The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
A new multilateralism. How are the UN and other global organizations adapting to a new world?
English Summary
The event’s core argument is that multilateral institutions, especially the UN system, must be structurally and politically updated to stay effective in a world shaped by great-power rivalry, fragmented governance, and fast technological and economic change. Its reasoning is that the current system is losing legitimacy and delivery capacity on cross-border problems such as climate and trade, while competing global orders are creating parallel venues for influence. The discussion points to practical adaptation priorities: reforming institutional representation, rebalancing decision-making power, and ensuring trade, technology, and development rules are perceived as fair across advanced and developing economies. For policymakers, the strategic implication is to treat multilateral reform as a competitiveness and stability agenda, investing in more inclusive, flexible institutions that can still coordinate collective action under geopolitical strain.
中文摘要
該活動的核心論點是：在一個由大國競爭、治理碎片化，以及科技與經濟快速變遷所塑造的世界中，多邊機構，尤其是聯合國體系，必須在結構與政治層面完成更新，才能維持有效性。其論證指出，現行體系在氣候與貿易等跨境問題上的正當性與執行能力正在流失，而相互競逐的全球秩序正創造出平行的影響力場域。討論因此提出務實的調適優先事項：改革制度代表性、重新平衡決策權力，並確保貿易、科技與發展規則在先進與發展中經濟體之間被視為公平。對政策制定者而言，其戰略意涵在於應將多邊改革視為一項關乎競爭力與穩定性的政策議程，並投資於更具包容性與彈性的制度，使其在地緣政治壓力下仍能協調集體行動。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.