt on his ability to face another six years with full faculties, but it is also true that he was energetic, witty and agile in the face of the provocations of a sector of the Republicans.
In fact, in principle, age should not be an exclusion factor in itself. Let us remember figures like Adenauer, Pertini or Napolitano, all of them in their 90s when they held power.
But beyond that implicit message, which also reflects the fiasco of his vice president, Kamala Harris, as a possible successor, Biden was faithful to himself and to the traditional central postulates of the Democratic Party.
On the domestic front, he defended Social Security and health (Obamacare so reviled by the most radical Republicans), new taxes on income that exceeds $400,000 per year, or on large companies, including an increase on the repurchase of own shares . He also a reform to avoid police abuse, the prohibition of acquiring assault weapons, a legislation on abortion applicable to the entire country or a deep immigration reform.
Nothing very different from the traditional postulates of the Democratic Party. However, it did go further in defending protectionism (“Buy American” or “I will not apologize for making the United States stronger”), without giving in to technological subsidies or green energy, doubtfully compatible with the free trade and international competition, in addition to defending the continuity of fossil fuels for a long time to come, support for internal investment in infrastructure and microprocessors or the IRA plan (inflation reduction law).
All of this has aroused enormous concern in the EU, which is already preparing a response, still the subject of dispute, due to its possible distorting nature of the markets. In fact, the German and French finance ministers visited Washington last week to try to water down all those measures, apparently with little success. Obviously, Biden took pride in the good American economic performance.
And he is right. The excellent behavior of the labor market –with an unemployment rate of only 3%– or the resistance in GDP growth together with a slight but real reduction in the inflation rate (which makes it possible to think of a less aggressiveness by the Federal Reserve) justify optimism.
For this reason, the most recurring phrase throughout his speech was "let's finish the job", making a constant call for the return of classic bipartisanship, without the division and confrontation that characterized Trump's tenure and that still permeates a good part of the Party. Republican.
On the foreign front, to which he devoted much less attention than on the domestic, Biden referred almost exclusively to Russia and China. As for Russia, he was very firm in continuing the policy of financial and military support for Ukraine, to the point of preventing Russia from getting any profit from its illegal invasion. He contrasted such a position with the shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan early in his term, something he of course did not mention.
But more relevant was the reference to China, with the crisis opened by the spy balloons discovered over North American space, to which he also did not refer openly, in a context of unprecedented diplomatic confrontation, including the cancellation of the visit of the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to Beijing. He made it clear that, although he would work with China to protect US interests and benefit the world (it must not be forgotten that, on issues such as the fight against climate change or against pandemics, this collaboration is essential, as these are issues that transcend borders states), he also stated that if China posed a threat to US sovereignty, it would act accordingly.
For this reason, it was implicit that it would follow the policy of increasing restriction of technology exports to the Asian power or that it would not allow a unilateral Chinese action on Taiwan.
We are facing an enormously uncertain and dangerous moment on the global geopolitical scene and it is most likely that we will witness, in Ukraine, a long conflict with no expectations of a ceasefire in the short term and with a progressive increase in sanctions against Russia, in line with with the EU. And it is also foreseeable that tensions with China, not only in the Taiwan Strait but throughout the South China Sea and around control of the Strait of Malacca, will grow, with the risks that this entails. Nor should we forget the concern about Chinese penetration in Africa (also Russia, through the paramilitaries of the Wagner militia) and in Latin America, in a global struggle for raw materials and political influence.
The risk of a setback in the hyperglobalization that we have known in recent decades and a further decoupling of global value chains, giving priority to security of supply over production efficiency, is clearly there. And it is something that should occupy and concern the EU. In short, a speech to take good note of. For many reasons.
