Core Viewpoint - The United States, under President Trump, has signed a memorandum to withdraw from 66 international organizations deemed "not in the interest of the U.S." This unprecedented unilateral action has drawn widespread criticism domestically and internationally, suggesting it will further isolate the U.S. and weaken its international credibility, negatively impacting global multilateral cooperation [1][2]. Group 1: Withdrawal Details - The organizations from which the U.S. is withdrawing include 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN organizations, covering various fields such as climate, immigration, energy, human rights, economic development, and legal cooperation [1]. - The White House claims these organizations operate against U.S. national interests and security, prioritizing globalism over core U.S. interests, or are inefficient in addressing important issues [1][2]. Group 2: Historical Context - This action is part of a broader trend of U.S. unilateralism, with previous withdrawals from significant agreements like the Paris Agreement, Iran nuclear deal, and World Health Organization during Trump's first term [2]. - Following Trump's return to office in 2025, the pace of withdrawals has accelerated, with a comprehensive review of U.S. relations with international organizations leading to the current list of 66 [2]. Group 3: Implications for Global Cooperation - The U.S. has shifted from selective engagement to systematic disengagement from multilateral cooperation, as evidenced by its absence from key international meetings and its failure to fulfill obligations under treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention [3]. - The trend of U.S. withdrawal is seen as a move to maintain its global hegemony, with international cooperation being contingent on U.S. interests [4]. Group 4: Domestic Political Factors - The withdrawal strategy aligns with domestic political motives, appealing to populist sentiments among certain voter groups, as the Trump administration seeks to externalize domestic issues and blame international organizations for economic and social problems [4][5]. Group 5: Economic Considerations - The U.S. views these withdrawals as a means to protect its economic interests and evade international responsibilities, aiming to redirect resources towards domestic industries and economic expansion [5]. - Critics argue that this approach undermines global economic stability and could lead to long-term negative consequences for the U.S. economy [6]. Group 6: Global Impact - The unilateral withdrawal is expected to exacerbate the U.S.'s international isolation and diminish its influence in critical areas such as climate change, where it will miss opportunities to shape global green industry standards [6][7]. - The actions taken by the U.S. are seen as damaging to the foundations of international cooperation, hindering the functioning of global governance systems and prompting concerns about the stability of international markets [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The United States, under President Trump, has decided to withdraw from 66 international organizations deemed "not in the interest of the United States," which has sparked widespread criticism domestically and internationally, potentially isolating the U.S. and undermining its global reputation [1][2]. Group 1: Withdrawal from International Organizations - The withdrawal includes 31 UN entities and 35 non-UN organizations, covering various fields such as climate, immigration, energy, human rights, and economic development [1]. - This action is part of a broader trend of unilateralism by the U.S., which has previously exited significant agreements like the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization [2]. - The U.S. State Department is continuing to evaluate its relationships with other international organizations, indicating the possibility of further withdrawals in the future [2]. Group 2: Impact on Global Cooperation - The U.S. withdrawal is seen as a significant setback for global cooperation, particularly in addressing issues like climate change, where the U.S. will miss out on participating in the establishment of global green industry rules [6][7]. - The actions taken by the U.S. are likely to disrupt the functioning of international governance systems, particularly the United Nations, which is already facing internal reform challenges [6][7]. Group 3: Domestic Political Implications - The "America First" policy is viewed as a strategy to cater to domestic populist sentiments, with the Trump administration using withdrawal from international agreements to deflect attention from internal issues [4]. - This approach is perceived as a means to consolidate support from conservative voters by blaming international organizations for domestic economic and social problems [4]. Group 4: Economic Considerations - The U.S. government claims that these withdrawals will save funds, but analysts argue that this reflects a reluctance to contribute to global public goods and a desire to focus resources on domestic economic protection [5]. - The withdrawal is also seen as a way for the U.S. to escape international regulations that may hinder its trade protectionist measures and unilateral sanctions [5].

美国再次"退群"将给全球治理带来挑战，不仅进一步阻碍全球应对气候变化等全球性议题的努力，还直 接弱化协调经贸社会发展等议题的多边机制。但事实终将证明，"美国优先"带来的将是"美国独行"，美 国将孤立于全世界。面对变局，国际社会唯有加速形成合力，共同持续推动全球治理各议题、各领域向 前发展，携手构建更加公正合理的全球治理体系。 （作者为中国人民大学国家发展与战略研究院副院长、国际关系学院教授） （文章来源：人民日报） 美国政府此次大规模"退群"，预示着美国单边主义外交政策的全面升级，暴露出美国外交已完全以所 谓"美国优先"为原则，驶入了"无利不起早"的自利轨道。 美国将要退出的这些国际组织，涉及气候治理、公共卫生、人权、教育文化、难民援助以及可持续发展 等众多全球治理领域，均被美国政府的自利盘算排除在外。一是，美国在对外事务上愈发追求自身利益 最大化，给世界提供公共产品不符合其私利。二是，随着"全球南方"崛起，新兴市场国家和发展中国家 在国际组织获得更多话语权，导致美国自认为"不划算"，甚至有了所谓"吃亏"心理。三是，面对中期选 举压力，特朗普政府更急迫地要推进内外极端议程，或转移国内矛盾点，或留住保守派选民。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The United States' decision to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN entities, represents a systematic undermining of global governance structures, reflecting a unilateral approach to international relations [1][2] Group 1: Impact on Global Governance - The withdrawal is not merely a financial decision but a strategic move to evade international responsibilities while seeking to maintain the privilege of rule-making [1] - This action is characterized as extreme self-interest, treating international organizations as tools to be used when convenient and discarded otherwise [1] - The U.S. stance is described as "either follow my lead or be sidelined," indicating a blatant form of unilateralism in multilateral affairs [1] Group 2: Consequences of U.S. Actions - The U.S. is portrayed as a "super destructive force" in the current international order, attempting to revert to a "jungle law" scenario where might makes right [2] - The actions taken at the beginning of 2026 cast a shadow over the international landscape and set a dangerous precedent in the history of international relations [2] - The strongman politics exhibited by the U.S. contradicts the prevailing trend towards multilateralism and reveals deep-seated anxieties regarding its waning hegemony [2]

Group 1 - The U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international organizations that are deemed "not in the U.S. interest," focusing on issues like climate, labor, and immigration [1] - Since Trump's return to the White House in January 2025, the U.S. has already exited several international organizations, including UNESCO and the World Health Organization, and has ceased support for UNRWA [1] - This withdrawal reflects a broader trend of unilateralism and "America First" policies, indicating a significant retreat from multilateral cooperation [1] Group 2 - The trade war is not just about tariffs or deficits, but aims to establish a new trade and investment rule system based on bilateral arrangements and reciprocal trade principles [2] - The U.S. is pushing for bilateral agreements that align with its demands, as seen in the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Korea trade agreements [2] - This shift is expected to create further chaos in the international rule system, increasing costs for cross-border trade and investment [2] Group 3 - The restructuring of global supply chains and industries is occurring under the uncertainty and instability caused by U.S. unilateralism, rather than through orderly market mechanisms [3] - The ongoing trade war and its aftermath will likely lead to a more uncertain and unstable global economic environment, affecting cross-border investments and the flow of resources [3]

Group 1 - The core investment narrative for 2025 is not the strong performance of the US stock market, but rather the significant changes in currency values and the global shift in asset allocation, with gold emerging as the true winner [3][6] - The US stock market recorded an 18% return in USD terms, but this is largely attributed to the depreciation of fiat currencies, creating a "valuation illusion" [6][8] - The dollar depreciated by 39% against gold, while the return from going long on gold (in USD terms) reached 65%. When measured in gold, the S&P 500 index actually declined by 28% [6][14] Group 2 - There is a notable shift of funds towards non-US markets, with the overall return from emerging markets reaching 34%, significantly outperforming US stocks [7][19] - The valuation of US stocks appears to have peaked, with equity risk premium being extremely low and the expected long-term return on equities (4.7%) falling below that of bonds (4.9%) [7][22] - The political and systemic transformation driven by inflation is causing dissatisfaction among the lower 60% of the population, leading to predictions of intense political conflict between extreme left and right forces in the US by 2027-2028 [7][28] Group 3 - The collective weakening of fiat currencies has established gold as a primary reserve asset, with the dollar depreciating against several currencies, including a 13% drop against the Swiss franc and a 12% drop against the euro [8][12] - The structural imbalance in the US stock market is evident, where profit growth is driven by a few major companies, while the distribution of profits remains heavily skewed towards capital owners rather than workers [9][21] - Non-liquid markets such as venture capital and private equity are under pressure, facing significant debt extension challenges and a potential rise in liquidity premiums [10][26] Group 4 - The geopolitical landscape is shifting from multilateralism to unilateralism, increasing military spending and sanctions, which diminishes the attractiveness of dollar-denominated assets [11][35] - The affordability crisis, stemming from currency value issues, is becoming a central political conflict, with the wealth gap between the top 10% and the bottom 60% exacerbating social tensions [11][28] - The current political climate, influenced by the Trump administration's policies, is expected to lead to significant market and economic impacts, particularly regarding wealth distribution and inflation concerns [11][27]

Core Viewpoint - The recent actions of the United States regarding Venezuela, including the forceful control of President Maduro, challenge the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter and expose U.S. hegemonic tendencies, potentially destabilizing the current international order [2][3][5]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and International Reactions - The U.S. military's forceful control of Venezuelan President Maduro has drawn significant international attention, with experts highlighting that this reflects U.S. hegemonic behavior and could inspire similar actions from other nations, further undermining global peace and stability [3][5]. - Chinese officials have condemned the U.S. actions as a violation of Venezuela's sovereignty and a serious threat to international relations, calling for the immediate release of Maduro and his wife [3][4]. - The incident is seen as a practical application of the Monroe Doctrine under Trump's administration, with experts noting that while the U.S. demonstrates military strength, it also depletes its resources and raises questions about future developments [3][4]. Group 2: Implications for International Order - The U.S. actions in Venezuela signify a severe challenge to the liberal international order established post-World War II, with experts warning that the world may revert to a state of power politics reminiscent of the 19th century [4][5]. - The recent U.S. National Security Strategy report indicates a shift in U.S. foreign policy that could lead to increased instability in international relations, as unilateral actions may undermine multilateral governance [5][6]. - Analysts suggest that the U.S. strategy may embolden traditional allies in the Asia-Pacific region, leading to increased military and political activities that could provoke tensions with China [6].

美国对委内瑞拉的军事行动以及特朗普拟收购格陵兰岛引发的紧张局势，再次将全球军事支出的增长推 向风口浪尖，为持续飙升的欧洲国防股注入了新动力。自今年年初以来，彭博欧洲国防公司指数已上涨 10%。在美军上周末抓捕委内瑞拉总统马杜罗后，涨势进一步增强。地缘政治已牢牢占据投资者的视 野，尤其是特朗普不排除使用武力获取格陵兰岛的可能性，这导致美国与北约盟友丹麦之间的冲突升 级。Alphavalue分析师Saima Hussain表示："以委内瑞拉事件为例，虽然这是拉美事务，但它实际上强 化了一种观点，即美国的国家安全政策可能变得更加趋向'交易型'和'单边主义'，甚至对盟友也是如 此。这意味着欧洲已经意识到，无论有没有美国的支持，它都必须具备行动能力。"高盛策略师Sharon Bell等人看好欧洲国防股，预计财政和军事支出承诺将继续推动利润增长。彭博分析显示，基于远期市 盈率，欧洲航空航天和国防板块的估值仍低于美国同行。 ...

Group 1 - The core investment narrative for 2025 is not the strong performance of US stocks, but rather the significant changes in currency values and the global shift in asset allocation, with gold emerging as the true winner [1][4][12] - US stocks recorded an 18% return in USD terms, but this is largely attributed to the devaluation of fiat currencies, creating a "valuation illusion" [5][12] - The S&P 500 index, when priced in gold, actually declined by 28%, highlighting the disparity in performance when considering different currencies [5][12] Group 2 - The US stock market significantly underperformed compared to non-US markets, with European, Chinese, and Japanese stocks outperforming US stocks by 23%, 21%, and 10% respectively [18][20] - Emerging markets showed an overall return of 34%, indicating a substantial capital shift away from US assets [19][20] - The interest of foreign investors in USD-denominated assets is waning, as evidenced by the negative returns of US Treasuries when priced in gold, which saw a -34% return [5][6] Group 3 - The valuation of US stocks appears to have peaked, with long-term equity expected returns at 4.7%, which is lower than the 4.9% return on bonds, indicating a low equity risk premium [23][24] - The disparity in profit distribution, where capitalists benefit more than workers, is raising concerns among leftist political forces, potentially impacting future profit margins [7][22][23] Group 4 - The political landscape is shifting towards extreme left and right forces due to affordability crises driven by inflation, which is expected to lead to significant conflicts by 2027-2028 [5][9][35] - The transition from multilateralism to unilateralism is increasing military spending and sanctions, further diminishing the attractiveness of USD assets [9][35][36] Group 5 - Non-liquid markets such as venture capital, private equity, and real estate are under pressure, facing significant debt rollover challenges and a potential rise in liquidity premiums [8][26] - The current low liquidity premium in these markets may lead to a decline in value relative to liquid assets, indicating a potential liquidity trap for investors [8][26]

Core Viewpoint - The meeting between Chinese Premier Li Qiang and Irish Prime Minister Martin emphasizes the deepening of the China-Ireland strategic partnership, focusing on enhancing political trust and practical cooperation across various sectors [1][2]. Group 1: Economic Cooperation - Both countries have strong economic complementarity and should strengthen development strategy alignment to explore cooperation potential in various fields [2]. - China aims to expand bilateral trade and improve service trade in sectors such as aircraft leasing, insurance, healthcare, and wellness to better meet the needs of both nations [2]. - There is a mutual interest in seizing future development opportunities in green energy, digital economy, artificial intelligence, information technology, and life sciences [2][3]. Group 2: Cultural and People-to-People Exchanges - The two nations plan to enhance cultural, tourism, education, and local exchanges to solidify the friendly foundation between their peoples [2][3]. - Ireland welcomes more Chinese enterprises to invest in the country, indicating a desire for increased bilateral investment [3]. Group 3: Multilateral Cooperation - Both parties express a commitment to strengthening communication and collaboration within multilateral mechanisms like the United Nations to uphold multilateralism and free trade [2][3]. - Ireland, set to assume the EU presidency in the second half of the year, is expected to play a constructive role in promoting China-EU dialogue and cooperation [2][3].