MIL-OSI – Page 647 – MIL Submissions Engine

January 20, 2026

A year on from his second inauguration, Trump 2.0 has one defining word: power

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

As Donald Trump celebrates the anniversary of his second inauguration as president of the United States and begins his sixth year in office, his greatest asset is power. He covets absolute power.

The greatest threat to how Trump completes his term is how he wields his power.

Indeed, in the most foolish act in foreign policy in Trump’s presidency, he has threatened punitive tariffs on Denmark and seven other NATO allies in Europe to force the sale of Greenland to the United States. They are outraged. This is a ridiculous ploy that will not deliver Greenland to Trump.

Trump’s escalation in Denmark has already strengthened Putin’s iron resolve to get as much of Ukraine as he can. Prospects for ending the war in Ukraine are now near zero.

On top of Trump’s pending tariffs on Europe, if Trump seizes Greenland, the consequences will shake the world – including Australia. NATO will be terminated. Australia will face an existential question of whether, under those circumstances, it must terminate its alliance with the US.

We can see in a raft of polls at this one-year mark of Trump’s second term that voters across the country are expressing growing disquiet about his management of the economy and the affordability of housing and groceries, the raids by ICE agents as they seize and deport migrants as we saw last week in Minneapolis, and uncertainty about Trump’s foreign adventurism in the Americas and with Iran.

Trump is exercising this power because he can. This will jolt Republicans in Congress to break with Trump on this issue – the first such rift between Trump and his party since his re-election.

Welcome to Trump’s year six.

Trumpism in his second term

Following his election victory in 2024, Trump has been faithful to three of four pillars of Trumpism that made his base a movement that has changed America:

nativism (favouring US-born citizens over immigrants)
protectionism and tariffs
America First nationalism (“Make America Great Again”).

To those ends, Trump is acting aggressively, with immigration agents arresting and deporting tens of thousands, and threats to deploy US troops in American cities to enforce these policies. Trump has imposed punitive tariffs against every trading partner – including Australia, which has a significant trade deficit with the United States. Trump demands foreign companies invest in the United States and build new factories.

But on the fourth Trumpism pillar – America-First isolationism as a driver of America’s foreign policy – Trump has redefined his foreign policy settings with grander ambitions.

Trump has rejected the history of the US waging wars to project American values: protecting Asia from communism in Korea and Vietnam; turning back brutal aggression in Kuwait; punishing the export of radical Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump has applied these lessons to Iran – so far. It is one thing to take out Iran’s nuclear capability. It is another to do regime change – a bridge too far back to the “forever wars” Trump despises.

Trump has buried America’s posture of globalism. He has withdrawn the US from virtually all the architecture, save the United Nations itself, erected after the second world war to ensure global security, stability and prosperity. He has ordered the US out of global organisations, and has cut billions in foreign aid.

The US attack on Venezuela was about much larger goals than arresting its leader. It was about power – controlling power over critical resources in the Americas, from Venezuela to Greenland and everything in between, from Mexico to Cuba to Canada.

Politics at home

Trump is paying a high price at home for his activism in wielding power abroad. Every day Trump spends projecting power outside the United States means he is not paying attention to the American people.

A recent poll shows 56% of US adults believe Trump has gone too far on Venezuela. 57% do not want the US to strike Iran. Even before Trump’s tariff announcement on Greenland, only 17% approved of Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland, and 71% rejected using military force to do it.

Trump’s overall polls are bad. His approval rating is 40% – nearly 10 points down since his inauguration – and disapproval is at 60%. AP-NORC also finds that “Trump hasn’t convinced the Americans that the economy is in good shape.”

CNN polling reports that 55% of those surveyed believe Trump’s policies “have hurt the economy” and that Trump is not doing enough to lower prices. Grocery prices are up sharply. The latest Wall Street Journal poll shows Trump is underwater by double digits on handling inflation, and that he is not focusing enough on the economy.

On immigration, the unrest in Minneapolis and other cities from the harsh methods employed by ICE agents is also taking a toll, with Trump’s approval on that issue lagging below 40%.

But even with all these red flags and warnings from the field, Trump is undeterred. He believes that as president, he can do anything he wants to do. Guardrails that have for decades protected America’s democracy have been cast aside.

Trump has not been blocked – yet – by an ultra-conservative Supreme Court or the pliant Republican Congress for the tariffs he is imposing, the government agencies he has shut down, the monies appropriated by Congress he has terminated, the hundreds of thousands of government employees he has fired, the military strikes he has ordered without advising, much less getting approval from, Congress.

Trump is seeking more control over the economy by seeking to prosecute the chair of the Federal Reserve Bank, an independent agency that sets monetary policy, and to pack its board with loyalists to Trump’s demands that interest rates be lowered.

Since his inauguration, Trump has instructed the Justice Department to prosecute those who attempted to bring him to justice in courtrooms and impeachment proceedings in Congress.

Trump’s musings on power

As Trump consolidates his power, Trump’s musings become imperatives. After months of expressing a desire to own it, Trump is now acting aggressively to conquer Greenland.

At home, Trump is now also musing – twice so far this month – over whether the US midterm elections will be cancelled. Trump knows the likelihood of the Democrats taking back control of the House of Representatives is high. That is precisely what he suffered in the 2018 congressional elections in his first term.

Trump told Reuters last week, “We shouldn’t even have an election,” because of all his great successes.

In January, Trump told Republicans in the House, “I won’t say cancel the election, they should cancel the election, because the fake news would say, ‘He wants the elections cancelled. He’s a dictator.’ They always call me a dictator.” He told them that if the Democrats take the House back they will “find a reason to impeach” him.

Any steps taken – such as declaring martial law to suspend the midterm elections – will be catastrophic. And that is an understatement.

Based on Trump’s restless mind and command of what he believes is absolute power, at stake this year are the future of democracy at home and alliances abroad.

Bruce Wolpe receives funding from the United States Studies Centre. He has worked with the Democrats in the US Congress and for Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

– ref. A year on from his second inauguration, Trump 2.0 has one defining word: power – https://theconversation.com/a-year-on-from-his-second-inauguration-trump-2-0-has-one-defining-word-power-273697

January 20, 2026

The way Earth’s surface moves has a bigger impact on shifting the climate than we knew

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ben Mather, ARC Early Career Industry Fellow, School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Our planet has experienced dramatic climate shifts throughout its history, oscillating between freezing “icehouse” periods and warm “greenhouse” states.

Scientists have long linked these climate changes to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, new research reveals the source of this carbon – and the driving forces behind it – are far more complex than previously thought.

In fact, the way tectonic plates move about Earth’s surface plays a major, previously underappreciated role in climate. Carbon doesn’t just emerge where tectonic plates meet. The places where tectonic plates pull away from each other are significant too.

Our new study, published today in the journal Communications, Earth and Environment sheds light on how exactly Earth’s plate tectonics have helped to shape global climate over the past 540 million years.

Peering deep within the carbon cycle

At the boundaries where Earth’s tectonic plates converge, we get chains of volcanoes known as volcanic arcs. Melting associated with these volcanoes unlocks carbon that’s been trapped inside rocks for thousands of years, bringing it to Earth’s surface.

Historically, it’s been thought these volcanic arcs were the primary culprits of injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Our findings challenge that view. Instead, we suggest that mid-ocean ridges and continental rifts – locations where the tectonic plates spread apart – have played a much more significant role in driving Earth’s carbon cycles throughout geological time.

This is because the world’s oceans sequester vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They store most of it within carbon-rich rocks on the seafloor. Over thousands of years, this process can produce hundreds of metres of carbon-rich sediment at the bottom of the ocean.

As these rocks then move about the Earth driven by tectonic plates, they may eventually intersect subduction zones – places where tectonic plates converge. This releases their carbon dioxide cargo back into the atmosphere.

This is known as the “deep carbon cycle”. To track the flow of carbon between Earth’s molten interior, oceanic plates and the atmosphere, we can use computer models of how the tectonic plates have migrated through geological time.

What we discovered

Using computer models to reconstruct how Earth moves carbon stored on tectonic plates, we were able to predict major greenhouse and icehouse climates over the last 540 million years.

During greenhouse periods – when Earth was warmer – more carbon was released than trapped within carbon-carrying rocks. In contrast, during icehouse climates, the carbon sequestration into Earth’s oceans dominated, lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and triggering cooling.

One of the key takeaways from our study is the critical role of the deep-sea sediments in regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide. As Earth’s tectonic plates slowly move, they carry carbon-rich sediments, which are eventually returned into Earth’s interior through a process known as subduction.

We show that this process is a major factor in determining whether Earth is in a greenhouse or icehouse state.

How much carbon is recycled into Earth’s mantle at subduction zones (blues) compared to how much is released through volcanic arcs and mid-ocean ridges (oranges) over the past 540 million years. Carbonate platforms – large accumulations of carbonate rocks – are indicated by green polygons, where light green indicates active platforms, and dark green indicates older, inactive platforms.

A shift in understanding the role of volcanic arcs

Historically, the carbon emitted from volcanic arcs has been considered one of the largest sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

However, this process only became dominant in the last 120 million years thanks to planktic calcifiers. These little ocean critters belong to a family of phytoplankton whose main talent lies in converting dissolved carbon into calcite. They are responsible for sequestering vast amounts of atmospheric carbon into carbon-rich sediment deposited on the seafloor.

Planktic calcifiers only evolved about 200 million years ago, and spread through the world’s oceans about 150 million years ago. So, the high proportion of carbon spewed into the atmosphere along volcanic arcs in the past 120 million years is mostly due to the carbon-rich sediments these creatures created.

Before this, we found that carbon emissions from mid-ocean ridges and continental rifts – regions where tectonic plates diverge – actually contributed more significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A new perspective for the future

Our findings offer a new perspective on how Earth’s tectonic processes have shaped, and will continue to shape, our climate.

These results suggest Earth’s climate is not just driven by atmospheric carbon. Instead, the climate is influenced by the intricate balance between carbon emissions from Earth’s surface and how they get trapped in sediments on the seafloor.

This study also provides crucial insights for future climate models, especially in the context of current concerns over rising carbon dioxide levels.

We now know that Earth’s natural carbon cycle, influenced by the shifting tectonic plates beneath our feet, plays a vital role in regulating the planet’s climate.

Understanding this deep time perspective can help us better predict future climate scenarios and the ongoing effects of human activity.

Ben Mather receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adriana Dutkiewicz receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Dietmar Müller receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sabin Zahirovic has received funding from the Alfred Sloan Foundation’s Deep Carbon Observatory, the Australian Research Council, and BHP via the STELLAR industry collaborative project.

– ref. The way Earth’s surface moves has a bigger impact on shifting the climate than we knew – https://theconversation.com/the-way-earths-surface-moves-has-a-bigger-impact-on-shifting-the-climate-than-we-knew-272352

January 20, 2026

Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Samuel Garrett, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

A year into US President Donald Trump’s second term, his record use of executive orders, impoundment of government spending, and military interventions in Venezuela and Iran have sparked criticisms from Democrats and even some Republicans. They say he is unconstitutionally sidelining Congress.

As Trump increasingly wields his power unilaterally, some have wondered what the point of Congress is now. Isn’t it supposed to act as a check on the president?

But the power of the modern presidency had already been growing for decades. Successive presidents from both parties have taken advantage of constitutional vagaries to increase the power of the executive branch. It’s a long-running institutional battle that has underwritten US political history.

The years-long erosion of Congress’ influence leaves the president with largely unchecked power. We’re now seeing the consequences.

A fraught relationship

Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the US Constitution, it’s the branch of the government tasked with making laws. It’s supposed to act as a check on the president and the courts.

It can pass legislation, raise taxes, control government spending, review and approve presidential nominees, advise and consent on treaties, conduct investigations, declare war, impeach officials, and even choose the president in a disputed election.

But the Constitution leaves open many questions about where the powers of Congress end and the powers of the president begin.

In a 2019 ruling on Trump’s tax returns, the judge commented:

disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended.

Relative power between the different branches of the US government has changed since independence as constitutional interpretations shifted. This includes whether the president or Congress takes the lead on making laws.

Although Congress holds legislative power, intense negotiations between Congress and the executive branch (led by the president) are now a common feature of US lawmaking. Modern political parties work closely with the president to design and pass new laws.

Redefining the presidency

By contrast, presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries generally left Congress to lead policymaking. Party “czars” in Congress dominated the national legislative agenda.

Future president Woodrow Wilson noted in 1885 that Congress:

has entered more and more into the details of administration, until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government.

Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt after him would later help to redefine the president not only as the head of the executive branch, but as head of their party and of the government.

In the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal and secret bombing of Cambodia, Congress sought to expand its oversight over what commentators suggested was becoming an “imperial presidency”.

This included the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, designed to wrest back Congressional control of unauthorised military deployments.

Nevertheless, the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations all argued that Congressional authorisation was not required for operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya (though Bush still sought authorisation to secure public support).

In turn, the Trump administration argued its actions in Venezuela were a law-enforcement operation, to which the resolution does not apply.

Why presidents bypass Congress

Historically, presidents have sought to bypass Congress for reasons of personality or politics. Controversial decisions that would struggle to pass through Congress are often made using executive orders.

Obama’s 2011 “We Can’t Wait” initiative used executive orders to enact policy priorities without needing to go through a gridlocked Congress. One such policy was the 2012 creation of the DACA program for undocumented immigrants.

Franklin Roosevelt’s use of executive orders dwarfed that of his predecessors. He issued eight times as many orders in his 12-year tenure than were signed in the first 100 years of the United States’ existence.

The question of what constitutes a genuine threat to the preservation of the nation is especially pertinent now. More than 50 “national emergencies” are currently in effect in the United States.

This was the controversial basis of Trump’s tariff policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It bypassed Congressional approval and is now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Recent presidents have also increasingly claimed executive privilege to block Congress’ subpoena power.

Institutional wrestling

Institutional wrestling is a feature of Congressional relations with the president, even when the same party controls the White House and both chambers of the legislature, as the Republican party does now.

While Roosevelt dominated Congress, his “court-packing plan” to take control of the US Supreme Court in 1937 proved a bridge too far, even for his own sweeping Democratic majorities. The Democrats controlled three quarters of both the House and Senate and yet refused to back his plan.

More recently, former Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered many of Barack Obama’s early legislative achievements, but still clashed with the president in 2010 over congressional oversight.

As House minority leader, she rallied many Democrats against Obama’s US$1.1 trillion (A$1.6 trillion) budget proposal in 2014. Obama was forced to rely on Republican votes in 2015 to secure approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite his heavy lobbying of congressional Democrats.

Even today’s Congress, which has taken Trump’s direction at almost every turn, demonstrated its influence perhaps most notably by forcing the president into a backflip on the release of the Epstein files after a revolt within Trump’s supporters in the Republican party.

Given the extremely slim Republican majority in Congress, the general unity of the Republican party behind Trump has been a key source of his political strength. That may be lost if public opinion continues to turn against him.

Is Trump breaking the rules?

Trump and his administration have taken an expansive view of presidential power by regularly bypassing Congress.

But he’s not the first president to have pushed the already blurry limits of executive power to redefine what is or is not within the president’s remit. The extent to which presidents are even bound by law at all is a matter of long running academic debate.

Deliberate vagaries in US law and the Constitution mean the Supreme Court is ultimately the arbiter of what is legal.

The court is currently the most conservative in modern history and has taken a sweeping view of presidential power. The 2024 Supreme Court ruling that presidents enjoy extensive immunity suggests the president is, in fact, legally able to do almost anything.

Regardless, public opinion and perceptions of illegality continue to be one of the most important constraints on presidential action. Constituents can take a dim view of presidential behaviour, even if it’s not technically illegal.

Even if Trump can legally act with complete authority, it’s public opinion — not the letter of the law — that may continue to shape when, and if, he does so.

Samuel Garrett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity – https://theconversation.com/congress-power-has-been-diminishing-for-years-leaving-trump-to-act-with-impunity-273099

January 19, 2026

Au Kazakhstan, le débat brûlant sur le mariage polygame

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Hélène Thibault, Professeure agrégée de science politique, Nazarbayev University

Au Kazakhstan, les propositions de légaliser la polygynie font régulièrement surface, y compris en novembre dernier, portées par des élus qui souhaitent donner un statut civil aux familles déjà engagées dans ces unions. Mais, chaque fois, elles rallument la controverse : pour leurs opposants, ce serait un glissement dangereux pour la laïcité de l’État et un net recul pour les droits des femmes.

On utilise souvent le mot polygamie pour parler de la polygynie, c’est-à-dire le mariage d’un homme avec plusieurs femmes. En réalité, polygamie est un terme général qui signifie simplement « mariage entre plusieurs personnes », sans préciser le sexe.

La polygynie (un homme avec plusieurs femmes) est de loin la forme la plus répandue, au point où elle a fini par devenir l’usage courant du mot « polygamie ». L’inverse – une femme mariée à plusieurs hommes, la polyandrie – est extrêmement rare. C’est pourquoi, dans la langue commune, les termes « polygamie » et « polygynie » sont souvent utilisés comme synonymes.

En tant que spécialiste de l’Asie centrale, professeure de science politique à l’Université Nazarbayev au Kazakhstan et chercheure en résidence au CÉRIUM de l’Université de Montréal (UdeM), je m’intéresse depuis longtemps aux questions de genre et de religion en Asie centrale. Ayant grandi en milieu rural au Québec, j’ai développé une passion pour cette région lors de mes études de baccalauréat à l’UdeM. Mes recherches doctorales à l’Université d’Ottawa sur le renouveau religieux au Tadjikistan m’ont emmenée à être confrontée à des situations cocasses liées à mon genre et à mon statut marital. À la suite de cette expérience de terrain et à mon déménagement au Kazakhstan en 2016, je me suis davantage intéressée aux dynamiques de genre.

Autrefois pratiquée par les nomades

Au Kazakhstan, la polygynie, qui était pratiquée traditionnellement parmi les populations nomades, est devenue un crime à l’époque soviétique, mais a été décriminalisée en 1998. Cependant, elle n’a pas été légalisée. Dans l’état actuel des choses, un homme ne peut pas être légalement marié à plus d’une femme, mais rien dans la loi n’interdit la « bigamie » et « polygamie » comme c’est le cas dans de nombreux pays, dont le Canada.

Le tokalisme à nouveau à la mode ? Qui sont ceux qui prennent des secondes femmes, et comment procèdent-ils ? Photo tirée de la chaîne YouTube du Parti populaire du Kazakhstan ayant organisé une discussion entre experts sur le thème de la légalisation.
YouTube

Ceci fait en sorte que la polygynie tend à florir dans cet état laïc, mais majoritairement de culture musulmane : environ 6 % des hommes kazakhs seraient aujourd’hui engagés dans une relation polygyne, soit trois fois plus qu’il y a 10 ans. En l’absence de loi régulant ces mariages, les époux souhaitant se marier (incluant ceux qui sont peu pratiquants), se tournent vers la mosquée pour obtenir la bénédiction d’un imam. Leur union est alors reconnue devant Dieu, mais n’a aucune valeur aux yeux de la loi.

Cette situation, passée presque inaperçue au moment où les autorités entamaient de grandes réformes législatives visant à désoviétiser le système judiciaire, est loin de faire consensus. Pour les uns, elle signe une islamisation rampante de la société et pour d’autres, elle illustre la superficialité des liens matrimoniaux.

Je présente ici les grandes lignes de ce débat qui mêle religion, égalité des hommes et des femmes et dynamiques familiales.

Tentatives ratées de légalisation

À trois reprises, des politiciens kazakhs ont proposé, sans succès, de légaliser la polygynie en modifiant la loi sur la famille et le mariage ; en 2001, en 2008 et plus récemment en novembre au moment où Abzal Kuspan, un député de la chambre basse du Parlement, le Majilis, est revenu avec une proposition de légaliser « l’institution de la tokal » au pays, un terme utilisé au Kazakhstan pour désigner la deuxième femme.

L’un des arguments avancés pour justifier ce changement est, qu’on le veuille ou non, ce type d’union est très répandu et que les femmes au sein de ces unions ne bénéficient d’aucune protection légale en cas de divorce.

Signe de l’islamisation de la société ?

Comme elle est permise en Islam, l’idée que la polygynie est une manifestation de la croissance de la religiosité au pays est très répandue. Cependant, le phénomène est loin d’être limité aux communautés pratiquantes.

Dans le cadre de mes recherches, parmi les 16 individus en situation polygyne interrogés dans différentes régions du Kazakhstan, un seul se disait pratiquant alors que les autres s’identifiaient comme musulmans, mais ne respectaient pas plusieurs règles comme la prière quotidienne et l’abstinence d’alcool.

Les résultats d’un sondage que j’ai commandé en 2019 montrent aussi que le soutien à la polygynie reste très faible parmi les Kazakhs musulmans. Pour ses opposants, cette pratique constitue surtout une violation du caractère séculier de l’État.

Le Kazakhstan a hérité de l’Union soviétique un état séculier où la séparation de la religion et de l’État est très prononcée et la majorité de la population est de confession musulmane, mais où la pratique rigoureuse de l’Islam est marginale.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Une menace aux droits de femmes ?

D’autres s’opposent à la légalisation pour des raisons d’égalité des sexes. De façon générale, les études montrent que là où la polygynie est permise, les femmes se retrouvent dans des positions d’infériorité structurelle.

Au Kazakhstan, ce discours est aussi très présent. Chaque initiative de légalisation a provoqué de vives discussions au sein de la société. Des femmes d’influence, dont des parlementaires, se sont prononcées et ont proposé que ces mesures s’accompagnent également d’une légalisation de la polyandrie, invoquant le principe d’égalité entre les sexes. Au sein d’une société encore largement patriarcale, cette idée a cependant peu de chances de se concrétiser. Symptôme de ces inégalités, les « tokals » sont souvent perçues comme des femmes opportunistes cherchant un mariage fortuné pour échapper au travail. Cependant, mes recherches révèlent une réalité plus nuancée : il s’agit souvent de femmes divorcées cherchant une relation amoureuse qui leur procure une certaine autonomie, notamment en leur permettant de s’affranchir de l’influence, souvent très exigeante, de la belle-famille.

Bien que l’idée de légaliser la polygynie soit présentée comme une mesure visant à « protéger » les femmes, elle s’apparente plutôt à une pente glissante : une telle réforme s’inscrirait dans un contexte marqué par des inégalités économiques et sociales structurelles, et ne ferait que renforcer la dépendance des femmes envers les hommes. D’ailleurs, le taux de divorce est très élevé au Kazakhstan et les femmes divorcées peinent déjà à faire respecter le paiement des pensions alimentaires par leur ancien conjoint. Rien ne permet d’espérer qu’il en serait autrement pour les « tokals » et leurs enfants.

Hélène Thibault ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Au Kazakhstan, le débat brûlant sur le mariage polygame – https://theconversation.com/au-kazakhstan-le-debat-brulant-sur-le-mariage-polygame-270505

January 19, 2026

Un año de Donald Trump: así ha reordenado el tablero global

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Aurken Sierra Iso, Ayudante Doctor, Departamento de Comunicación Pública, Universidad de Navarra

Donald Trump recibe a Benjamin Netanyahu, primer ministro israelí, en la Casa Blanca (7 de abril de 2025). noamgalai/Shutterstock

En su primer año de regreso a la Casa Blanca, Donald Trump ha dado un giro profundo en la política exterior de Estados Unidos. Su estilo –decisiones rápidas, mensajes contundentes y una ejecución que a menudo roza los límites institucionales– ha reordenado prioridades y ha devuelto al centro del debate ideas que parecían superadas. Entre ellas, la lógica de las esferas de influencia, un concepto propio del siglo XIX que reaparece bajo nuevas formas.

Trump ha reivindicado abiertamente la Doctrina Monroe, que en el siglo XIX defendía que el hemisferio occidental debía quedar libre de injerencias europeas. El presidente la ha rebautizado como “Donroe Doctrine”, una versión ampliada que presenta a Estados Unidos como garante exclusivo de la seguridad en América. La idea conecta con un marco más amplio: un mundo dividido en grandes espacios dominados por potencias regionales.

Sus decisiones y declaraciones no solo han modificado la acción exterior estadounidense sino que han obligado al resto de actores internacionales a reaccionar constantemente ante los cambios de rumbo de Washington. Según esta lógica, el mundo se organiza en áreas de influencia y Estados Unidos, como “hegemón” del hemisferio occidental, tendría legitimidad para actuar libremente dentro de su región.

Esferas de influencia: de Schmitt a China

Esta noción recuerda al concepto de “gran espacio” (Großraum) formulado por el filósofo alemán Carl Schmitt, quien defendía que el orden internacional se organiza en torno a potencias que ejercen influencia sobre regiones enteras.

Aunque Schmitt es una figura polémica por su vinculación con el nazismo, su teoría ha sido recuperada indirectamente por algunos intelectuales chinos para explicar el ascenso del país y su papel en Asia-Pacífico. Estudios recientes analizan cómo China articula su influencia mediante inversión, diplomacia y presencia militar en su entorno regional.

Este enfoque también sirve para cuestionar la tesis del politólogo Francis Fukuyama, quien en los años noventa afirmó que la caída de la URSS suponía el “fin de la historia” y la victoria definitiva del liberalismo. La evolución de China, Rusia y ahora Estados Unidos apunta más bien a un retorno de la competencia entre grandes potencias.

La visión estadounidense quedó plasmada en la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de 2025, que consolida un reparto del mundo en bloques: Estados Unidos en el hemisferio occidental, Rusia en su vecindad inmediata y China en Asia-Pacífico.

El documento supone una ruptura con el orden liberal de la posguerra, basado en reglas universales e instituciones multilaterales, y apuesta por una lógica más territorial y jerárquica.

De Monroe a “Donroe”: exclusividad hemisférica en clave siglo XXI

La política exterior de Trump se ha movido en coordenadas similares a las chinas, aunque con fundamentos distintos. Dos episodios recientes ilustran esta lógica: la intervención estadounidense en Venezuela y el interés por la posible compra o anexión de Groenlandia bajo el pretexto de la seguridad nacional. Ambos casos se basan en la idea de que Estados Unidos tiene derecho a actuar libremente dentro de su área de influencia.

Pero no solo tenemos esos dos ejemplos, en este último año ha habido más acciones, como los ataques contra presuntos barcos narcotraficantes en el Caribe, la presión sobre Panamá por la gestión del canal que Trump quiere recuperar, nuevas sanciones a Nicaragua y restricciones más estrictas a Cuba o el refuerzo de su relación con Nayib Bukele en El Salvador a cambio de cooperación en materia migratoria.

Todas estas acciones responden a una misma idea: Estados Unidos tiene derecho a actuar libremente dentro de su área de influencia y a impedir la presencia estratégica de potencias externas. La “Donroe Doctrine” formaliza esta visión y la convierte en eje de la política exterior estadounidense.

El choque entre la agenda internacional y las expectativas internas

Sin embargo, esta estrategia exterior no puede entenderse sin mirar hacia dentro. La dialéctica de la administración Trump contrasta con las prioridades de muchos de los votantes que lo llevaron a la Casa Blanca en 2024. Su apoyo se cimentó en un diagnóstico claro: las administraciones anteriores habían traicionado al estadounidense medio.

Según la retórica del presidente, la globalización desindustrializó el país, amplió las brechas sociales y fortaleció a rivales estratégicos. Las élites –tanto republicanas como demócratas– habrían ignorado estos problemas, provocando el empobrecimiento del ciudadano común.

Por eso, la viabilidad política de la “Doctrina Donroe” se medirá en las elecciones de medio mandato. Trump controla los tres poderes del Estado, pero su mayoría en la Cámara de Representantes es extraordinariamente estrecha –la más exigua en casi un siglo–. El éxito de su agenda internacional sólo será valorado positivamente si los votantes perciben mejoras en su calidad de vida. Si la economía se resiente o el poder adquisitivo cae, los frutos de este intento de reordenar el sistema internacional habrá que buscarlos en otro lugar.

Mientras tanto, conviene seguir a quienes han analizado conceptualmente este viraje –entre ellos, el escritor y economista estadounidense Benn Steil– para entender un cambio que, por primera vez en décadas, no se limita a la retórica, sino que reconfigura el reparto real de poder.

Aurken Sierra Iso no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Un año de Donald Trump: así ha reordenado el tablero global – https://theconversation.com/un-ano-de-donald-trump-asi-ha-reordenado-el-tablero-global-273869

January 19, 2026

Personalismo a lo grande: claves para entender la presidencia de Donald Trump a lo largo de este primer año de mandato

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ana Sofía Cardenal Izquierdo, Profesora de Ciencia Política, UOC – Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

Un año después de la llegada de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca, ya no se trata de especular sobre promesas de campaña ni de anticipar escenarios posibles. Su presidencia ofrece un primer balance tangible de decisiones, ritmos y efectos que permite separar con nitidez lo que era previsible de lo inesperado, y, sobre todo, evaluar qué implicaciones tiene este primer año de gobierno para la coalición política que lo sostiene.

Lo que podía esperarse

Desde el inicio era previsible una presidencia marcada por la confrontación directa con los principales contrapesos del sistema democrático estadounidense. Trump ha mantenido y profundizado una política de hostigamiento sistemático contra los medios críticos, la justicia y aquellas instituciones con capacidad contramayoritaria. El Congreso, especialmente, ha quedado relegado a un papel secundario, cuando no irrelevante, lo que algunos analistas han identificado como el principal problema de la extralimitación presidencial.

Esta dinámica no responde a episodios aislados ni a impulsos erráticos, sino a una lógica coherente de concentración de poder. La deslegitimación de los medios hostiles, la presión sobre jueces y fiscales y la normalización del ataque a organismos reguladores forman parte de una estrategia deliberada de debilitamiento de los contrapesos institucionales.

También era esperable la utilización patrimonialista del Estado. Trump no ha roto con su pasado empresarial, sino que lo ha integrado en el ejercicio de la presidencia, difuminando de forma sistemática la frontera entre interés público e interés privado y persiguiendo sin disimulo su enriquecimiento y el de su familia. La confusión entre gobierno y negocio no es un efecto colateral, sino un rasgo estructural de su forma de entender el poder.

Asimismo, Trump ha gobernado claramente para los grupos que lo llevaron al poder. Su agenda –económica, cultural y política– responde de manera directa a las demandas de su base electoral y de los actores organizados que la articulan: desregulación, recortes del Estado, políticas migratorias restrictivas y una concepción mayoritaria y plebiscitaria del mandato democrático. Todo ello encaja con su talante político y con las señales emitidas durante la campaña.

Por último, lejos de un discurso genuinamente antiélite, su presidencia ha consolidado una alianza pragmática con grandes corporaciones, en particular con el sector tecnológico. Más que regular su poder, el Ejecutivo ha optado por instrumentalizarlo.

Lo que no se esperaba (al menos no en esta magnitud)

Si algo ha sorprendido incluso a quienes anticipaban una presidencia disruptiva ha sido la velocidad y la intensidad del cambio. En apenas meses se han sucedido decisiones de enorme calado: el papel central de DOGE –el Departamento de Eficiencia Gubernamental–, el desmantelamiento de amplias capas de la administración pública, recortes masivos de empleo público, el debilitamiento de la cooperación internacional, la imposición de aranceles y el endurecimiento extremo de las deportaciones.

La rapidez no ha sido accidental. Ha funcionado como una estrategia política en sí misma, reduciendo la capacidad de reacción de actores institucionales, judiciales y sociales. Gobernar deprisa ha sido una forma de gobernar sin oposición efectiva y es también una estrategia típica de autócratas decididos a desarticular a la oposición y consolidar su poder.

También ha resultado inesperada la profundidad del giro en política exterior. El lema Make America Great Again –Hagamos América grande de nuevo– parecía apuntar a una retirada del escenario internacional y a una vuelta al aislacionismo. Las primeras decisiones –el distanciamiento de organismos multilaterales, el debilitamiento de la ONU, el desmantelamiento de USAID (Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional)…– reforzaron esa lectura. Sin embargo, el balance del primer año sugiere otra cosa.

No estamos ante una retirada del mundo, sino ante una redefinición del papel de Estados Unidos en términos más cercanos a una lógica imperial que a una potencia de poder blando.

Trump no renuncia a la proyección internacional; rechaza el multilateralismo y apuesta por relaciones bilaterales coercitivas, delimitación explícita de esferas de influencia y control de recursos estratégicos clave para la competición tecnológica global. La reactivación implícita de una doctrina tipo Monroe marca un cambio profundo y poco anticipado.

Especialmente inquietante ha sido, además, la centralidad de los aparatos coercitivos del Estado. El papel de ICE –el Servicio de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas de los Estados Unidos– como brazo ejecutor de la política migratoria, con amplios márgenes de discrecionalidad e impunidad, y el uso creciente de la Guardia Nacional apuntan a la conformación de cuerpos de fuerza altamente leales al Ejecutivo.

Y alarmante es también el potencial despliegue de soldados del ejército en Minneapolis, tras las protestas por el asesinato de Renee Good. La historia comparada muestra que muchos regímenes autoritarios consolidan su poder mediante fuerzas coercitivas personalistas; la analogía no es mecánica, pero el paralelismo resulta difícil de ignorar.

Quizá lo más inesperado por inquietante ha sido la debilidad de los contrapesos. El Congreso ha quedado prácticamente ausente, el Tribunal Supremo ha avalado mayoritariamente las decisiones presidenciales y los medios, aunque más resistentes, muestran una capacidad limitada de freno. Universidades, algunas voces aisladas en el Senado y, de forma creciente, el presidente de la Reserva Federal, Jerome Powell, aparecen como focos dispersos de resistencia institucional.

El impacto sobre su base de apoyo

El efecto de este primer año sobre la base de Trump es ambivalente. Su coalición es amplia, heterogénea y en buena medida instrumental, lo que hace improbable una reacción uniforme.

A corto plazo, su núcleo más leal sale reforzado. La confrontación constante y la narrativa de asedio alimentan un vínculo emocional que interpreta cada choque institucional como prueba de autenticidad. Para esta base dura, Trump no solo gobierna: combate. Aunque el núcleo duro de apoyo a Trump es altamente resistente incluso ante acusaciones graves, los sondeos muestran que su manejo del escándalo de Jeffrey Epstein es uno de los pocos temas en los que su aprobación entre republicanos se desploma por debajo de su respaldo habitual. Esta fractura –moderada pero real– sugiere que una serie de revelaciones más comprometedoras sobre su implicación en las redes de Epstein podría comenzar a erosionar, al menos parcialmente, la fidelidad de su base más leal.

Más ambiguo es el efecto sobre las élites económicas. Aunque muchas se han beneficiado de la desregulación y de un Estado menos intervencionista, la imprevisibilidad, el uso político de los aranceles y la inestabilidad internacional introducen costes crecientes. No se trata aún de una ruptura, pero sí de una relación más tensa.

Entre las clases medias y trabajadoras, el apoyo depende cada vez más del equilibrio entre incentivos simbólicos y efectos materiales. Los recortes en empleo público, la inflación o el deterioro de servicios pueden erosionar progresivamente ese respaldo, especialmente allí donde los costes se hacen visibles. Habrá que estar atentos a sus efectos en este sector menos leal a Trump del electorado.

Por último, sectores institucionales y tecnocráticos muestran una incomodidad creciente. El conflicto con la Reserva Federal, la politización de la administración y el uso discrecional del aparato coercitivo tensionan a actores que valoran la estabilidad por encima de la confrontación ideológica.

Qué conviene observar

Más que fijarse solo en índices de aprobación –que también–, conviene estar muy atentos a señales indirectas: cambios en el discurso de grandes donantes y empresas, silencios estratégicos y voces discordantes dentro del Partido Republicano, eventuales desacuerdos en el Tribunal Supremo, la actitud de la Reserva Federal y la evolución del encuadre mediático en medios tradicionalmente afines.

El primer año de Trump no habla solo de Trump. Habla de la capacidad –o incapacidad– del sistema político estadounidense para resistir una presidencia que tensiona deliberadamente sus límites formales e informales. Incluso si su apoyo electoral se erosionara, muchas de las transformaciones impulsadas podrían perdurar más allá de su figura. En ese sentido, este primer año no parece un paréntesis, sino el inicio de una reconfiguración más profunda del orden político estadounidense.

Ana Sofía Cardenal Izquierdo no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Personalismo a lo grande: claves para entender la presidencia de Donald Trump a lo largo de este primer año de mandato – https://theconversation.com/personalismo-a-lo-grande-claves-para-entender-la-presidencia-de-donald-trump-a-lo-largo-de-este-primer-ano-de-mandato-273873

January 19, 2026

¿Son las relaciones abiertas y el poliamor la ‘solución’ a la infidelidad?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Jorge Barraca, Profesor de Psicología, Universidad Camilo José Cela

La infidelidad ya no es solo aquello que ocurre a escondidas en sábanas ajenas. Aunque las definiciones científicas clásicas la asocian al sexo o al vínculo amoroso fuera de una relación comprometida y “exclusiva”, esa frontera empieza a difuminarse. Hoy, el propio concepto de exclusividad –durante décadas indiscutido– está en el centro del debate.

Las parejas abiertas, poliamorosas y, en general, las que mantienen relaciones no monogámicas consensuadas –estos términos no son realmente equivalentes y pueden indicar diferentes tipos de acuerdos en la relación, aunque aquí se tomarán indistintamente, pues se plantea una comparación entre formas convencionales de relación (monogamia) y el resto– harían saltar por los aires esta conceptualización. ¿Podríamos suponer entonces que no deberían sufrir nunca una infidelidad?

De acuerdo con la psicoterapeuta estadounidense experta en el campo de las relaciones sentimentales Esther Perel, las infidelidades siempre reúnen tres componentes: secretismo, alquimia sexual e implicación emocional.

Hay que tener presente que hablamos del sentimiento de infidelidad, más que de unos hechos objetivos que podrían concurrir en el caso. Si se aceptan estas premisas, es posible que los miembros de una pareja abierta sufran, igual que los de una monogámica, este tipo de sentimiento. Pues aunque admitirían el deseo sexual hacia otra persona –e incluso cierto grado de implicación afectiva en el poliamor–, si este se oculta o no se explicita estaría produciéndose un engaño equivalente al de la infidelidad convencional.

“Sexo sí, pero nada de quedar luego”

Y, muchas veces, esa es la cuestión: por una u otra razón no se cumplen las reglas o los acuerdos establecidos en una pareja poliamorosa y que podrían ir del “sexo sí, pero nada de quedar luego” al “tengo que saberlo primero”, el “tengo que conocerla/o antes”, el “solo teniendo un encuentro, no repetidos” o “sin intercambio de mensajes”.

Estas y tantas otras normas tratan de ayudar a controlar los celos, los sentimientos de distanciamiento, la pérdida de una relación privilegiada frente a otras personas. O sea que, frente al acuerdo, normalmente tácito, de la relación tradicional (no hay sexo fuera de la pareja), en la pareja abierta ese pacto sería siempre explícito y más detallado.

Sin embargo, aunque se hayan establecido unas normas, ¿resulta posible desprenderse de los sentimientos de posesividad cuando la pareja está manteniendo relaciones sexuales con otra persona? Esta cuestión reabre el viejo tema de si la monogamia es algo natural para la especie humana o, únicamente, producto de las estructuras sociales, de nuestra inculturación. Probablemente, este debate sea tan estéril como tantos otros en los que se contrapone el nuture-narture (lo innato frente a lo aprendido).

Como afirma el/la psicólogo/a y activista Meg-John Barker, “la manera en que conformamos una relación está influida por una compleja red de factores biológicos, psicológicos y sociales que resulta imposible de desenredar”.

La clave está en cómo manejar el deseo

Indudablemente, el deseo o impulso sexual es algo natural, pero cómo lo manejemos y hacia dónde lo dirijamos es algo que no puede desvincularse de nuestra educación. Ocurre lo mismo con el apetito y la necesidad de comer: lo innato es el impulso por nutrirnos, pero lo trascendemos y creamos el arte gastronómico. Plantear, por tanto, que somos polígamos por naturaleza, por razones evolutivas, por impulsos biológicos o por pulsiones primarias siempre va a ser objeto de un debate simplificador.

En el libro Infidelidad. Una mirada contextual he planteado que esta es multicausal y dependiente del contexto. Que es reduccionista achacarla tanto a la propia forma de ser del “infiel” (su personalidad, impulsividad, problemas psicológicos, autoestima, niveles hormonales, deseo y frustración sexual, mala gestión emocional…) como a su educación y aprendizajes, a la mala relación con la pareja actual o a las experiencias con las anteriores, a las oportunidades disponibles, al consumo de alcohol u otras sustancias, al atractivo de la tercera persona o al ambiente en el que se está.

El fenómeno tiene que ver con todos estos factores y también con muchos otros, en un marco vital determinado y en un momento dado. Solo ese amplio análisis puede darnos una pintura acabada y, naturalmente, nada de esto es exclusivo de las parejas monógamas.

Dado que en las parejas poliamorosas la infidelidad se entendería como la ruptura de los consensos y las reglas sobre cuándo o cómo mantener otras relaciones sexuales, es difícil compararlo con la de las tradicionales y no hay estudios propiamente dichos sobre el malestar que provoca.

Sin embargo, algunas investigaciones sobre satisfacción con la pareja apuntan a que las relaciones abiertas serían igual de gratificantes que las monogámicas. No obstante, hay una notable controversia sobre su continuidad o estabilidad, pues varios trabajos señalan que estas parejas se enfrentan a un mayor esfuerzo emocional, comunicativo y de gestión de tiempo; y también a dificultades externas (el estigma social y el rechazo en un contexto cultural mononormativo).

Con todo, la escasa bibliografía que existe al respecto no permite extraer conclusiones certeras. Por otro lado, siempre resultará cuestionable si el consenso es semejante para las dos personas o una se está plegando a los deseos de la otra en aras de perpetuar la relación.

Además, de acuerdo con las manifestaciones de los participantes en las encuestas, los practicantes de las relaciones poliamorosas se identifican predominantemente con un tipo muy determinado de perfil (jóvenes, bisexuales, votantes de izquierda y agnósticos o ateos).

Manejo de emociones e infidelidad

En suma, las parejas poliamorosas podrían tener tantas dificultades en el manejo de sus emociones sobre la infidelidad como el resto. Seguramente, no las mismas, pero de lo que se trata es de entender que no se puede escapar de la infidelidad sencillamente optando por una forma de relación de pareja. La atracción de la transgresión de las normas es universal y las habilidades comunicativas, la asertividad, la templanza, el coraje para decir la verdad de lo que se siente nunca puede garantizarse, por muy comprometido que se esté con un modelo relacional.

Al fin, parece que no deja de ser verdad el viejo adagio: cambiar de pareja (o, en este caso, de estilo de pareja) no supone dejar de tener problemas, solo supone cambiar de problemas.

Jorge Barraca no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. ¿Son las relaciones abiertas y el poliamor la ‘solución’ a la infidelidad? – https://theconversation.com/son-las-relaciones-abiertas-y-el-poliamor-la-solucion-a-la-infidelidad-266413

January 19, 2026

The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illnesses?

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrea DeKeseredy, PhD student, Sociology, University of Alberta

The death of Prashant Sreekumar made headlines across Canada when the 43-year-old father of three died in the emergency room of Edmonton’s Grey Nuns hospital after waiting for eight hours with chest pains.

Recently, there have been other reports of preventable deaths in Alberta ERs. Alberta doctors have called the emergency room situation a disaster, citing a tsunami of seasonal respiratory illnesses that have overwhelmed hospitals and led to crowded emergency departments.

Widespread vaccination for common respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19 and the flu, would help to relieve the pressure on hospitals. Yet vaccination rates for seasonal illness are falling across Canada. Our research shows that conflicting messages across levels of government and skepticism about whether the vaccines work may be helping to fuel the emergency-room surge.

This winter is not the first bad virus season in Alberta, nor is it the first time we’ve seen patients die waiting for care. During the 2022-23 viral illness season, a “tripledemic” of viruses rolled across the country, as COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) circulated simultaneously.

Our research showed how this tripledemic also slammed working parents trying to maintain their jobs while they and their children were infected over and over again.

This year could prove even worse. The 2025-26 season marks a new height in influenza cases, rising above a three-season high. Hospitals across the country have been flooded with patients, and burnt-out health-care workers have been putting in extra shifts.

Despite all of this — and the overwhelming research that shows influenza vaccines keep people out of the hospital — fewer Canadians are getting vaccinated. With declining seasonal vaccination rates each year, Canada now falls far short of the vaccination coverage needed to protect at-risk groups such as seniors or people with chronic illness, which is 80 per cent.

Who do Canadians trust on health care?

Our research explored parental decision-making in Alberta during the tripledemic to understand why, or why not, people get themselves and their kids vaccinated for COVID-19 and influenza. Using Viewpoint Alberta survey data, we found that who parents trust and the messages governments provide around vaccination strongly influence whether they and their kids get shots.

During the pandemic, parents in Alberta faced conflicting messages from governments. Despite the promotion of vaccination by the federal government and public health agencies, the provincial United Conservative Party government took a strong stance against enforcing COVID-19 protective measures. For those who trusted the provincial government, this essentially negated any pro-vaccination messaging provided by other institutions.

Our study found that those who trusted the federal government as a source of health information were more likely to have vaccinated their children for COVID-19 than those who supported the Alberta government’s messaging. The same was true for those who trusted Alberta Health Services and the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Those who placed their trust in the elected UCP government had much lower vaccination rates.

Trust is important, but it’s not the only factor keeping seasonal vaccination rates low. The question of who is perceived to benefit from vaccination also shaped parents’ decisions.

Are seasonal vaccines worth the trouble?

In addition to looking at survey data, we also interviewed parents to better understand how they made their decisions regarding seasonal vaccination for themselves and their children.

We were surprised to learn that after repeated viral illness infections, parents were actually less likely to vaccinate their children. Persistent illness contributed to a sense that infection was both inevitable and mild, often not even worth preventing. Some parents were also skeptical of the novelty of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to more established vaccinations, despite assurances from health-care professionals.

These parents did not hold “anti-vaxxer” beliefs; instead they believed that viral illness season was inevitable, and of little risk to themselves and their children. On top of this, the struggle to balance work and child care already made it difficult for many families to get vaccinated. Because the vaccine didn’t prevent infections altogether, many parents believed it was not worth the added effort.

Canada needs a new approach

Canada does not have the resources to continue this yearly severe illness cycle. Without better uptake of seasonal vaccines, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes year after year, resulting in more needless deaths and health system crises.

Clear and consistent messaging is key, and the messages of provincial leaders must match those of the federal government. Our research shows that all levels of government have a role to play in building public trust in seasonal vaccines, and in making sure those shots are accessible to everyone. Vaccines must be available freely, widely and early, without pre-booking and payment requirements.

The tragedy of patients dying while waiting for care in a busy emergency room illustrates the dangers of overcrowded facilities. Higher vaccination rates could help prevent respiratory illnesses from overwhelming hospitals. Our governments need to step up and step forward to build public trust and accessibility for seasonal vaccines.

Andrea DeKeseredy receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Michelle Maroto receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Amy Kaler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The flu is everywhere. So why aren’t Canadians getting vaccinated for viral illnesses? – https://theconversation.com/the-flu-is-everywhere-so-why-arent-canadians-getting-vaccinated-for-viral-illnesses-273354

January 19, 2026

What Canada can learn from Mexico’s approach to U.S. trade

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Wolfgang Alschner, Hyman Soloway Chair in Business and Trade Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

When United States President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico in early 2025, the two countries reacted very differently. Canada led with an “elbows up” campaign involving counter-tariffs and boycotts of American alcohol.

Mexico, by contrast, struck a more conciliatory tone and cautiously started to align its trade policy with the U.S. As Canada prepares for a turbulent 2026, Mexico’s experience offers valuable lessons.

Both Mexico and Canada depend heavily on trade with the U.S: both send three-quarters of their exports there. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) underpins tariff-free access to the U.S. for most North American goods. But the deal is in jeopardy.

The U.S. alleges Mexico and Canada are being used as trans-shipment hubs for Chinese goods. These tensions will come to a head in July 2026 when CUSMA is up for review.

Mexico’s calibrated response

To pre-empt American concerns, Mexico has begun cautiously aligning with U.S. trade policy. As early as 2023, it pledged to work with the U.S. on foreign investment screening to address security issues around rising Chinese investment.

In late December 2025, Mexico followed up by raising tariffs on 1,400 Chinese items to between 35 to 50 per cent, including in sectors like electric vehicles and steel.

It would be wrong to dismiss these measures as capitulations to American demands. Instead, Mexico has cleverly navigated trade tensions with the U.S. while protecting its own values and interests. Mexico’s latest duty increases aim to protect domestic industries and counteract trade imbalances with China.

By raising duties only in select sectors, Mexico avoided putting duties on everyday consumer goods, which have driven up prices in the U.S. In addition, while the U.S. is imposing tariffs on friends and foes alike, the Mexican tariffs explicitly exempt countries with which it has free-trade agreements, supporting its broader trade diversification agenda.

Unlike the U.S. tariffs, which violate international trade law, Mexico’s measures are also fully consistent with its international obligations. As a developing country, Mexico committed to higher tariff ceilings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) than the U.S. This allows it to unilaterally raise tariffs up to the maximum levels permitted under international trade law.

Although China has criticized the move, Mexico’s non-discriminatory application of tariffs to all non-FTA partners avoids singling out any specific country and is legal.

Alignment without subordination

Mexico’s strategy offers a template for aligning with the U.S. without sacrificing sovereignty or respect for the rule of law. It is a far cry from a full North American customs union that some hope to achieve as part of the upcoming CUSMA review, which would unduly tie Mexican and Canadian trade policy to the whims of Washington, D.C.

It also demonstrates Mexico’s ability to walk the tight rope of seeking common ground with the U.S. while diversifying its trade and protecting its industry.

It is also superior to alternative ways of aligning with the U.S. Deals struck by the U.S. with Malaysia and Cambodia committed these countries to aligning with American import restrictions and export controls whenever it is in the U.S. national interest, effectively forcing them to forgo an autonomous trade policy altogether.

Canada also learned its lesson when it copied an illegal 100 per cent U.S. tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, only to face both U.S. auto tariffs and Chinese retaliation the following year.

Smartly, Ottawa has now partially reversed course by agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market at a tariff rate of 6.1 per cent. In return, China is expected to lower tariffs on Canadian canola to 15 per cent by March.

What Canada should do differently

In 2026, Canada will feel growing pressure to align with some U.S. trade-restrictive measures and, like Mexico, should do so smartly. Unlike Mexico, Canada has lower tariff bindings and cannot raise import duties without violating its commitments. Canada needs a bespoke approach, similar to Mexico’s, but implemented differently.

First, Canada should renegotiate its tariff bindings at the WTO in sectors critical to its industrial base. The European Union, for example, is preparing to increase its tariffs on imported steel by renegotiating its bindings at the WTO. This would provide a long-term solution offering predictability for both the affected Canadian sectors and trading partners and would be fully lawful.

In the steel sector, this route is preferable to the current Canadian tariff-rate quota regime, which is both WTO-illegal and hitting Canada’s closest free-trade agreement partners hard.

Second, Canada should actively pursue safeguard measures in sectors affected by trade diversion. U.S. tariffs have closed off the American market and diverted goods to Canada.

Safeguards are WTO-compliant trade defence instruments explicitly designed to counteract an unexpected surge of imports threatening serious injury to a domestic industry. That scenario has already played out in the Canadian lumber and downstream industry and will likely affect other sectors subject to U.S. tariffs.

Third, using the recent rapprochement with China as a blueprint, Canada should strive for similarly nuanced solutions in future partnerships. Rather than dropping electric vehicle tariffs altogether, Canada has negotiated a compromise that let some Chinese vehicles in, but not enough to endanger either its domestic auto-sector or relations with the U.S.

As U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer recently stated, the U.S. is not asking its trading partners to mirror its trade policy. Rather, it’s looking for “similar trade actions” with “equivalent restrictive effect.”

This pragmatic formulation allowed Mexico to have its cake and eat it too: selectively align with the U.S. in key sectors to preserve its market access, protect domestic industries from trade diversion and avoid upsetting key trading partners elsewhere through WTO-illegal actions. Canada would be wise to follow Mexico’s lead. The recent China deal is a step in the right direction.

Wolfgang Alschner has received research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. What Canada can learn from Mexico’s approach to U.S. trade – https://theconversation.com/what-canada-can-learn-from-mexicos-approach-to-u-s-trade-273101

January 19, 2026

Spain high-speed train crash: signalling vulnerabilities could be key to understanding the accident

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Carlos Gutiérrez Hita, Profesor titular de Universidad. Economía industrial (transporte, energía, telecomunicaciones), Universidad Miguel Hernández

A tragic accident on the high-speed train line between Andalusia and Madrid has exposed the urgent need to upgrade Spain’s railway system.

At 19:45 on Sunday January 18, a modern Iryo high-speed train collided with a Renfe train at the switch (turnout) leading into Adamuz station in Córdoba province, Andalusia. The Iryo 6189 service, travelling from Málaga to Madrid, had registered for the track change, but the current information is that the last three carriages literally jumped over the diverted switch that gives access to the track adjacent to the platform, leaving the main track clear.

This caused the last three carriages to derail and collide with the Renfe Alvia 2384 service, which was travelling in the opposite direction from Madrid to Huelva. The collision was violent, though the combined speed of the two trains is still unknown.

Rail liberalisation in Spain

The Spanish passenger rail market was opened up to new competitors in May 2021, but until early 2023 the only trains permitted to run on the Andalusia-Madrid corridor were those operated by the state-owned company Renfe. The reason was that the blocking and safety system on these tracks had not been updated.

Following pressure from new operators OUIGO (owned by French state-owned company SNCF) and Iryo (owned by Trenitalia and its Spanish partners AirNostrum and Globalia), which were already active on the Madrid-Barcelona and Madrid-Levante routes, the Andalusian route was opened up to competitors. This increased the frequency of services and expanded the choice available to users.

The high-speed line from Madrid to Andalusia was inaugurated in 1992, making it the oldest in Spain. Although it has been improved and upgraded in several areas, its safety systems are in urgent need of renovation.

Signalling systems

Across the EU’s nearly 227,000km of railway tracks, there more than 25 different, non-interoperable train protection and signalling systems. These systems (the German LZB, the French Crocodile, the Italian BACC, the Spanish Asra, and so on) control and enable the safe movement of trains.

The German LZB (Linienzugbeeinflussung) signalling system remains in operation on the Andalusia-Madrid railway corridor, installed for the high-speed line. Although efficient, this system is surpassed by the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is already installed on the newest lines.

The ERTMS specifications come from European Union Council Directive 96/48/EC. The aim is for this trans-European system to completely replace national systems and be fully deployed throughout the EU by 2050. The intermediate target is for it to be in use by 2030 on the 51,000km of train lines that make up the nine main corridors of Europe’s core rail network.

In Spain, the new ERTMS system currently exists alongside the old LZB system, which modern trains “read” with a technical workaround known as Specific Transmission Modules (STMs).

Possible causes of the accident

The causes of the accident are still unclear, but it is unlikely to be a fault with the train for several reasons: the trains involved are modern and new, with little wear and tear, and the last technical inspection of the Iryo 6189 train had been carried out four days earlier. Inspections cover many things, including the condition of the wheel flanges, possible stress fractures, the different types of brakes, and so on.

As far as we know, the infrastructure at the point of the accident is also new, meaning the track geometry (curves, straight sections, slopes, ramps) should be in perfect condition. This leaves the possibility that the switch point may not have functioned properly.

At all intermediate stations that are not high-capacity, there are passing tracks or sidings where trains can park and let other trains pass that may be coming behind them and not stopping at that station.

The Iryo train unit was changing tracks to park. One possible hypothesis is that the switch mechanism initially worked correctly due to the signal sent by the LZB reading STM system, but that, for some reason, the switch point moved to the “straight” position prematurely. This would have caused the right wheel of the Iryo unit to collide, jumping over to the adjacent track due to centrifugal force and speed, in the opposite direction to the switch, towards the Renfe unit, which was travelling in the opposite direction. The Renfe train was dragged from the cab down to a currently unknown number of carriages, as can be seen in the images released.

Another possibility is that there was an object on the track, but this would have caused the train to derail from the front.

A deteriorating network

Spain’s high-speed railways, once an emblem of reliability, modernity and vision for the future, have gradually deteriorated. Delays have gone from being rare and brief to lengthy, which has led Renfe to withdraw its commitment to punctuality and ticket refunds. Ongoing incidents affecting the infrastructure managed by the state-owned company ADIF – involving overhead lines, brakes and couplings (such as in the tunnel connecting Madrid’s Atocha and Chamartín stations) – have also undermined user confidence.

Additionally, political ups and downs have prevented the development of a single, agreed-upon plan for the viability, modernisation and structure of the network, which would provide a safe means of transport to meet the growing demand for rail services instead of air travel for distances of up to 800-1,000 kilometres.

The reality is that at this moment there are at least 39 dead, dozens injured and a starkly poor impression of the Spanish railway system. Political and technical leaders must take responsibility, regardless of their ideologies and survival strategies. At stake is a transport system used by a growing number of people in the business and tourism sectors alike, and a major component of the country’s infrastructure.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Carlos Gutiérrez Hita receives funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, and from the Valencian regional Ministry of Education, Culture, Universities and Employment.

– ref. Spain high-speed train crash: signalling vulnerabilities could be key to understanding the accident – https://theconversation.com/spain-high-speed-train-crash-signalling-vulnerabilities-could-be-key-to-understanding-the-accident-273865