标签： North America

In a controversial move that has drawn mixed international reactions, former U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his proposed ‘Board of Peace’ during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The initiative, initially focused on cementing the Gaza ceasefire, has raised concerns among traditional Western allies about its potential to undermine the United Nations’ role in global diplomacy.

Trump announced he would chair the board himself and revealed that approximately 35 world leaders had committed to joining out of 50 invitations extended. However, the project faces significant skepticism from key U.S. allies who question both its structure and funding requirements. Permanent members are expected to contribute $1 billion each, a condition that has prompted several nations to decline participation.

European powers including France, Norway, and Slovenia have expressed reservations about the board’s broad mandate. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stated: ‘Yes to implementing the peace plan presented by the president of the United States, which we wholeheartedly support, but no to creating an organization as it has been presented, which would replace the United Nations.’

Despite Western hesitation, several Middle Eastern nations have embraced the initiative. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates issued a joint statement announcing their participation. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also agreed to join, marking a shift from his previous criticism of similar committees.

In a surprising development, Trump claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to participate, though Kremlin officials stated they were still studying the invitation. Putin suggested Russia might fund its contribution using frozen Russian assets and announced planned meetings with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner to discuss Ukrainian settlement.

The board’s launch comes amid ongoing tensions in Gaza, where destruction remains visible along the Israel-Gaza border. Trump expressed optimism about the initiative’s prospects, stating that ‘everybody wants to be on’ the board, though he acknowledged some nations would require parliamentary approval to join.

A significant diplomatic confrontation between the United States and European allies over Greenland has been substantially de-escalated following high-level discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that he had established a “framework” for a future agreement concerning Greenland and the broader Arctic region through negotiations with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

The breakthrough prompted the immediate withdrawal of threatened tariffs against eight European nations—the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland. These punitive measures, scheduled to commence on February 1st, had been proposed in response to European opposition to American ambitions regarding the Danish territory.

President Trump characterized the developing arrangement as “the ultimate long-term deal” that would provide the United States with substantial strategic advantages, particularly in security and mineral access. He emphasized that the agreement contained “no time limit” and would theoretically endure indefinitely, though specific details remained undisclosed.

However, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen promptly clarified that NATO possesses no authority to negotiate on Denmark’s behalf regarding Greenlandic sovereignty. “The position of Denmark and that of Greenland are the same, and no negotiations were held yesterday with NATO about our sovereignty,” she stated unequivocally in a television appearance.

According to sources familiar with the discussions, the United States and Denmark will renegotiate their 1951 defense pact concerning Greenland, potentially allowing for enhanced American military presence while preserving Danish sovereignty. The agreement may grant Washington rights to mineral resources and involvement in maintaining the Golden Dome missile defense system.

The European Parliament responded to the developments by suspending work on two legislative proposals related to EU-US trade relations, citing concerns over American “threats to territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Meanwhile, the Greenlandic government has issued emergency preparedness guidelines advising households to maintain five-day supplies of essential provisions, reflecting underlying tensions despite the diplomatic progress.

President Donald Trump revealed on Thursday that the United States has dispatched a substantial naval contingent toward Iranian territorial waters, characterizing the movement as a precautionary measure amid ongoing regional tensions. The announcement came during the president’s return flight from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he had engaged in diplomatic discussions with European allies.

Speaking to journalists aboard Air Force One, Trump emphasized the scale of the deployment while suggesting the military presence might not necessitate active engagement. “We have a lot of ships going that direction just in case. We have a big flotilla going in that direction. And we’ll see what happens,” the president stated, adding that “We have an armada. We have a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we won’t have to use it.”

The naval mobilization occurs against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical friction in the Persian Gulf region, where Iran has been experiencing significant domestic unrest. While the president did not specify the exact composition of the naval force or its precise destination, the announcement represents the latest development in the complex relationship between Washington and Tehran.

Analysts suggest the deployment serves both strategic and psychological purposes, demonstrating military capability while leaving operational intentions deliberately ambiguous. The timing following the Davos economic summit indicates the administration continues to prioritize security concerns alongside economic diplomacy.

In a robust diplomatic rejoinder, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has publicly challenged recent remarks by former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting Canadian existence depends entirely on the United States. The Prime Minister delivered his response during an address in Quebec City on Thursday, following Trump’s controversial statements at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Trump had asserted during the global economic gathering that “Canada lives because of the United States,” a characterization that prompted swift clarification from Canadian leadership. Prime Minister Carney, while acknowledging the special relationship between the neighboring nations, emphasized Canada’s autonomous sovereignty and distinct national identity.

“Canada and the United States have cultivated an extraordinary partnership that spans economic cooperation, security collaboration, and vibrant cultural exchange,” Carney stated. “However, the premise that Canada exists solely because of the United States fundamentally misrepresents our relationship. Canada prospers not through dependency, but through the resilience, innovation, and distinct character of the Canadian people.”

The exchange marks another chapter in the complex diplomatic dynamic between the two North American allies, particularly during periods when Trump’s unconventional foreign policy approach creates international tension. Carney’s response carefully balanced respect for the bilateral relationship with a firm assertion of Canadian national sovereignty, avoiding direct confrontation while clearly establishing Canada’s independent standing on the world stage.

Political analysts suggest such public disagreements, while diplomatically sensitive, reflect Canada’s ongoing commitment to maintaining its distinct international identity while navigating its crucial relationship with its southern neighbor. The incident underscores the delicate balance Canadian leaders must strike in responding to provocative statements from U.S. political figures while preserving the fundamentally important cross-border partnership.

The United States has formally executed its departure from the World Health Organization (WHO), severing ties with the UN health agency and ceasing all financial contributions. This decision, initiated by an executive order from President Donald Trump a year prior, culminates in the withdrawal of U.S. personnel, the termination of funding, and the suspension of hundreds of collaborative engagements.

The Trump administration justified the exit by citing the WHO’s alleged mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, a perceived resistance to reform, and undue political influence from member nations, specifically accusing the organization of a ‘China-centric’ bias. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a joint statement asserting that the WHO ‘abandoned its core mission and acted repeatedly against the interests of the United States.’

In response, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus characterized the withdrawal as a detrimental loss for both global public health and the United States itself. The organization highlighted its historic achievements, including combating polio and HIV/AIDS, reducing maternal mortality, and establishing the international tobacco control treaty.

The financial impact is immediate and severe. The U.S., traditionally the WHO’s largest donor, has withheld its dues for 2024 and 2025, creating an estimated $260 million shortfall that has already triggered significant job losses within the agency. Although WHO legal counsel contends the U.S. is obligated to settle these arrears, Washington has declared it sees no reason to comply.

This move isolates the U.S. from a key multilateral health effort, notably the new international pandemic treaty agreed upon by all other WHO member states in April. The treaty aims to ensure equitable distribution of vaccines and drugs and improve preparedness for future global health crises.

Going forward, U.S. officials stated that engagement with the WHO will be strictly limited to managing the withdrawal process and safeguarding American health. The administration plans to pursue bilateral agreements for disease surveillance and pathogen sharing, though it could not specify any established partnerships. Critical global health initiatives, such as the fight against polio and the development of the annual flu vaccine, will now rely on partnerships with NGOs and faith-based groups, details of which remain undefined.