分类： world

In a significant geopolitical development, the United States formally executed its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement on Tuesday, January 28, 2026. This move marks a pivotal moment in global environmental diplomacy, removing the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter from the international accord designed to combat climate change.

The United Nations has responded with resolute determination to maintain climate action momentum. During a press briefing, a UN spokesperson addressed inquiries from China Daily, emphasizing that the organization’s climate initiatives would proceed without interruption despite the American departure.

“The UN’s comprehensive efforts to address climate change, facilitate equitable transitions, and implement critical mitigation and adaptation measures for vulnerable nations will continue undeterred,” the spokesperson affirmed. This declaration underscores the international body’s commitment to preserving the agreement’s integrity and advancing its objectives regardless of individual national decisions.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, represents a landmark global framework wherein signatory nations commit to substantially reducing carbon emissions to limit global temperature rise. The U.S. withdrawal process commenced in 2019 under the previous administration and has now reached formal completion, potentially altering the dynamics of international climate negotiations and implementation strategies.

UN officials indicated that climate diplomacy would remain a top priority, with continued focus on supporting developing countries particularly susceptible to climate impacts. The organization’s steadfast position signals confidence that other signatory nations will maintain their commitments to the accord’s ambitious environmental targets.

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have intensified significantly following the strategic positioning of a US naval strike group in Middle Eastern waters. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a stern warning on Tuesday, asserting that American military threats would only generate regional instability rather than achieve their intended objectives.

The escalation comes amid ongoing protests within Iran that have prompted a severe government crackdown. While US President Donald Trump has deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the region, he has simultaneously indicated openness to diplomatic engagement, noting that Iranian officials have ‘called on numerous occasions’ seeking negotiation.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards delivered a pointed message to neighboring nations, cautioning that any country permitting its territory, airspace, or waters to be used against Iran would be considered hostile. This warning from Mohammad Akbarzadeh, political deputy of the IRGC naval forces, underscores Tehran’s heightened security concerns.

Analysts suggest the Trump administration is considering multiple intervention options, ranging from targeted military strikes to leadership-focused operations aimed at undermining Iran’s clerical establishment. US intelligence assessments reportedly indicate the Iranian government’s hold on power may be at its weakest point since the 1979 revolution.

Human rights organizations report a devastating toll from the government’s response to protests, with confirmed fatalities exceeding 6,000 and arrests surpassing 41,000. The extensive internet blackout imposed by Iranian authorities has complicated accurate documentation of casualties and repression.

The situation remains volatile with both military posturing and diplomatic channels operating simultaneously, creating a complex landscape of confrontation and potential negotiation in the strategically critical region.

In a grave announcement that underscores escalating global tensions, the symbolic Doomsday Clock has been advanced to a mere 85 seconds until midnight—marking humanity’s closest brush with existential catastrophe since the clock’s inception eighty years ago. This critical adjustment by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists represents a substantial deterioration in global stability, primarily fueled by heightened nuclear threats arising from the conflict in Ukraine, persistent climate change crises, and the unchecked proliferation of disruptive technologies.

The Doomsday Clock, conceived in 1947, serves as a powerful metaphor visualizing humankind’s vulnerability to self-inflicted disasters, with midnight symbolizing total apocalyptic collapse. This year’s setting surpasses the previous record of 100 seconds to midnight, which held steady from 2020 through 2022, indicating a sharp downturn in international security conditions. The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin emphasized that this movement toward midnight reflects their assessment that ‘we are living in a time of unprecedented danger.’

Multiple converging factors contributed to this ominous forecast, including increased nuclear weapons modernization programs, insufficient climate action despite escalating extreme weather events, and growing biological research risks. The ongoing war in Ukraine has particularly exacerbated nuclear tensions, creating the most dangerous nuclear security environment in decades. Additionally, cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns and artificial intelligence technologies pose new threats to democratic institutions and global stability.

The clock’s keepers noted that while the situation remains dire, the clock’s purpose is to spur action rather than predict inevitable doom. They emphasized that human agency can reverse this trend through renewed diplomacy, climate cooperation, and responsible technology governance. Historical precedents exist—the clock retreated significantly after the Cold War ended, demonstrating that positive change remains possible when world leaders prioritize collective security.

Relatives of two Trinidadian nationals killed in a U.S. military operation have initiated legal proceedings against the American government, alleging unlawful execution during a counter-narcotics mission. The lawsuit was formally lodged in Boston’s federal court by legal representatives acting on behalf of the families of Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, who perished alongside four others when their vessel was struck off the Venezuelan coastline on October 14.

Legal counsel for the plaintiffs characterized the incident as ‘lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theatre,’ challenging the official narrative of a justified narcotics interception. The operation forms part of an expanded maritime campaign under the Trump administration, which has conducted at least 36 vessel engagements across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific since September, resulting in over 120 fatalities. Officials have defended these actions as targeting ‘narco-terrorists’ responsible for trafficking lethal substances into the United States.

The legal submission invokes the Death on the High Seas Act, a statute permitting foreign nationals to seek redress in U.S. courts for maritime wrongful deaths allegedly violating international law. Claimants include Joseph’s mother, Sallycar Korasingh, and Samaroo’s sister, who maintain both men were agricultural and fishing laborers returning to Trinidad and Tobago when their boat was destroyed. Korasingh asserted that had authorities suspected criminal activity, proper protocol would entail ‘arrest, charge, and detention—not execution.’

Central to the lawsuit is the argument that the deceased were not engaged in military hostilities against the United States, thereby rendering the lethal force unlawful under international armed conflict regulations. The Pentagon has yet to issue any formal response to the allegations.

This case emerges alongside another legal challenge brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by relatives of a Colombian man killed in a separate U.S. maritime strike, signaling growing international scrutiny over Washington’s intensified drug interdiction tactics in regional waters.