Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren’t doing enough to limit dangerous global warming. Summary Countries have debated how to combat climate change since the early 1990s. These negotiations have produced several important accords, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Governments generally agree on the science behind climate change but have diverged on who is most responsible, how to track emissions-reduction goals, and whether to compensate harder-hit countries. The findings of the first global stocktake, discussed at the 2023 UN Climate Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), concluded that governments need to do more to prevent the global average temperature from rising by 1.5°C. Introduction Over the last several decades, governments have collectively pledged to slow global warming. But despite intensified diplomacy, the world is already facing the consequences of climate change, and they are expected to get worse. Through the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps rising, heating the Earth at an alarming rate. Scientists warn that if this warming continues unabated, it could bring environmental catastrophe to much of the world, including staggering sea-level rise, devastating wildfires, record-breaking droughts and floods, and widespread species loss. Since negotiating the Paris accord in 2015, many of the 195 countries that are party to the agreement have strengthened their climate commitments—to include pledges on curbing emissions and supporting countries in adapting to the effects of extreme weather—during the annual UN climate conferences known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). While experts note that clear progress has been made towards the clean energy transition, cutting current emissions has proven challenging for the world’s top emitters. The United States, for instance, could be poised to ramp up fossil fuel production linked to global warming under the Donald Trump administration, which has previously minimized the effects of climate change and has withdrawn twice from the Paris Agreement. What are the most important international agreements on climate change? Montreal Protocol, 1987. Though not intended to tackle climate change, the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was a historic environmental accord that became a model for future diplomacy on the issue. Every country in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The protocol has succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, parties agreed via the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, the landmark accord [PDF] was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, and established a system to monitor countries’ progress. But the treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.  Paris Agreement, 2015. The most significant global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. Governments set targets, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to reach global net-zero emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere, in the second half of the century. (This is also known as being climate neutral or carbon neutral.) The United States, the world’s second-largest emitter, is the only country to withdraw from the agreement, a move President Donald Trump made during his first administration in 2017. While former President Joe Biden reentered the agreement during his first day in office, Trump again withdrew the United States on the first day of his second administration in 2025. Three other countries have not formally approved the agreement: Iran, Libya, and Yemen. Is there a consensus on the science of climate change? Yes, there is a broad consensus among the scientific community, though some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, there is “less skepticism about the science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” says David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that:• the Earth’s average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate; • human activities, namely the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are the primary drivers of this rapid warming and climate change; and,• continued warming is expected to have harmful effects worldwide. Data taken from ice cores shows that the Earth’s average temperature is rising more now than it has in eight hundred thousand years. Scientists say this is largely a result of human activities over the last 150 years, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities have dramatically increased the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body established in 1988, regularly assesses the latest climate science and produces consensus-based reports for countries. Why are countries aiming to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C? Scientists have warned for years of catastrophic environmental consequences if global temperature continues to rise at the current pace. The Earth’s average temperature has already increased approximately 1.1°C above preindustrial levels, according to a 2023 assessment by the IPCC. The report, drafted by more than two hundred scientists from over sixty countries, predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately. (Several estimates report that global warming already surpassed that threshold in 2024.) An earlier, more comprehensive IPCC report summarized the severe effects expected to occur when the global temperature warms by 1.5°C: Heat waves. Many regions will suffer more hot days, with about 14 percent of people worldwide being exposed to periods of severe heat at least once every five years. Droughts and floods. Regions will be more susceptible to droughts and floods, making farming more difficult, lowering crop yields, and causing food shortages.  Rising seas. Tens of millions of people live in coastal regions that will be submerged in the coming decades. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable. Ocean changes. Up to 90 percent of coral reefs will be wiped out, and oceans will become more acidic. The world’s fisheries will become far less productive. Arctic ice thaws. At least once a century, the Arctic will experience a summer with no sea ice, which has not happened in at least two thousand years. Forty percent of the Arctic’s permafrost will thaw by the end of the century.  Species loss. More insects, plants, and vertebrates will be at risk of extinction.  The consequences will be far worse if the 2°C threshold is reached, scientists say. “We’re headed toward disaster if we can’t get our warming in check and we need to do this very quickly,” says Alice C. Hill, CFR senior fellow for energy and the environment. Which countries are responsible for climate change? The answer depends on who you ask and how you measure emissions. Ever since the first climate talks in the 1990s, officials have debated which countries—developed or developing—are more to blame for climate change and should therefore curb their emissions. Developing countries argue that developed countries have emitted more greenhouse gases over time. They say these developed countries should now carry more of the burden because they were able to grow their economies without restraint. Indeed, the United States has emitted the most of all time, followed by the European Union (EU).   However, China and India are now among the world’s top annual emitters, along with the United States. Developed countries have argued that those countries must do more now to address climate change.   In the context of this debate, major climate agreements have evolved in how they pursue emissions reductions. The Kyoto Protocol required only developed countries to reduce emissions, while the Paris Agreement recognized that climate change is a shared problem and called on all countries to set emissions targets. What progress have countries made since the Paris Agreement? Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress toward implementing the agreement through a process known as the global stocktake. The first of these reports, released in September 2023, warned governments that “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.” That said, countries have made some breakthroughs during the annual UN climate summits, such as the landmark commitment to establish the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The fund aims to address the inequality of climate change by providing financial assistance to poorer countries, which are often least responsible for global emissions yet most vulnerable to climate disasters. At COP28, countries decided that the fund will be initially housed at the World Bank, with several wealthy countries, such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and EU members, initially pledging around $430 million combined. At COP29, developed countries committed to triple their finance commitments to developing countries, totalling $300 billion annually by 2035. Recently, there have been global efforts to cut methane emissions, which account for more than half of human-made warming today because of their higher potency and heat trapping ability within the first few decades of release. The United States and EU introduced a Global Methane Pledge at COP26, which aims to slash 30 percent of methane emissions levels between 2020 and 2030. At COP28, oil companies announced they would cut their methane emissions from wells and drilling by more than 80 percent by the end of the decade. However, pledges to phase out fossil fuels were not renewed the following year at COP29. Are the commitments made under the Paris Agreement enough? Most experts say that countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The policies of Paris signatories as of late 2022 could result in a 2.7°C (4.9°F) rise by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker compiled by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute. “The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognized as not being enough,” says CFR’s Hill. “It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions.” Since 2015, dozens of countries—including the top emitters—have submitted stronger pledges. For example, President Biden announced in 2021 that the United States will aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, doubling former President Barack Obama’s commitment. The following year, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that could get the country close to reaching that goal. Meanwhile, the EU pledged to reduce emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and China said it aims to reach peak emissions before 2030. But the world’s average temperature will still rise more than 2°C (3.6°F) by 2100 even if countries fully implement their pledges for 2030 and beyond. If the more than one hundred countries that have set or are considering net-zero targets follow through, warming could be limited to 1.8˚C (3.2°F), according to the Climate Action Tracker.   What are the alternatives to the Paris Agreement? Some experts foresee the most meaningful climate action happening in other forums. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding and are destined to fail. The best way to cut global emissions, he says, would be to have governments negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus on country emissions limits. Others propose new agreements [PDF] that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Agreement.  In recent years, climate diplomacy has occurred increasingly through minilateral groupings. The Group of Twenty (G20), representing countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution, has pledged to stop financing new coal-fired power plants abroad and agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of this decade. However, G20 governments have thus far failed to set a deadline to phase out fossil fuels. In 2022, countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions for commercial aviation by 2050. Meanwhile, cities around the world have made their own pledges. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments [PDF] have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets. Industry is also a large source of carbon pollution, and many firms have said they will try to reduce their emissions or become carbon neutral or carbon negative, meaning they would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The Science Based Targets initiative, a UK-based company considered the “gold standard” in validating corporate net-zero plans, says it has certified the plans of  over three thousand firms, and aims to more than triple this total by 2025. Still, analysts say that many challenges remain, including questions over the accounting methods and a lack of transparency in supply chains. Recommended Resources This timeline tracks UN climate talks since 1992. CFR Education’s latest resources explain everything to know about climate change.  The Climate Action Tracker assesses countries’ updated NDCs under the Paris Agreement. CFR Senior Fellow Varun Sivaram discusses how the 2025 U.S. wildfires demonstrate the need to rethink climate diplomacy and adopt a pragmatic response to falling short of global climate goals. In this series on climate change and instability by the Center for Preventive Action, CFR Senior Fellow Michelle Gavin looks at the consequences for the Horn of Africa and the National Defense University’s Paul J. Angelo for Central America. This backgrounder by Clara Fong unpacks the global push for climate financing.

The Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the China-CELAC Forum does not mark the end of a stage, but the beginning of a new phase in the Sino-Latin American relationship. Since its inception in 2014, the China–CELAC Forum (FCC) has gone through three key stages that outline its evolution. The first ministerial meeting, held in Beijing in 2015, laid the normative foundation for the mechanism, establishing its intergovernmental and voluntary nature. The second, held in Santiago, Chile, in 2018, consolidated priority areas of cooperation and linked the Forum to the Belt and Road Initiative. The third, held virtually in 2021, updated the agenda in a pandemic context, incorporating new topics such as health, digitalization, and sustainability. After a period of relative inertia, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting—held on May 13, 2025, in Beijing—represented a turning point both in ambition and strategic scope. It is essential to remember that the Ministerial Meeting constitutes the highest level of deliberation within the mechanism, bringing together the foreign ministers of China and Latin American countries. In this edition, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi presided over the sessions, emphasizing that, as developing countries and members of the Global South, China and Latin America must coordinate efforts to defend their legitimate rights and interests. As a result of the meeting, two key documents were adopted: the Beijing Declaration and the Joint Action Plan 2025–2027, approved by all 33 participating countries—with the exception of Argentina, which chose not to endorse the documents. Although the FCC is primarily ministerial in design, it occasionally takes on a broader political dimension, with the participation of heads of state and government. Such was the case this time, as the intervention of President Xi Jinping—host and central figure of the meeting—gave the forum a strategic tone and outlined its future roadmap. In the face of global challenges such as unilateralism, trade wars, and the climate crisis, Xi proposed a cooperation architecture based on five strategic programs combining political, economic, social, cultural, and security objectives. First, the Solidarity Program reflects the political dimension. In this regard, Xi Jinping stated that “China is ready to continue supporting each other with LAC [Latin America and the Caribbean] on matters concerning our respective core interests and major concerns.” This stance contrasts with more restrictive approaches promoted by the United States, such as during the IX Summit of the Americas (2022), where Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua were excluded. Moreover, the Beijing gathering fits into an active diplomatic sequence that includes the G20 summit in Rio (November 2024), APEC in Lima (November 2024), and the upcoming BRICS summit in July 2025, also in Rio. Far from being symbolic gestures, the frequency of these encounters reveals a convergent strategy of global engagement on China’s part, based on sustained regional alliances. Second, the Development Program encompasses the economic dimension. This pillar aims to promote cooperation in growth, investment, and productive transformation, expanding into strategic sectors such as artificial intelligence, the digital economy, and clean energy. Xi announced a credit line of 66 billion yuan to support regional development, which constitutes not only a financial contribution but also a clear sign of confidence in Latin America amid trade fragmentation and the reconfiguration of global value chains. Third, the Civilizations Program expresses the cultural dimension in the cooperation agreements. Beijing promotes intercivilizational dialogue grounded in equality, mutual learning, and inclusion. This translates into initiatives such as Latin American Art Seasons in China, joint heritage conservation projects, and comparative studies on ancient civilizations. In a region historically influenced by American cultural ideology, this strategy seeks to diversify symbolic references, strengthen Chinese soft power, and project a more respectful and relatable image in Latin America. Fourth, the Peace Program underscores the increasingly relevant security dimension. This pillar marks a qualitative evolution in China’s outreach to the region, as it addresses non-traditional security issues from a cooperative standpoint. Based on support for the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace (CELAC, 2014), China proposes to strengthen collaboration in areas such as cybersecurity, counterterrorism, corruption, drug trafficking, and organized crime. This approach reinforces the principles of non-interference and peaceful resolution, aligning with the concrete needs of Latin American states. Fifth, the People-to-People Program expresses the social dimension. This component consolidates the social connection between China and Latin America through scholarships, technical training, Chinese-language teacher education, and community projects. The inclusion of tourism as a focal point—alongside the upcoming implementation of a visa waiver policy for five Latin American countries—highlights the intention to promote direct exchange between populations. The five programs outlined by Xi Jinping—solidarity (political), development (economic), civilizations (cultural), peace (security), and people (social)—constitute a comprehensive framework that positions China as a multidimensional partner for Latin America. This strategic vision is grounded in an already robust economic relationship: in 2024, bilateral trade surpassed $500 billion, reaching the goal set a decade ago. In this context, the third edition of the White Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean is expected to be published soon, a document that will complement the commitments made in the final declaration and the Action Plan adopted in Beijing. Thus, the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the China–CELAC Forum does not mark the end of a phase, but the beginning of a new chapter in Sino–Latin American relations. The scope and quality of this phase will depend on the ability of Latin American actors to engage strategically and proactively with China’s proposal. The opportunity is there. *This article was originally published on the REDCAEM website.

China relies heavily on Malaysia as a bridge for cooperation, dialogue, and coordination with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and China in confronting the economic and political challenges imposed by the United States on China and many countries around the world after President “Trump” increased US tariffs on China. To this end, China seeks to coordinate with Malaysia during its presidency of the (ASEAN Summit) this year 2025, and its concurrent presidency of the (ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summit), a situation China is keen to capitalize on through its distinguished partnership with Malaysia. In addition, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Malaysia in mid-April 2025, during which they issued a joint statement on support for Gaza and the Palestinian cause in the face of Israeli violations.  Malaysia's meetings and its current hosting of the (ASEAN Summit and the ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summit) come after important trade talks between the United States and China in Switzerland in May 2025, the same month as the ASEAN and ASEAN-GCC Cooperation Summits with China. The ASEAN-GCC Summit may be a real opportunity to lay the foundation for deeper negotiations between the world's two largest economies after a period of escalation in the trade war between the two sides.  Given the importance of the ASEAN region to Southeast Asia, which represents China's vital backyard, it is at the heart of the strategy for managing major events between Washington and Beijing in the Indo-Pacific region. To this end, Washington and Beijing signed a strategic partnership agreement with ASEAN, given its critical importance to both countries.  Former US President Joe Biden signed a new Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement between the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), describing it as a decisive step toward addressing the biggest issues of our time. Meanwhile, Beijing emphasized strengthening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement it signed with ASEAN in 2021, with China keen to jointly build the world's largest free trade area.  The most prominent complex global issues on the agenda of ASEAN countries, China, Malaysia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their confrontation with Washington and Russia include (the war in Ukraine, climate change, regional tensions around the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, North Korea's missile launches, the recent Gaza war, and US tariffs), among others.To this end, China officially confirmed Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's visit to Malaysia in late May 2025 to attend a summit coordinated by China with a newly formed group of Southeast Asian and Arab countries, through which Beijing hopes to garner support in the face of Washington's tariffs. China also launched a campaign to mend relations with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, after US President Donald Trump imposed a series of tariffs on numerous countries on April 2, 2025, before abruptly suspending them for dozens of countries except China.  Chinese Premier “Li Keqiang” will also be in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to attend the (ASEAN-GCC-China Summit) on May 27, 2025, which will be held one day after the ASEAN Summit scheduled for May 26, 2025. China has not publicly confirmed the names and number of Chinese officials who will comprise the Chinese delegation it will send to Malaysia before the summits in Malaysia.  From my analytical perspective, this may stem from China's fear that the United States and its ASEAN allies will exert pressure on those Chinese figures who will participate in the (ASEAN-GCC Summit) in particular.  In my view, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Malaysia in mid-April 2025 is linked to the role Malaysia will play, along with its ally China, in confronting US protectionist policies. This follows President Xi Jinping's visit to three Southeast Asian countries (Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia) to win them over to China's side in its trade war with the United States. To this end, China is seeking to win Malaysia over, particularly at this time, as Beijing intensifies its current efforts to secure partnerships to protect its economy from the escalating trade war with the United States. While the three countries (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Malaysia) will benefit from Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit in mid-April 2025 to diversify their Chinese supply chains, it also places them in a challenging position with the US, and in the crosshairs of US President Trump as he seeks to restrict the reshipment of Chinese goods to its regional neighbors and then transport them through them to the world.  In anticipation of all stages of US escalation against China, Chinese President “Xi Jinping” convened and chaired the Central Working Conference on Diplomacy with Neighboring Countries in early May 2025. This conference highlighted China's increasing focus on strengthening regional relations, particularly with its neighbors, most notably Malaysia and its ASEAN partners.  On the other hand, there is competition between the United States, China, and Europe to enhance economic presence at the joint summit between the Malaysia-led ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The GCC countries are in fierce competition with the United States, Russia, China, and Europe to strengthen their economic presence in the vibrant ASEAN, which holds promising opportunities in multiple fields for the Gulf community. The ASEAN summit with the Gulf states and China represents an important milestone that reflects the growing interest of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in strengthening relations with the ASEAN countries and China, in the face of economic and geopolitical challenges that require deeper coordination and more flexible cooperation. This is especially true given the unbalanced nature of Trump's personality, from the perspective of the Gulf states, even his closest allies. Many GCC leaders fear a sudden Trump coup against his closest allies, which is one of the reasons for the Gulf's move towards rapprochement with the ASEAN and China, led by Malaysia. The geopolitical transformations and escalating international competition between China and the United States over the Asian region and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in East and Southeast Asia, on the part of Russia, Europe, the United States, and China, have highlighted the efforts of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to strengthen their economic and political presence in this vital region through strategic partnerships that transcend traditional considerations and are based on mutual interests and commonalities. ASEAN countries represent emerging economies that hold promising opportunities in multiple fields for China and the Gulf countries, such as energy and infrastructure. This is why all GCC countries are currently investing in it. Furthermore, there are important commonalities, including that these countries, like the Gulf states, are also seeking to distance themselves from geopolitical polarization in their regional environment, especially after the recent Gaza war. The GCC countries are currently unwilling to enter into economic alliances against other parties. This provides common ground for fruitful cooperation between all, led and coordinated by Malaysia as a bridge for communication, dialogue, and coordination between the GCC countries, primarily with China.  There is also a mutual desire to strengthen Sino-Gulf relations with ASEAN countries through Malaysia at various levels, including cultural cooperation, based on a shared history spanning hundreds of years, particularly through the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, which represents numerous cultural and civilizational aspects, in addition to its economic, commercial, and investment importance for all.  The secret to ASEAN's success and the encouragement of GCC countries to cooperate and coordinate with it and with China through Malaysia is its focus on economic objectives, transcending ideology and non-interference in the internal politics and affairs of other countries, while giving priority to development and investment. The new and vital area of coordination between ASEAN, China, Malaysia, and the GCC countries is the Maritime Cooperation Mechanism, recognizing the importance of oceans and seas as a key factor in driving growth.  Therefore, there is a working agenda for a framework for maritime cooperation among all concerned countries, to ensure the security of maritime and logistical straits, achieve the principles of maritime safety and security, and ensure freedom of navigation and air traffic without obstacles that limit the movement of legitimate maritime trade. It also promotes peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of universally recognized international law.   The Gulf's move toward cooperation with ASEAN countries and China, through Malaysia's coordination of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit with ASEAN and China, has several fundamental reasons. These include the United States' imposition of tariffs on several countries, including the GCC itself, at varying rates. This will impact their exports to the US market. This move will inevitably push them to seek alternative markets, enhancing opportunities for cooperation between ASEAN and China, led by Malaysia, with the Gulf countries. This comes amid Chinese efforts to leverage these changes to strengthen its negotiating position vis-à-vis the Americans. Perhaps the positive thing is that Washington announced the suspension of these tariffs on China for 90 days, but I most likely expect it to impose other tariffs on China and the Gulf countries and set other conditions. This will make economic relations between the GCC countries, ASEAN, and China vis-à-vis Washington more tense in the short and long term, as their exports to the US will inevitably be affected in the near future. Therefore, we note that these common challenges facing the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), ASEAN, China, and Malaysia together in the face of these American pressures, even after Trump's visit to the three Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE) in the same month as the (ASEAN-China-GCC summit) in Malaysia in May 2025, open the door to new economic dialogues between all parties and help form regional blocs between ASEAN, China, Malaysia, and the GCC countries. There is clear enthusiasm from all parties to make this happen on the ground. Suffice it to mention the keenness of the concerned parties to hold real summits at the level of heads of state, in addition to ongoing ministerial and technical meetings. This reflects the existence of a genuine political will that seeks to translate all these aspirations into practical partnerships on the ground.  In this context, China, ASEAN, and Malaysia welcomed Saudi Arabia's bid to host Expo 2030 in Riyadh, highlighting the importance of organizing regional and international exhibitions to revitalize economic and cultural exchanges between the Gulf and ASEAN regions, including Southeast Asian countries, China, and Malaysia. They also emphasized the importance of conducting consultations to explore cooperation on implementing the “ASEAN Integration Initiative Action Plan” (2021-2025) and integration programs in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries with China and Malaysia. This is what the ASEAN-GCC Joint Summit with China and Malaysia seeks to explore and achieve.  The ASEAN-GCC-China Joint Summit, led by Malaysia, is expected to discuss the Joint Action Plan until 2028 and enhance cooperation between the two organizations, particularly political, economic, security, and cultural aspects, as well as investment, tourism, agriculture, halal products, education, and training.  Coordination between these parties, through Malaysia's presidency of the current ASEAN-GCC summit with China, is focused on key economic partnership priorities, namely enhancing regional market integration and integrating them through cooperative partnerships among all, while strengthening the multilateral trading system. This summit also aims to strengthen existing relations between the Gulf states, ASEAN, and China, given the current circumstances, regional conditions, and rapid international changes. The summit will also enhance the dynamics of relations between ASEAN, the GCC, China, and Malaysia, by discussing the path forward and strengthening cooperation across a number of existing areas of cooperation, including combating international crimes and terrorism. It is also an opportunity to identify new areas of cooperation in security, politics, economics, and cultural pillars. The most important aspect, from my perspective, is that the currently emerging multipolar international order requires middle powers such as the Gulf states, ASEAN, China, and Malaysia to stick together and reach a joint dialogue to support multilateral relations, particularly political aspects, and to coordinate their common positions, especially after the recent Gaza war and the American pressures that have become openly exerted on everyone. In general, the relationship between the Gulf and ASEAN sides, along with China and Malaysia, is considered primarily economically important for all, but it has also evolved due to circumstances in the political dimension. ASEAN countries enjoy a reputation for great neutrality and flexibility regarding international positions, with a greater focus on the economic dimension, while Gulf leaders are placing greater importance on developmental aspects alongside the economy.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском US President Donald Trump’s visit to Arab states in the Middle East this week generated plenty of multibillion-dollar deals. He said more than US$1 trillion (A$1.5 trillion) worth of deals had been signed with Saudi Arabia alone, though the real total is likely much lower than that. Qatar also placed an order for 210 Boeing aircraft, a deal worth a reported US$96 billion (A$149 billion). Trump will no doubt present these transactions as a major success for US industry. The trip also helped counter concerns about US disengagement from the Middle East. For more than a decade, local elites have viewed Washington’s attention as shifting away from the region. This trip was a reaffirmation of the importance of the Middle East – in particular the Gulf region – to US foreign policy. This is an important signal to send to Middle Eastern leaders who are dealing with competing interests from China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. And from a political standpoint, Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Syria and meeting with the former rebel, now president, Ahmed al-Sharaa was very significant – both symbolically and practically. Until recently, al-Sharaa was listed by the United States as a terrorist with a US$10 million (A$15 million) bounty on his head. However, when his forces removed dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in December, he was cautiously welcomed by many in the international community. The US had invested considerable resources in removing Assad from power, so his fall was cause for celebration, even if it came at the hands of forces the US had deemed terrorists. This rapid turn-around is dizzying. In practice, the removal of sanctions on Syria opens the doors to foreign investment in the reconstruction of the country following a long civil war. It also offers an opportunity for Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as Turkey, to expand their influence in Syria at the expense of Iran. For a leader who styles himself a deal-maker, these can all be considered successful outcomes from a three-day trip. However, Trump avoided wading into the far more delicate diplomatic and political negotiations needed to end Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and find common ground with Iran on its nuclear program. No solution in sight for the Palestinians Trump skirted the ongoing tragedy in Gaza and offered no plans for a diplomatic solution to the war, which drags on with no end in sight. The president did note his desire to see a normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel, without acknowledging the key stumbling block. While Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have no love for Hamas, the Gaza war and the misery inflicted on the Palestinians have made it impossible for them to overlook the issue. They cannot simply leapfrog Gaza to normalise relations with Israel. In his first term, Trump hoped the Palestinian issue could be pushed aside to achieve normalisation of relations between Arab states and Israel. This was partially achieved with the Abraham Accords, which saw the UAE and three other Muslim-majority nations normalise relations with Israel. Trump no doubt believed the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreed to just before his inauguration would stick – he promised as much during the US election campaign. But after Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire in March, vowing to press on with its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, he’s learned the hard way the Palestinian question cannot easily be solved or brushed under the carpet. The Palestinian aspiration for statehood needs to be addressed as an indispensable step towards a lasting peace and regional stability. It was telling that Trump did not stop in Israel this week. One former Israeli diplomat says it’s a sign Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his leverage with Trump. There’s nothing that Netanyahu has that Trump wants, needs or [that he] can give him, as opposed to, say, the Saudis, the Qataris, [or] the Emiratis. More harsh rhetoric for Iran Trump also had no new details or initiatives to announce on the Iran nuclear talks, beyond his desire to “make a deal” and his repeat of past threats. At least four rounds of talks have been held between Iran and the United States since early April. While both sides are positive about the prospects, the US administration seems divided on the intended outcome. The US Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for the complete dismantling of Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium as a sure safeguard against the potential weaponisation of the nuclear program. Trump himself, however, has been less categorical. Though he has called for the “total dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, he has also said he’s undecided if Iran should be allowed to continue a civilian enrichment program. Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium, albeit under international monitoring, is a red line for the authorities in Tehran – they won’t give this up. The gap between Iran and the US appears to have widened this week following Trump’s attack on Iran as the “most destructive force” in the Middle East. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi called Trump’s remarks “pure deception”, and pointed to US support for Israel as the source of instability in the region. None of this has advanced the prospects of a nuclear deal. And though his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE was marked by pomp and ceremony, he’ll leave no closer to solving two protracted challenges than when he arrived.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Abstract: Migration policies in Latin America and the Caribbean have adopted a more restrictive and punitive approach, influenced by external pressures, especially from the United States. Deportations, detentions and dissuasive measures have intensified, in a context of increasing criminalisation of migrants. Cases such as El Salvador and the Dominican Republic reflect the use of severe control strategies, which have been criticised for possible human rights violations. These practices, although justified on security grounds, generate regional tensions and deepen the vulnerability of displaced populations. Keywords:Latin America, migration, Donald Trump, Ibero-America, deportations, forced returns. Introduction Deportations in Latin America and the Caribbean have undergone significant changes in recent years, reflecting both migration dynamics and international policies. The region has witnessed an increase in migratory movements, driven by economic crises, political conflicts and natural disasters. Latin American population movement configurations have been immersed in a dynamic whose magnitude and urgency have intensified since the beginning of 2025: that of forced returns and mass deportations, driven by changes in the migration policies of receiving countries such as the United States and Mexico. The re-election of Donald Trump has marked a tightening of immigration control measures, with an increase in raids and expulsions of undocumented migrants. But this is not a new phenomenon: mass deportations and forced returns in Latin America have deep roots in the region's history, with moments of particular intensity in different periods. It is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it exclusive to contemporary dynamics. Throughout its history, the region has been the scene of multiple processes of expulsion, forced return and internal displacement, intimately linked to contexts of political violence, economic change, structural racism and state strategies of population control. Already during the 19th century, the consolidation of nation states brought with it policies of exclusion that sought to shape national identity to the detriment of certain groups. In Mexico, after the 1910 Revolution, the Chinese community was persecuted and expelled in an episode that combined racism, economic crisis and exacerbated nationalism.1 In Argentina, during the 1880s, the military campaigns known as the "Conquest of the Desert" provoked massive forced displacements of indigenous peoples to marginal areas, marking a pattern of invisibilisation and internal expulsion.2 In the Caribbean, the dynamics of deportation were also marked by racial and economic conflicts. The Dominican Republic, under the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo in the 1930s, carried out the so-called “Parsley Massacre” (1937), where thousands of Haitians were killed or forcibly expelled in order to 'whiten' the border and reaffirm Dominican national identity³. And in Cuba, after the triumph of the 1959 Revolution, the flow of political exiles to the United States intensified, generating waves of departures that, in some cases, were accompanied by pressure and coercion from the Castro regime. Central America in the second half of the 20th century was marked by civil wars and authoritarian regimes. El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua experienced profound humanitarian crises that provoked a massive flight of their citizens. Many of these refugees were received in Mexico, Costa Rica or the United States, but after the Peace Accords of the 1990s, forced return policies emerged that did not always provide adequate conditions for reintegration. The case of Guatemala is emblematic: the return of refugees from Mexico, coordinated in part by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), was fraught with difficulties, as many of the returnees were returning to territories still without security guarantees.3 The United States played a key role in contemporary deportation processes. The passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996 was a paradigm shift, facilitating the deportation of immigrants convicted of minor crimes, which particularly affected Latin American communities.4 Honduras and El Salvador were particularly hard hit by these policies. Many of the young deportees had lived most of their lives on US soil and, upon their return to contexts of poverty and violence, found in gangs, such as MS-13 and Barrio 18, a means of survival and even a sense of belonging.5 Similarly, in South America, the military dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s also resorted to exile and deportation as mechanisms of political control. In Chile, following the 1973 coup d'état, tens of thousands of people were forced into exile, and opponents captured abroad were often smuggled into the country under the coordination of Operation Condor. Argentina replicated these patterns, using illegal deportations and forced disappearances as systematic tools of political repression. More recently, in the insular Caribbean, contemporary dynamics also reveal patterns of selective deportation. In the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, deportations of Haitian and Venezuelan migrants in an irregular situation have intensified in recent years, often in conditions of human rights violations, reproducing old logics of racial and socio-economic exclusion. These examples show that deportations in Latin America and the Caribbean are not isolated or temporary events: they are part of structural patterns that have accompanied state-building processes, the dynamics of internal violence and international population control strategies. Today, in a scenario of growing migratory pressure and increasingly restrictive policies in the main receiving countries, the region is once again facing old challenges in new forms. The echoes of history resound in the new faces of forced exodus, marking a present in which mass expulsions once again occupy a central place on the regional agenda. The United States and the tightening of immigration policy The arrival of Donald Trump for a second presidential term in January 2025 marked an even more severe shift in US immigration policy. While his first administration (2017-2021) had already been marked by restrictive measures, his return to power brought with it not only the restoration of old border control programmes, but also their radicalisation, in a context of growing domestic pressure and political polarisation. Trump has not only taken up policies such as the "Remain in Mexico" policy or the limitation of access to asylum: he has also expanded the margins of action of immigration agencies, hardening the official rhetoric against migrants -especially Latin Americans- and rescuing old legal instruments to justify new practices of accelerated deportation. This new phase is characterised by a combination of administrative, legal and operational measures that seek to deter irregular migration through the restriction of rights, the intensive use of detention and deportation, and the strengthening of pressure mechanisms on countries of origin and transit.   One of the first symbolic and practical steps of this new policy was the reinstatement of the programme officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), more popularly known as “Remain in Mexico”. It had originally been implemented in 2019, during his first term, and partially suspended during Joe Biden's administration from 20216. However, after his re-election, Trump not only reactivated it, but also tightened it, broadening its scope and further reducing the possibilities for asylum seekers to await processing on US soil. On 20 January 2025, the US president signed the executive order to reinstate this programme, which obliges asylum seekers to wait in Mexican territory while their cases are resolved in US courts.7 This has led to diplomatic tensions between the two countries. The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has expressed her rejection of this policy, describing it as a unilateral decision that affects national sovereignty and the human rights of migrants. The Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, reiterated that Mexico is not obliged to accept this measure and that mechanisms will be sought to protect the migrants affected.8 While in its initial version the programme had already forced tens of thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexican border cities - leading to the formation of makeshift camps in places such as Matamoros and Tijuana - the reinstatement in 2025 accentuated this phenomenon. More categories of applicants, including minors and persons in vulnerable situations, are now susceptible to refoulement, increasing the pressure on border areas characterised by insecurity, poverty and criminal violence.9 Thus, the camps, which already existed precariously since the first implementation of the programme, have expanded and degraded throughout 2025, creating even more severe humanitarian emergencies. International organisations and human rights organisations have warned that the reactivation and tightening of the MPP violates essential principles of international law, such as non-refoulement, and exposes applicants to serious risks of violence, kidnapping and human trafficking.10 The Mexican government, for its part, has implemented some measures to support migrants, such as the "ConsulApp" application and the "Mexico te abraza" plan (Mexico hugs you), but challenges remain in ensuring their safety and well-being.11 Ultimately, this would tie in with the implementation of 'safe third country' agreements, as some analysts have interpreted it. And although Mexico has not signed any protocols, in practice, these current policies de facto position it in this role. This is because during Donald Trump's first term in office, the US signed agreements with several Central American countries to designate them as “safe third countries”.12 These include Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. These agreements required asylum seekers passing through these countries to seek protection there before arriving in the US. It was a controversial move that generated criticism of conditions in these countries and their capacity to handle the flow of migrants. Although formally presented as instruments to share the burden of international protection, in practice these protocols served to divert and contain asylum seekers in nations that did not have the material and legal conditions to guarantee their safety and basic rights. Particularly in the case of Guatemala, which was the only one to actually implement them in 2019, reports documented how migrants transferred from the US faced a total absence of effective asylum procedures, lack of humanitarian protection, and direct exposure to extreme violence and poverty.13 During the Biden administration (2021-2024), these agreements were formally suspended, however, it appears that the door is now being reopened. The new administration has signalled its intention to renegotiate and expand these instruments. In this way, they are once again at the centre of a more aggressive migration containment strategy, de facto limiting access to asylum in the US and increasing the vulnerability of thousands of migrants expelled to unsafe territories. El Salvador, for its part, has emerged in 2025 as the first Latin American country to formalise an agreement that, without officially naming itself as a "safe third country", operates de facto as such. The agreement, announced by President Nayib Bukele himself as "unprecedented", establishes that El Salvador will accept migrants deported from the United States - including those considered highly dangerous - coming not only from the Central American Northern Triangle, but also from other regions of the continent and the Caribbean.14 Unlike the Asylum Cooperation Agreements (ACAs) signed in 2019 and suspended in 2021, this new pact is not limited to the processing of asylum applications but directly assumes the reception and custody of deported persons, with no guarantee that they will be able to restart a regular migration process. Various sources agree that this is an advanced form of border externalisation: the northern giant transfers not only the management of flows, but also the custody of people considered undesirable or dangerous.15 Although the agreement has not been accompanied by specific legal reforms in the US, it has been consolidated through bilateral negotiations that contemplate financial compensation for El Salvador. Human rights organisations have warned that this strategy could be replicated with other governments receptive to these cooperation formulas in exchange for financial incentives. In this context, negotiation attempts have already begun with Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Colombia,16 countries that are being considered to host regional asylum processing centres. Although these mechanisms have not been formalised as "safe third country agreements" in the strict sense, several organisations have warned that they operate under a similar logic: the transfer of migratory responsibilities to nations with limited institutional capacity and contexts of violence or political crisis.17 The "pact" with El Salvador also contemplates the use of national penitentiary centres to detain a large part of these deportees, without a detailed analysis of their legal situation. Although mention has been made of the sending of some profiles considered to be at risk to the Terrorism Confinement Centre (Spanish: Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, abbreviated CECOT), the implications of this prison model deserve specific treatment, which will be addressed in the following section. Along with the reinstatement of this programme, the new US administration has pushed through a series of measures that further restrict access to the right to asylum for those seeking to enter the US from Latin America and the Caribbean. One of the main changes has been the reintroduction of stricter standards for the initial submission of asylum applications. Migrants must now demonstrate from the outset a "credible fear" of persecution with strong documentary evidence,18 a much higher standard of proof than in previous years. This policy has drastically reduced the percentage of applicants who make it through the first asylum interview. Similarly, as part of the tightening of these immigration policies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has experienced a significant expansion of its powers. This expansion has translated into both an increase in its budget and greater operational discretion to carry out detentions and deportations. During 2025, the budget allocated to ICE increased by 15% over the previous year, reaching record amounts to fund detention centres, internal patrol operations and tracking technology for undocumented immigrants.19 This budget boost has allowed for increased detention operations in places considered "sensitive", such as hospitals, schools and churches, which were previously relatively protected under more restrictive guidelines. But ICE's expansion has not been limited to issues of operational volume, but also of legal scope. The use of internal administrative warrants (without judicial intervention) for the detention of immigrants suspected of minor immigration infractions has been reactivated.20 This measure has been widely criticised by human rights organisations, which point to the weakening of procedural safeguards for detainees and the risk of arbitrary detention. ICE has also strengthened its cooperation with state and local police forces through programmes such as 287(g), which allow police officers to act as immigration agents.21  This collaboration has been particularly controversial in states such as Texas and Florida, where racial profiling and civil rights violations have been reported. The tightening of detention practices has had a direct impact on Latin America and the Caribbean, with a significant proportion of those deported in 2025 coming from countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and, to an increasing extent, Venezuela and Haiti. Thus, the expansion of ICE's power has not only transformed the internal migration landscape in the US but has also intensified the dynamics of forced return throughout the region. However, the shift towards a more punitive approach is not limited to contemporary operational frameworks: the current government has also begun to recover legal tools from the past, such as the Alien Enemies Act, to legitimise new forms of exclusion, detention and deportation. This is a 1798 law that allows the executive to detain and deport citizens of countries considered enemies in times of war. Although historically this law has been applied in wartime contexts, such as during the Second World War, its invocation in a period of peace has generated intense legal and political controversy.22 On 14 March 2025, Trump signed a presidential proclamation designating the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang as a national security threat, calling their presence in the US an "irregular invasion". Under this justification, it authorised the immediate detention and deportation of Venezuelan citizens suspected of links to the organisation, without the need for warrants or conventional legal processes. The president later denied having signed it, attributing the responsibility to his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.23 The implementation of this measure resulted in the accelerated deportation of hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador, many of whom had no criminal record and some of whom had legal immigration status in the US, including Temporary Protected Status (TPS).24 Civil rights organisations, such as the ACLU, filed lawsuits alleging that the application of the law violated due process and constitutional protections. 25In response, several federal judges issued orders temporarily halting deportations and requiring judicial hearings before any deportations. But despite the judicial restrictions, the administration continued with the deportations, arguing that the orders did not apply to flights already underway or over international waters. This stance was criticised for defying judicial authority and for using a wartime law for contemporary immigration policy purposes.26 The reactivation of the Alien Enemies Act in 2025 has sparked a national debate on the limits of executive power and the protection of immigrant rights, highlighting the tension between national security and civil liberties in US immigration policy. Not only that: all these measures have generated a wave of mass deportations that have not only overwhelmed the capacity of reception systems in Latin American countries, but have also had a direct impact on the structure of separated families and local communities, often lacking the resources to provide adequate reintegration processes. In Mexican border cities such as Ciudad Juárez, Matamoros and Tijuana, makeshift camps have multiplied, where thousands of people who have been deported or are awaiting a migration resolution live in extremely precarious conditions, as mentioned above. In Central America and the Caribbean, the forced return of migrants - some of them with weak links to their countries of origin or with criminal records - has reactivated dynamics of exclusion, stigmatisation and, in some cases, violence. Taken together, these actions reflect a regional trend towards the externalisation and criminalisation of migration, where migration responsibilities are shifted to countries in the global south and managed through punitive rather than humanitarian strategies. The consequences of these measures are not only individual but also reshape the social and political fabric of the entire region. Detention centres and new deportation dynamics Recent transformations in US immigration policy have not only translated into regulatory and diplomatic tightening: they have also reconfigured places of confinement and removal processes. Mass deportationsalready being pushed since 202327 , have now coincided with a renewed detention architecture, in which confinement and surveillance are not limited to US territory but projected beyond its borders. This phenomenon has given rise to new dynamics of migration management, in which detention centres play a central role. In addition to ICE detention centres on US soil, there is now a network of prison and surveillance facilities located in countries receiving deportees, frequently promoted or supported by Washington under the bilateral security cooperation agreements we have been discussing. The most visible case is that of the CECOT (Terrorism Confinement Center) in El Salvador which, although initially conceived as a tool against local gangs, has begun to receive Salvadoran citizens deported from the US with criminal records.28 The use of this type of facility marks a worrying twist: the systematic criminalisation of deportees and their immediate insertion into highly restrictive prison circuits. The policy of automatic association between migration and criminality has led many deportees to be considered not as citizens to be reintegrated, but as threats to be neutralised. This logic is reinforced by the Salvadoran government's narrative, which has actively promoted CECOT's image of success before the international community, using figures on homicide reduction and territorial control as arguments of legitimacy, albeit with a strong questioning of judicial opacity and arbitrary detentions.29 This transnational prison model has profound human rights, social reintegration and regional security implications. Far from offering sustainable solutions, it reinforces the stigmatisation of returned migrants and multiplies barriers to their inclusion in communities of origin. In turn, it turns countries such as El Salvador into functional extensions of the US immigration and penal system, fuelling political and social tensions.30 When in March 2025, the US deported 238 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT on charges of belonging to the Tren de Aragua criminal group, the move was widely criticised by human rights organisations and international governments as a violation of due process and the fundamental rights of migrants. The Salvadoran government, for its part, defended the action, claiming that the deportees were "proven criminals" and that their incarceration in this centre was part of a strategy to combat transnational organised crime.31 However, relatives of the detainees and humanitarian organisations have denounced that many were identified as members of the Tren de Aragua based solely on tattoos or physical characteristics, without concrete evidence. The situation has generated diplomatic tensions, especially with Venezuela, whose government has requested the intervention of international bodies to protect its citizens and has described the deportations as a "crime against humanity".32 To date, there is no record of similar agreements between the US and other Latin American countries, such as Guatemala or Honduras, to receive deported migrants in high-security prisons. Although these countries have announced plans to build mega-prisons, there is no public evidence that they are being used to house deportees from the US. In parallel, the so-called policy of self-deportation has gained momentum: an increasingly documented phenomenon in which thousands of migrants voluntarily choose to return to their countries of origin in fear of being arrested, separated from their families or detained in inhumane conditions. This practice, indirectly promoted by the tightening of the legal and police environment, represents a form of covert expulsion, in which the state does not need to apply force: it is enough to install fear. 33 The Trump administration has intensified this strategy through various measures. These include the implementation of the CBP Home app, which allows undocumented immigrants to manage their voluntary departure from the country. In addition, "incentivised self-deportation" programmes have been announced, offering financial assistance and coverage of transportation costs to those who decide to return to their countries of origin. These initiatives have been presented as humanitarian solutions, although they have been criticised by human rights organisations as coercive and discriminatory. The government has also imposed economic sanctions on immigrants with active deportation orders, such as daily fines of up to a thousand dollars, with the aim of pressuring them to leave the country voluntarily. These policies have been accompanied by media campaigns displaying images of immigrants arrested and charged with serious crimes, seeking to reinforce the perception of threat and justify the measures adopted. These actions have generated a climate of fear and uncertainty among migrant communities, leading many to opt for self-deportation as the only alternative to avoid detention and family separation. However, experts warn that this decision may have long-term legal consequences, such as the impossibility of applying for visas or re-entering the country for several years.34 It has come to the point, last week, of arresting Hannah Dugan, a Miilwaukee County judge by the FBI, allegedly accused of assisting a documented immigrant who was to be detained.35 In this context, the self-deportation policy is yet another tool in the Trump administration's restrictive and punitive approach to migration, prioritising deterrence and control over the protection of human rights and the search for comprehensive solutions to the migration phenomenon. The proliferation of self-deportations and increasing allegations of human rights violations soon escalated into the judicial arena. As claims of arbitrary detention, inhumane conditions of confinement and family separation increased, various courts began to examine the legal limits of these policies. The climax came in April 2025 with the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. J. G. G. G.36 , which assessed the constitutionality of certain expedited deportation practices applied to Venezuelan and Central American asylum seekers. Although the Court did not completely invalidate the executive measures, it did set important limits: it recognised the right to a pre-removal hearing in cases where there is a credible risk of persecution and called on Congress to urgently review the immigration legal framework.37 In addition, the court ruled that legal challenges must be brought in the district where the detainees are located, in this case, Texas, and not in Washington D.C. This Supreme Court ruling marks a turning point. While it does not dismantle the mass deportation apparatus, it introduces legal brakes that could slow down or modulate its application. Congress, under pressure from the ruling, now faces the challenge of reforming a dysfunctional, polarised and increasingly judicialised immigration system. In the short term, federal agencies such as ICE and CBP will have to adjust their operational protocols to avoid litigation, which could generate internal tensions and new immigration outsourcing strategies. Ultimately, this decision opens a new scenario in which immigration policies will have to face not only social and international scrutiny, but also the limits imposed by constitutional law and the US judicial system. Expulsions in the Caribbean: the case of the Dominican Republic In the context of a regional tightening of migration policies, the Dominican Republic has significantly intensified its efforts to control irregular immigration, especially from Haiti. Under the administration of President Luis Abinader, a policy of mass deportations has been implemented, which has raised concerns both domestically and internationally. The deportations have taken place against a backdrop of growing social fear of cross-border crime and the infiltration of armed actors from the neighbouring country. In this context, the government has reinforced border control with a combination of military presence, surveillance technology and migration deterrence measures. Between January and December 2024, the Dominican authorities deported more than 276,000 foreigners in an irregular migratory situation, the majority of whom were Haitian nationals38 . This figure represents a significant increase compared to previous years and reflects a systematic and sustained deportation policy.39 Precisely in October 2024, the government announced a plan to deport up to 10,000 Haitians per week, which intensified operations across the country. These operations include raids in neighbourhoods, arrests in hospitals and the demolition of informal settlements inhabited by Haitians. One of the most controversial practices has been the deportation of pregnant and lactating Haitian women directly from public hospitals. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and UN experts have condemned these actions as inhumane and discriminatory. Cases have been documented of women being deported while in labour , putting their health and that of their children at risk.40 The Dominican government defends these policies as necessary to maintain order and national security, arguing that they are carried out in accordance with the law. However, international criticism has mounted, with allegations that these mass deportations violate fundamental human rights and aggravate the humanitarian crisis in Haiti. The situation has generated diplomatic tensions between the two countries and has been the subject of concern from the international community, which is urging the Dominican Republic to review its migration policies and ensure respect migrants' rights. This case exemplifies the challenges faced by Latin American and Caribbean countries in managing migration flows, especially when humanitarian crises, security policies and bilateral tensions are combined. Ultimately, the Dominican response - although framed by legitimate sovereignty concerns - also raises profound questions about the proportionality of measures, respect for due process and regional co-responsibility in the face of the Haitian collapse. Conclusion The Latin American and Caribbean region is going through a critical moment in terms of migration. Recent waves of mass deportations, forced returns - direct or induced - and new border control strategies have deepened a regional crisis that has been brewing for years. These dynamics, far from being isolated phenomena, are part of a systematic strategy of migration containment promoted by the US, where political discourse and practice have turned migrants into scapegoats for all national ills. Donald Trump has been the most visible - and aggressive - face of this policy. His obsession with migrants, especially those from Latin America and the Caribbean, has resulted in an institutional architecture designed to curb mobility at any cost. Under his leadership, not only have physical and legal walls on the southern border been reinforced, but programmes such as "Remain in Mexico", safe third country agreements and, more recently, the controversial use of regulations such as the Alien Enemies Act have been promoted. At the core of this strategy is a profoundly punitive vision that identifies the migrant as a threat, a potential enemy or an invader, thus legitimising policies of mass exclusion and systematic expulsion. The impact of these policies in Latin America and the Caribbean is profound. Beyond the numbers, what is at stake is the stability of societies already marked by inequality, violence and institutional fragility. Mass deportations - affecting not only border crossers but also those who had already put down roots in the US - are overwhelming the capacities of receiving states. Every week, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Haiti, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic receive contingents of returnees who must be reintegrated in contexts of structural precariousness. In this context, the arrival of thousands of deported or self-deported Venezuelans in places such as CECOT in El Salvador illustrates a new phase: the direct criminalisation of migrants. The use of mega-prisons as a migration management tool represents a worrying drift, where security replaces integration and fear replaces law. Alongside this, the policy of self-deportations has gained strength, a form of covert expulsion in which the state does not need to apply force: it is enough to install fear. Families choose to return voluntarily for fear of being detained, separated or held in inhumane conditions. In recent months, this practice has even been economically incentivised, with programmes promoted by the Trump Administration offering to pay for the return ticket, as if it were a favour, when in reality it is a forced flight disguised as a personal choice. This has generated a far-reaching reconfiguration of migration. The fracturing of family networks, the interruption of the flow of remittances and the uncertainty over the legal status of millions of people have altered not only regional mobility, but also the economic models that depend on exile as a source of income. Remittances, which represent a significant percentage of GDP in countries such as Honduras and El Salvador, are threatened by these return policies, directly affecting consumption, community investment and the ability to sustain millions of households. Moreover, the legal and judicial system now faces its own limits. The intervention of the US Supreme Court has highlighted the constitutional challenges to these measures, opening a space for legal dispute over how far the executive can go in its crusade against migration. However, the effects are already underway. The reality is that many Latin American and Caribbean countries are assuming, voluntarily or forcibly, the role of advanced border of the global North. The overall balance is bleak: a utilitarian vision of human mobility is imposed, whose fate depends more on electoral cycles in the north than on their fundamental rights. However, resistance is also emerging: from the courts to the streets, through grassroots organisations, solidarity networks and proposals for fairer regional policies. The future of mass deportations is not set in stone. It will be decided in multiple scenarios: in presidential speeches in Washington, but also in the legal decisions of the courts; in public policies in Bogotá, San Salvador or Santo Domingo, but also in the mobilisation capacity of the societies affected. Latin America and the Caribbean have an opportunity and a responsibility: not to resign themselves to the role of passive recipients of an imposed policy, but to build a regional strategy for mobility, rights and dignity. References 1 CHAO ROMERO, Robert. The Chinese in Mexico, 1882-1940. University of Arizona Press, 2010.2 VIÑAS, David. Indians, army and frontier. Siglo XXI Editores, 1982.3 FERRER ,Ada. Cuba: An American History. Scribner, 2021.4 AMERICAS ALLIANCE. 28 years of IIRIRA: a horrible legacy of a white supremacist and deeply xenophobic immigration law. 30/9/24. Available at: htt p s://w w w.alianzaamericas..Note: All hyperlinks are active as of 3 May 2025.5 AMBROSIUS, Christian. Deportations and the Roots of Gang Violence in Central America. School of Business & Economics. Discussion Paper, Berlin, 12/2018. Available at: https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/22554/discpa p er2018_12.6 AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL. A Guide to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), update 2025. Available at: https://www.am e ricanimmigrationcouncil.7 MARÍN, Rossana. "El Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de EE. UU. restableció el programa migratorio 'Quédate en México'", INFOBAE. 22/1/2025. Available at: https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2025/01/21/el-departamento-de-seguridad-nacional-de-eeuu-restablecio-el-prog r8 RIVERA, Fernanda. "México se opone al regreso del programa 'Quédate en México'", Meganoticias. 20/1/25. Available at: https://www.m e ganoticias.mx/cdmx/noticia/mexico-se-opone-al-regreso-del-programa-quedate-en-mexico/587032.9 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH. The 'Migrant Protection Protocols' and Human Rights Violations in Mexico. Special Report, 2020. Available at: https:// w w w.hrw.10 INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. Precautionary Measures on the "Stay in Mexico" Programme. 2025. Available at: https://www . oas.org/en /11 CAMHAJI, Elías. "México aguarda con preocupación la avalancha de decretos migratorios de Trump", El País. 20/1/25. Available at: https:// e lp ais.com/mexico/2025-01-20/mexico-aguarda-con-preocupacion-la-avalancha-de-decretos-migratorios-de-trump.12 The concept of a "safe third country" originates from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1951. According to this convention, when a person applies for asylum in one country, that country can refer him or her to another country that offers the same guarantees of protection. However, goodwill is not enough; the receiving country must meet certain requirements to be considered "safe".13 REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL. Deportation with stopover: Failure of the protection measures established by the Cooperation Agreement on Asylum signed between the United States and Guatemala. 10/6/20. Available at: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/report s -briefs/deportacion-con-escala-fracaso-de-las14 EL MUNDO NEWSPAPER. US and El Salvador finalise 'unprecedented' asylum agreement: Bukele". 3/2/2025. Available at: https://diario.elmundo.sv/politica/eeuu-y-el-sa l15 BBC NEWS MUNDO. "Bukele agrees with US to accept deportees of other nationalities, including 'dangerous criminals' in prison". 4/2/25. Available at: https://ww w .bbc.com/mundo/ a16 REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL. Migration outsourcing: new agreements under analysis with Haiti, Dominican Republic and Colombia. Special report, March 2025.17 RANRUN.ES. "International civil society denounces that externalising the US border will not stop migrants".11/4/25. Available at: https://run r un.es/noticias/501342/sociedad-civil-civil-sociedad-civil-internacional-denuncian-que-externalizar-la-frontera-ee –18 U. S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. Credible Fear Screening and Interview Process, update 2025. Available at: http s ://www.usci s .19 GILBERTO BOSQUES CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES. "La política migratoria de EE. UU. y su impacto en América Latina", Informe Especial. April 2025. Available at: https:/ / www.gob.mx/sre/acciones-y-programas/centro-de-estudios-internacionales-gilberto-bosques20 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. "The United States: A Migration System that Criminalises. Report 2025. Available at: https://www.amnesty . o rg/en/latest21 ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Police-ICE collaboration under the 287(g) program. Analysis paper updated in 2025. Available at: https:// w ww.a c lu.22 PIEMONTESE, Antonio. "'Alien Enemies Act', what the 1798 law invoked by Trump to repatriate alleged Venezuelan gang members says". WIRED. 10/3/25. Available at: htt p s://en.wired. dice-la-ley-de-1798-invocada-por-trump-para-repatriar-a-supuestos-pandilleros-venezolanos.23 THE REPUBLIC. "Trump denies signing proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants". 22/3/25. Available at: https://larepublica.pe/mundo/2025/03/22/donald-trump-niega-haber-firmado-la-proclamacion-invocando-la-ley-de-enem i24 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a US humanitarian programme that grants protection to nationals of countries affected by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary circumstances.25 INFOBAE. "US civil organisations question the deportation of Venezuelans". 17/3/25. Available at: https://www.infobae.com/america/agenc i.26 CNN. "Several federal judges issued orders to temporarily halt the deportations and require judicial hearings before any removals. But despite the judicial restraints, the Administration continued the deportations." 9/4/25. Available at: https://cnnesp a nol.cnn.com/2025/04/09/eeuu/judges-block-deportations-some-people-read-foreign-enemies e27 TELEMUNDO. The U.S. quintuples its deportations this year and considers more and more migrants as inadmissible". 17/9/23. Available at: www.telemundo.com/noticias/noticias-telemundo/inmigracion/estados-unidos-ha-deportado-a-mas-de-380000-personas-en-los-ultimos - si-rc n28 EL PAÍS. "Bukele opens the CECOT mega-prison to deportations from the USA". 7/2/25. Available at: https://elpais.com/internacional/2025-02-07/bu k ele-abre-el-mega p risiones-del-cecot-a-deportados-de-eeuu..29 EL PAÍS. "Bukele's mega-prison, symbol of his war against the gangs, arouses international alarm". 23/3/23. Available at: https://elpais .30 MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Satellite States: The Prison Externalisation of Migration in Central America, n.º 54. 2025, pp. 45-63.31 LAS AMÉRICAS NEWSPAPER. "El Salvador defends the deportation of Venezuelans from the USA and links them to organised crime". 19/3/25. Available in: http s :32 NEWSWEEK, El Salvador. "Venezuela says sending US migrants to Salvadoran jail is "crime against humanity"". 18/3/25. Available at: https://newsweekespanol.com/elsalvador/2025/03/18/v e nezuela-dice-que-envio-de-migrantes –33 EL PAÍS. "Trump fills the White House gardens with photos of arrested immigrants to celebrate his first 100 days". 29/4/25. Available at: https://elp a is.com/us/immigracion/2025-04-28/trump-llena-los-jardines-de-la-casa-blanca-de-fotos-de-inmigrantes-arrestados-para-c e lebrar-sus-primeros-100-dias..34 COLOMÉ, Carla Gloria. "El gobierno de Trump celebra el aumento de las autodeportaciones: "Estamos viendo niveles altísimos de migración inversa", El País. 2/4/25. Available at: https://elpais.com/us/migracion/2025-04-02/el-gobierno-de-trump-celebra-el-aumento-de-las-autodeportaciones-e s tam o s-viendo-niveles-altisimos-de-migracion-inversa.html.35 COL, Devan. "Indictment against Wiscosin judge underscores Trump administration's aggressive approach to immigration enforcement", CNN USA 25/4/25. Available at: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/04/25/eeuu / indictment-j u eza-wisconsin-aggressive-approach-trump-immigration-trax-law.36 Trump v. J.G.G. is the tentative name used by some media and legal documents to refer to a recent and significant court case before the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2025. The case pits the federal government, led by the Donald Trump Administration, against a migrant identified by his initials J.G.G., in protection of his identity, as is customary in immigration and human rights proceedings.37 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump v. J.G.G. Opinion of the Court, April 2025. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20 2 5/tr ump_ v _jgg.html (accessed 28 April 2025).38 CNN EN ESPAÑOL. "La República Dominicana deportó en 2024 a 276.000 haitianos". 2/1/25. Available at: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2025/01/02/latinoame r ic a39 TELEMUNDO NOTICIAS. "Dominican Republic intensifies deportations of Haitians: 10,000 per week". 12/12/2024. Available at: https://www.telemundo.com/noticias/noticias-telemundo/internacional/republica-dominicana-deportaciones-masivas- h aitianos-10000-una-semana-r40 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. "Deportations of pregnant women in the Dominican Republic". November 2024. Available at: https: / /www.a m nesty.org/en/documents/amr27/8597/2024/en/ "Statement on mass deportations in the Dominican Republic". November 2024. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/es/documents/amr27/8597/2024 /

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The United States and Vietnam, former adversaries but now significant trading partners, are in their second year of the comprehensive strategic partnership, further improving their ties. In 2025, the comprehensive strategic partnership makes a major two-year milestone as both America and Vietnam are thirty years into normalization, as five decades ago, both countries were intertwined in one of the most deadly wars in modern history. The comprehensive strategic partnership is a significant counterbalance in international relations in the Indo-Pacific region against China’s rising soft power and naval force projection into the South China Sea. In its second year, questions remain: Will the partnership hold up, and is there still room to grow between Washington and Hanoi? On September 10th, 2023, then-U.S. President Joe Biden and the late General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of Vietnam signed the comprehensive strategic partnership, which is a major turning point in Southeast Asia. The elevation of relations between Hanoi and Washington puts America along the same bilateral status as Russia and China in Vietnam’s hierarchy, signifying a major diplomatic breakthrough between the former two countries. Under the upgraded relations, Vietnam and the United States will further strengthen cooperation in trade, investments, science, technology, and climate action, with more opportunities in other sectors. Southeast Asia is an emerging global supply chain hub for not just the United States but the entire world, and Hanoi is a top ten major trading partner of Washington. The opportunity to grow supply chains in the Indochina region with Vietnam as a starting point would be an essential step toward digressing from the People’s Republic of China, which the United States government looks to do, especially as the latter two superpowers now compete for global hegemonic status. The United States and Vietnam share the ideals of growing their technological and economic sectors. The growth of semiconductors in Eastern Asia continues to grow not only in Taiwan, China, Japan, and South Korea but also in Vietnam. Amkor, an American firm, is opening a $1.6 billion firm in Vietnam for this endeavor. Furthermore, Reuters reported in January 2024 that fifteen American firms are vying to invest $8 billion in semiconductors in Vietnam. American companies and business owners currently heavily invest in Vietnam, such as Intel, Apple, Nike, Amkor, Marvell, and First Solar, and the list can continue to grow in the comprehensive strategic partnership. Simultaneously, Vietnamese companies such as VinFast and VGN Corporation are increasing investments in the United States. VinFast’s growth in North Carolina is helping the local economy by creating more manufacturing opportunities. Though Vietnam and the United States have reached new peaks in upgraded relations, it is vital to mention that the comprehensive strategic partnership is not a mutual defense accord including direct military assistance. During the joint signing, neither Washington nor Hanoi mentioned ‘containment’ of Beijing’s ambitions, even though the South China Sea continues to grow into a potential regional powder keg. Vietnam’s upgraded partnership with the United States correlates with India’s current strategy of not fully aligning to one side to trigger ire or retaliation from the People’s Republic of China but strategically keeping full diplomatic cohesion with all regional powers while maintaining its sovereignty. Vietnam is also a close ally of Russia as the United States ignored the original requests for their self-determination post-WWII. Though they do not supply the Russian military’s illegal aggression in Ukraine, it is tantamount for the U.S. government not to push or strong-arm Hanoi closer to Moscow. Nevertheless, in the future, the U.S. and Vietnamese Armed Forces could establish backchannels to warn each other of any potential military threat by the People’s Liberation naval movements around the South China Sea without openly engaging in military cooperation that could draw strong actions from China and Russia. Hanoi looks to advance its interests amidst rising economic and technological competition in the Indo-Pacific and growing American investments will only push Vietnam’s marketing further. Simultaneously, Washington gains a growing economic and diplomatic presence in Southeast Asia. To promote a growing relationship, the United States can also further reconciliation efforts in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, as many of Vietnam’s demographic majority and elderly still remember the American aggression in the Indochina conflicts. In its second year, Hanoi and Washington continue to grow ties through several key sectors that advance both country’s national interests and further open opportunities between the East and West. Rebuilding and rewriting the wrongs of the past, the United States reached out to Vietnam to solidify a comprehensive strategic partnership, which is decades in the making and a landmark agreement long envisioned by Ho Chi Minh. With opportunities to expand into the technology, economic, and trade sectors, Hanoi and Washington continue to grow bilateral ties in year two of the partnership. The text of this work is licensed under  a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The pressure exerted by Trump on Mexico has prompted a shift in the López Obrador government's anti-drug strategy, which now operates under the logic of negotiation imposed by Trumpism. In the Obradorist ideology, it was unthinkable to launch a new war against the narcos—partly because there is now suspicion that deals were made with organized crime, and partly because opposition to such a war was one of the key narratives that propelled former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to power. He consistently and harshly criticized the confrontation initiated by President Felipe Calderón (2006–2012). The “hugs, not bullets” policy of the former Mexican president empowered the drug cartels, and its effects spilled onto the streets of the United States, where designer drugs (fentanyl, methamphetamines) proliferated like never before. However, the electoral campaign and Donald Trump’s return to the White House spotlighted the drug trafficking issue, highlighting that it was costing 100,000 American lives a year. That surely struck a chord with the average American and hurt the Democratic Party’s candidate. “Donald Trump embodies what I want for my country,” said a white woman from the Midwest—a sentiment echoed by many who witnessed the destructive effects of these drugs in neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles. This segment of the population turned out en masse to vote for Trump, joining millions of others who, for ideological, political, or economic reasons, gave the New York politician a sweeping victory. That resounding win shook the status quo—just look at the turmoil in global stock markets—but it also generated Trump’s own agenda with his trade partners. One key item: declaring war on the Mexican cartels, which he elevated to the status of “terrorist organizations” that must be destroyed. It was a powerful message for President Claudia Sheinbaum, who had not made the direct confrontation with the cartels a priority. She likely saw them as part of the structure López Obrador had built for the first stage of the so-called Fourth Transformation, and believed it best not to disturb them beyond occasional arrests and seizures. Sheinbaum had been inclined to continue that routine agenda in dealings with her main trading partner. However, Trump’s victory and his increasingly aggressive rhetoric against the cartels led to a direct confrontation with criminal organizations. Trump increased the pressure by deploying spy ships in Pacific waters off the Baja California coast. Mexican skies saw surveillance aircraft capable of capturing images of homes in the Golden Triangle—the border region between the states of Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and Durango, traditionally a haven for drug lords. Additionally, the U.S. security agency presence in Mexico was reinforced. Thus, the indulgent and criminal “hugs, not bullets” policy began to fade, leaving cartel leaders stunned. They have responded with a forward-escape strategy, creating an atmosphere of persecution and violence across different regions of the country—costing thousands of Mexican lives and pushing the public’s fear perception beyond 61%, according to INEGI. The myth López Obrador promoted—that “fentanyl is not produced in Mexico”—collapsed when Omar García Harfuch, the Public Security Secretary, recently stated that more than 800 laboratories have been destroyed. The problem, however, isn’t just the cartels and their capacity to produce and distribute drugs on American streets. It also includes the entire political scaffolding that enables the business to function efficiently—something it could not have achieved without the complicity of politicians with drug lords or intermediaries. And while one might think Trump would be pleased with the results of his pressure, that’s not the case. He bluntly stated that the Mexican government merely wants to make him “happy”—by sealing the northern border, making arrests and deporting drug lords, destroying labs, and even allowing U.S. agents to collaborate with Mexico’s national security system. They’ve even permitted spy flights and menacing naval patrols in Pacific waters. But even with these surprising results, the pressure continues—both publicly and diplomatically. Kristi Noem, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, recently met with President Sheinbaum at the National Palace. Beyond the formal courtesies, the headline came when Noem, upon returning to the U.S., revealed that she had handed Sheinbaum a list of requests to continue strengthening the good relationship between the two countries. President Sheinbaum was stunned when tariffs became a reality. Although Mexico and Canada weren’t mentioned in Trump’s public list of targeted countries, that was because the tariffs had already been decided before the press conference: a 25% tariff would apply to imports of steel and aluminum, as well as to products not covered by the USMCA—representing roughly 50% of Mexico’s exports to the U.S. In short, Trump’s pressure on Mexico has altered the policy upheld by Obradorism and now operates under the logic of Trump-style hard negotiation: “If the adversary yields at the first push, you can keep pressuring and gain more.” Some say that the list handed over through diplomatic channels includes the names of many currently serving politicians. That’s the reality, amid an anti-crisis narrative that tries to sell the idea that defeats are victories and losses are gains. And now, the time has come to find out where President Sheinbaum draws her red line.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Last week, the Trump administration signed a deal with Ukraine that gives it privileged access to Ukraine’s natural resources. Some news outlets described the deal as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “caving” to US President Donald Trump’s demands. But we see the agreement as the result of clever bargaining on the part of Ukraine’s war-time president. So, what does the deal mean for Ukraine? And will this help strengthen America’s mineral supply chains? Ukraine’s natural resource wealth Ukraine is home to 5% of the world’s critical mineral wealth, including 22 of the 34 minerals identified by the European Union as vital for defence, construction and high-tech manufacturing. However, there’s a big difference between resources (what’s in the ground) and reserves (what can be commercially exploited). Ukraine’s proven mineral reserves are limited. Further, Ukraine has an estimated mineral wealth of around US$14.8 trillion (A$23 trillion), but more than half of this is in territories currently occupied by Russia. What does the new deal mean for Ukraine? American support for overseas conflict is usually about securing US economic interests — often in the form of resource exploitation. From the Middle East to Asia, US interventions abroad have enabled access for American firms to other countries’ oil, gas and minerals. But the first iteration of the Ukraine mineral deal, which Zelensky rejected in February, had been an especially brazen resource grab by Trump’s government. It required Ukraine to cede sovereignty over its land and resources to one country (the US), in order to defend itself from attacks by another (Russia). These terms were highly exploitative of a country fighting against a years-long military occupation. In addition, they violated Ukraine’s constitution, which puts the ownership of Ukraine’s natural resources in the hands of the Ukrainian people. Were Zelensky to accept this, he would have faced a tremendous backlash from the public. In comparison, the new deal sounds like a strategic and (potentially) commercial win for Ukraine. First, this agreement is more just, and it’s aligned with Ukraine’s short- and medium-term interests. Zelenksy describes it as an “equal partnership” that will modernise Ukraine. Under the terms, Ukraine will set up a United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund for foreign investments into the country’s economy, which will be jointly governed by both countries. Ukraine will contribute 50% of the income from royalties and licenses to develop critical minerals, oil and gas reserves, while the US can make its contributions in-kind, such as through military assistance or technology transfers. Ukraine maintains ownership over its natural resources and state enterprises. And the licensing agreements will not require substantial changes to the country’s laws, or disrupt its future integration with Europe. Importantly, there is no mention of retroactive debts for the US military assistance already received by Ukraine. This would have created a dangerous precedent, allowing other nations to seek to claim similar debts from Ukraine. Finally, the deal also signals the Trump administration’s commitment to “a free, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine” – albeit, still without any security guarantees. Profits may be a long time coming Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration and conservative media in the US are framing the deal as a win. For too long, Trump argues, Ukraine has enjoyed US taxpayer-funded military assistance, and such assistance now has a price tag. The administration has described the deal to Americans as a profit-making endeavour that can recoup monies spent defending Ukrainian interests. But in reality, profits are a long way off. The terms of the agreement clearly state the fund’s investment will be directed at new resource projects. Existing operations and state-owned projects will fall outside the terms of the agreement. Mining projects typically work within long time frames. The move from exploration to production is a slow, high-risk and enormously expensive process. It can often take over a decade. Add to this complexity the fact that some experts are sceptical Ukraine even has enormously valuable reserves. And to bring any promising deposits to market will require major investments. What’s perhaps more important It’s possible, however, that profits are a secondary calculation for the US. Boxing out China is likely to be as – if not more – important. Like other Western nations, the US is desperate to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. China controls not just a large proportion of the world’s known rare earths deposits, it also has a monopoly on the processing of most critical minerals used in green energy and defence technologies. The US fears China will weaponise its market dominance against strategic rivals. This is why Western governments increasingly make mineral supply chain resilience central to their foreign policy and defence strategies. Given Beijing’s closeness to Moscow and their deepening cooperation on natural resources, the US-Ukraine deal may prevent Russia — and, by extension, China — from accessing Ukrainian minerals. The terms of the agreement are explicit: “states and persons who have acted adversely towards Ukraine must not benefit from its reconstruction”. Finally, the performance of “the deal” matters just as much to Trump. Getting Zelensky to sign on the dotted line is progress in itself, plays well to Trump’s base at home, and puts pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to come to the table. So, the deal is a win for Zelensky because it gives the US a stake in an independent Ukraine. But even if Ukraine’s critical mineral reserves turn out to be less valuable than expected, it may not matter to Trump.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском While Trump declared the truce agreement a US victory, Ansar Allah said that Washington contacted them in order to “avoid drowning in the mountains of Yemen”. Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement reached a ceasefire deal with the United States on Wednesday, May 7, according to Oman, which mediated the negotiations. The deal stipulates the halt of Ansar Allah’s attacks on US ships in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, and an end to US aggression on Yemen. However, it does not prevent the Yemeni movement from launching attacks on Israel.  “Following recent discussions and contacts conducted by the Sultanate of Oman with the United States and the relevant authorities in Sana’a, in the Republic of Yemen, with the aim of de-escalation, efforts have resulted in a ceasefire agreement between the two sides,” Omani Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, wrote on X. “In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” the minister added. Peoples Dispatch spoke to a member of the Communist Party of Jordan, Dr. Emad Al-Hatabeh, to discuss the ceasefire, which he described as a “sudden development in the war in the Red Sea.” Dr. Emad Al-Hatabeh indicated that “both the US and Oman didn’t comment on Ansar Allah’s missiles targeting Israel, especially that this agreement was reached shortly after a Yemeni missile reached Ben Gurion airport, near the occupied city of Lydda (also known as Lod).” As per Al-Hatabeh’s analysis, “important questions about this agreement are left without answers. Taking into consideration the Omani role in the American – Iranian negotiations, is the ceasefire in the Red Sea part of the deal? Another question will arise from this assumption, did America give up some of Israel’s interests in order to reach an agreement with Iran? Where does this agreement leave Netanyahu’s government, especially after Ansar Allah’s spokesman told Reuters that the agreement doesn’t include Israel.” Ansar Allah says the US contacted them seeking a truce One day before Oman announced that the deal was sealed, US President Donald Trump alluded that a ceasefire agreement was about to be reached, claiming that Ansar Allah agreed to stop the fight with the US because they “capitulated”.  “They just don’t want to fight, and we will honor that and we will stop the bombings, and they have capitulated,” Trump said from the White House on Tuesday, May 6. “They will not be blowing up ships anymore, and that’s what the purpose of what we were doing. So that’s just news. We just found out about that. So I think that’s very, very positive,” he added. Although Trump bragged about the deal, presenting it as a US victory, analysts suggest that it was Ansar Allah that forced the world’s greatest military superpower to the negotiating table, after paralyzing US naval traffic off the Yemeni coast.  Ansar Allah’s chief negotiator, Mohammed Abdulsalam, confirmed during an interview with Almasirah TV channel, that the movement “did not make any request to the Americans to hold ceasefire talks”. Abdulsalam asserted that, on the contrary, the movement recently received US requests and messages seeking a truce, via the Sultanate of Oman. The Yemeni official pointed out that US endeavors to reach a ceasefire with Ansar Allah were a great disappointment to Israel. “The Israelis have endured great disappointment after the stance of the US, which tried to walk away and avoid drowning in the mountains of Yemen,” he said. However, Abdulsalam clarified that Ansar Allah is still “assessing this US position so that the facts on the ground do not contradict its statements”. He further warned that in the event that the US “would not abide by the agreement in any way”, the movement “will respond”. Abdulsalam considered the deal “a success to be added to Yemen’s credit, as it enhances a situation that would leave the “usurper entity” [Israel] in a situation of loneliness, in confrontation with the great popular and military stance led by Yemen on behalf of the Arab and Islamic nation.” The ceasefire was announced two months after Trump ordered a large-scale aerial campaign against Yemen on the pretext of protecting US shipping, air, and naval assets and to restore “navigation freedom” from Ansar Allah’s attacks. Trump’s order followed Ansar Allah’s decision to resume a ban on Israeli ships due to Israel’s continuous blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Yemen threatens Israel with a devastating and painful response for attacking Sana’a airport  While Ansar Allah agreed to a truce with the US, it vowed to escalate its operations against Israel as long as its blockade on humanitarian aid to Gaza is not lifted.  In response to Israel’s aggression on Sana’a International Airport on Tuesday, that destroyed terminal buildings and caused USD 500 million in damage, Yemen’s Supreme Political Council Chairman, Mahdi al-Mashat, threatened that “Sanaa’s response will be devastating, painful, and beyond what the Israeli enemy can endure.” “From this moment onward, stay in your shelters or leave for your homelands immediately. Your failed government will no longer be able to protect you,” Al-Mashat warned Israeli people.  Moreover, the Yemeni senior official reaffirmed that no aggression will deter Yemen from its “rightful decision” to support the people of Palestine “until the genocide ends and the siege on Gaza is lifted.” The Yemeni Armed Forces’ spokesman, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, also confirmed in a televised statement late Wednesday, that the movement will continue its ban on Israeli ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea, alongside the comprehensive aerial blockade on Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. Text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The agreement was an acknowledgment of the significance of their trade for mutual economic development and the health of the global economy, the joint statement says. China and the US agreed to roll back high tariffs imposed on one another last month for a period of 90 days. The agreement was announced in a joint statement issued on Monday, May 12. The agreement was a result of a high-level meeting on trade and economic affairs held between Chinese and US delegations in Geneva, Switzerland over the weekend. As described in a press conference on Monday by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who was part of the US delegation, both sides have agreed to reduce the tariffs by 115%. That would mean that the US will reduce its tariffs on China to 30% from its present 145% while the Chinese will lower their tariffs to 10% from its present 125%. These new tariff rates would be effective from Wednesday for the next 90 days. Both the countries also agreed to explore a more stable arrangement in the interim period. China also agreed to reverse additional measures imposed in response to US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, such as putting various US companies on the sanctions list and placing export controls on rare earth minerals. The parties committed to taking these measures as an acknowledgment of the mutual significance of their bilateral trade and its importance for the global economy and for “moving forward in the spirit of mutual opening, continued communication, cooperation and mutual respect,” a joint statement says. The 30% US tariff includes a 10% baseline tariff imposed on all imports by Trump in April after suspending his reciprocal tariff regime for 90 days, and a 20% tariff imposed by the Trump administration before April in the name of stopping the illegal flow of the drug fentanyl. Answering a question on the cooperation between both the countries over fentanyl, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry Lin Jian criticized “the wrongly slapped tariffs on Chinese imports” by citing the issue and claiming that “if the US truly wants to cooperate with China, it should stop vilifying and shifting the blame.” Jian also advised the US “to seek dialogue with China based on equality, respect and mutual benefit.” Relief for the global economy  Trump announced a reciprocal tariff regime on April 2 against all those countries which had a trade surplus with the US, including China. After global backlash, Trump later postponed the implementation of the regime for 90 days, inviting countries to seek bilateral agreements to avoid high tariffs while imposing a 10% common tariff. The Trump administration had claimed that reciprocal tariffs were required in order to lower the US trade deficit, which is over a trillion dollars. China, the third largest trade partner of the US, faced the highest tariff rates under Trump’s tariff war and chose to retaliate. It also called the policy a violation of international law and an attempt by the US to weaponize trade. On Tuesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his country’s position that there are no winners in trade and tariff wars, claiming bullying and hegemony will only result in self-isolation. He was addressing the fourth ministerial meeting of the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) forum in Beijing. The tariff war between the world’s leading economies was seen as a disaster for the global economy and trade. A large number of US businesses had also opposed Trump’s tariff war. They had claimed high tariffs may lead to a rise in prices which harm both the consumer and domestic production. Several businesses filed lawsuits in the US claiming Trump’s reciprocal tariff regime was illegal and harmful for their ability to do business. US trade representative Jamieson Greer, who was part of the negotiating team in Geneva, claimed that the talks with various countries, including China, is the first step to reducing the US trade deficit and ending the national emergency declared by Trump to authorize the reciprocal tariff decrees, South China Morning Post reported. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hailed the agreement as “substantive progress” for mutual economic development. It expressed hope that “the US side will build on the meeting, continue to work with China in the same direction, completely rectify its wrong practices of unilateral tariff hikes, and keep strengthening mutually beneficial cooperation.” Acknowledging that “high levels of tariffs were equivalent to an embargo and neither side wanted that,” Bessent declared on Monday that the US wants a trade relationship with China, though a balanced one. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce also hoped that the US would pursue the matter much more seriously and “inject more certainty and stability into the world economy.” Both the countries have agreed to establish “a joint mechanism” to continue their trade and economic negotiations in future. Text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license