标签： North America

Israel is initiating preparatory discussions with the Trump administration to establish a new decade-long security arrangement, signaling a potential transformation in one of the world’s most enduring defense partnerships. According to exclusive reporting from the Financial Times, these negotiations will focus on transitioning from direct financial assistance to collaborative defense projects as the cornerstone of bilateral security cooperation.

Gil Pinchas, former chief financial adviser to Israel’s military and defense ministry, revealed that forthcoming talks would prioritize joint military initiatives over traditional cash grants. This strategic pivot emerges despite the current Memorandum of Understanding (2016-2028) that provides Israel with $38 billion in military aid, including $33 billion for weapons procurement and $5 billion for missile defense systems.

The proposed restructuring aligns with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recently stated objective of gradually reducing dependence on American military assistance over the next decade. Pinchas characterized the $3.3 billion annual ‘free money’ component as one element that could ‘decrease gradually’ within the new framework.

Emphasizing the broader strategic significance beyond financial considerations, Pinchas noted that ‘the partnership is more important than just the net financial issue… there are a lot of things that are equal to money.’ The U.S. State Department has not yet responded to inquiries regarding the anticipated negotiations, which are expected to commence in the coming weeks.

In a significant escalation of trade tensions, former US President Donald Trump has declared his intention to increase tariffs on South Korean imports from 15% to 25%, targeting key sectors including automobiles, lumber, and pharmaceuticals. The announcement was made via Trump’s Truth Social platform on Monday, where he accused South Korea’s legislature of failing to ratify what he termed a “Historic Trade Agreement” previously negotiated with Washington.

This potential policy reversal threatens to undermine a comprehensive trade and security agreement finalized just months earlier in October 2025, following personal negotiations between Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung. The original pact had secured reduced tariff rates for South Korean exports in exchange for substantial investment commitments from Seoul.

The South Korean government responded with measured concern, indicating it had received no prior official notification regarding the tariff increase. An emergency meeting was convened by Seoul’s presidential office, with Trade and Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan participating remotely from Canada. In an official statement, South Korean officials emphasized their “commitment to implementing the tariff agreement” while pledging to respond “in a calm and measured manner.”

The automotive sector represents particularly high stakes in this dispute, accounting for approximately 27% of South Korea’s exports to the United States. A reversion to higher tariff levels would place South Korean manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage compared to trading partners like Japan and the European Union, which maintain 15% tariff rates under separate agreements.

This development marks the latest in a series of trade threats from Trump, who recently warned Canada with potential 100% tariffs should it pursue a trade deal with China, and similarly threatened European nations regarding his aspirations to purchase Greenland.

Italy has expressed strong opposition to the planned deployment of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents for security operations during the upcoming Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics, creating diplomatic friction between the two NATO allies. The controversy stems from recent incidents in Minneapolis where ICE officers were involved in fatal shootings, generating widespread alarm in Italy after images of the events circulated nationally.

ICE confirmed through an official statement that its Homeland Security Investigations unit would support the US Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service in vetting and mitigating risks from transnational criminal organizations during the Games, which run from February 6-22. The agency emphasized that its personnel would ‘obviously not conduct immigration enforcement operations outside the US’ and that all security operations would remain under Italian authority.

The announcement triggered immediate backlash from Italian officials. Milan Mayor Beppe Sala denounced the decision on Italian radio, stating, ‘This is a militia that kills… of course they’re not welcome in Milan.’ He further asserted that ICE agents ‘don’t guarantee they conform to our democratic way of ensuring security.’

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Pantedosi initially appeared unaware of the deployment plans but later took a firm stance, maintaining that ‘ICE will certainly not operate on Italian national territory.’ He emphasized that security remained exclusively under Italian jurisdiction and that the US had not formally communicated a list of security personnel.

The tension escalated following reports that ICE officials in Minneapolis had threatened journalists from Italy’s public broadcaster RAI, warning them that their car window would be smashed if they continued filming federal agents. This incident, coupled with the fatal shootings in Minneapolis, intensified Italian concerns about the potential presence of these agents on their streets.

Regional officials attempted to defuse the situation, with Lombardy Governor Attilio Fontana suggesting ICE agents would primarily protect US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, opposition politicians criticized Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government for what they characterized as subservience to the Trump administration, highlighting the complex political dimensions of this international security dispute.

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.