分类： politics

Academic experts specializing in international affairs have presented a nuanced assessment of Sino-American relations for the coming year, identifying both stabilizing factors and underlying vulnerabilities in the bilateral relationship. The analysis emerged during a recent virtual symposium organized by the Institute for China-America Studies, where scholars examined the geopolitical landscape following significant developments throughout 2025.

David Kang, who holds the Maria Crutcher professorship in international relations at the University of Southern California, expressed measured optimism, noting that the current state of affairs has surpassed earlier expectations. This cautiously positive outlook follows a year that witnessed five substantial trade negotiation rounds and a consequential summit in Busan, South Korea, which resulted in a temporary suspension of tariff escalations.

The Trump administration’s recently published National Security Strategy provided additional context for the discussion. The document notably emphasized economic engagement across Asia while refraining from characterizing China as an existential national security threat—a significant departure from conventional Washington foreign policy rhetoric.

Robert Sutter, professor of practice at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, highlighted President Trump’s distinctive approach to China relations, describing it as fundamentally “transactional” rather than ideologically driven. This methodology leverages access to the enormous American consumer market as diplomatic capital to negotiate bilateral agreements more favorable to United States interests.

However, Professor Kang offered a more circumspect perspective regarding American influence in Asia, suggesting that regional trends continue to move in concerning directions. He characterized the public displays of diplomatic engagement from Asian allies as “performative flattery” that masks deeper efforts to establish regional networks as protection against potential American policy volatility.

The Taiwan question emerged as a critical flashpoint in the discussions. The United States’ approval of an unprecedented $11 billion arms package to Taiwan in late 2025—the largest single authorization to date—contrasted with the National Security Strategy’s reaffirmation of established policy without explicit endorsement of the One-China principle.

Bucknell University Professor Zhu Zhiqun described the arms sales as a “problematic approach” that contributes to relationship fragility. He characterized the current bilateral dynamic as a “negative equilibrium” sustained not by mutual benefit or shared values but by reciprocal capacity for economic harm through mechanisms including tariff impositions, technology controls, and commodity restrictions.

Despite these challenges, Liu Yawei, senior China advisor at the Carter Center, projected optimism for 2026, suggesting that stability on the Taiwan issue could produce stabilizing effects across the entire US-China relationship, ultimately benefiting the international community at large.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s landmark address at the World Economic Forum in Davos has ignited expert analysis regarding the fundamental restructuring of global governance systems. Speaking on January 20, 2026, Carney declared the postwar international order effectively terminated, emphasizing that middle-power nations must adapt to an increasingly fragmented and coercive global landscape.

According to Ronald Stagg, History Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, Carney’s reference to the ‘old order’ pertains to the framework of international relationships established following World War II. “This system operated on principles of mutual respect among nations and relied heavily on multilateral institutions like the United Nations for conflict resolution,” Stagg explained. However, he noted that this order “never truly existed in its idealized form,” as powerful nations only participated when it served their interests.

The critical shift, experts suggest, lies in the reemergence of overtly coercive tactics by major powers. Stagg identified the United States as Carney’s primary subject of criticism, citing Washington’s withdrawal from international organizations, consistent UN criticism, and poor treatment of allied nations. “We’re witnessing the return of Great Power politics where force prevails over diplomacy,” Stagg observed.

Adam Chapnick, Defense Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, elaborated that the postwar system functioned through rules-based mechanisms with consequences for violations. “The current reality demonstrates eroded constraints on power,” Chapnick stated. “Without universal frameworks, dominant nations increasingly utilize military and economic superiority to advance self-interests without systemic considerations.”

Carney’s proposed solution involves middle-power nations forming strategic coalitions based on shared objectives rather than negotiating individually with major powers. This approach received substantial support at Davos but triggered immediate backlash from Washington. President Donald Trump subsequently rescinded Carney’s invitation to join a proposed ‘Board of Peace’ addressing Gaza and publicly criticized Canada’s perceived ingratitude toward American protection.

Stagg characterized Trump’s worldview as fundamentally transactional, noting potential complications for upcoming United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement reviews. This diplomatic friction underscores Carney’s central thesis: in today’s geopolitical environment, survival priorities must supersede secondary objectives, though not eliminate them entirely.

A sudden reversal in US diplomatic posture toward Canada—from applauding trade engagements to threatening comprehensive tariffs—reveals deeper political motivations rather than substantive trade concerns, according to policy analysts. This shift occurred mere days after the US administration commended Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s negotiations with China, only to abruptly warn of imposing 100% punitive tariffs on all Canadian imports should the agreement proceed.

Professor Jiang Wenran, founding director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, attributed the contradictory stance to personal pique and strategic coercion. He identified Carney’s address at the World Economic Forum in Davos as the immediate catalyst. There, Carney criticized international “coercion” and cautioned against middle powers falling prey to “American hegemony”—a speech met with a standing ovation that reportedly overshadowed US President Donald Trump’s poorly received appearance.

Jiang elaborated that beyond personal dynamics, the tariff threat constitutes a strategic instrument to reinforce US dominance in North America. From Washington’s perspective, Sino-Canadian trade talks represent a direct challenge to US economic strategy. The threat aims not only to realign Canadian policy but also to deter other US allies from pursuing independent trade agreements.

In response, Carney clarified that Canada does not intend to pursue a full free-trade agreement with China, ensuring ongoing negotiations comply with existing US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provisions. This approach seeks to avoid activating the pact’s “poison pill” clause while advancing pragmatic trade objectives.

Domestically, the US threat has intensified debate within Canada. One faction emphasizes the catastrophic economic repercussions of losing access to the US market, which absorbs 75% of Canadian exports, and advocates accommodation. Another interprets US pressure as validation of the need to accelerate trade diversification and reduce dependency.

Ottawa’s response has combined restraint with quiet resistance, emphasizing domestic resilience through initiatives like the “Buy Canadian” campaign while broadening international trade ties. This reflects a cautious balancing act—pursuing economic benefits from diversification while mitigating legal and political risks from the US.

Ron Stagg, a history professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, noted that the tariff threat appears driven more by political signaling than clear trade mechanics. The US administration framed its warning around preventing Canada from becoming a “back-door for Chinese imports,” yet Stagg highlighted that Chinese electric vehicles entering Canada would remain subject to US duties if re-exported, minimizing any tangible threat.

The situation underscores the complex interplay of personal diplomacy, strategic posturing, and economic policy shaping North American relations.