The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
Do AI summits work?
English Summary
Chatham House argues that mega AI summits are useful for networking and agenda-setting but are unlikely to deliver meaningful international governance agreements. The reasoning is that forums like the New Delhi AI Impact Summit are too crowded and politically fragmented, with competing national and commercial priorities, while US–China rivalry and weakening multilateral norms make binding global deals improbable. It cites recent summit outcomes as mostly non-binding and principles-based, and points to more promising progress in smaller scientist-led, technical-standards, and regional venues that can build trust and produce operational proposals. The strategic implication is to prioritize a “splinter to scale” approach: develop tested, inclusive governance tools in focused forums, then scale them through larger diplomatic platforms with middle-power backing.
中文摘要
研究所指出，大型人工智慧峰會有助於建立人脈與設定議程，但不太可能達成具實質意義的國際治理協議。其理由在於，新德里 AI 影響峰會等論壇參與者過多、政治立場分裂，且各國與商業優先事項彼此競逐；同時，美中競爭加劇與多邊規範弱化，使具拘束力的全球協議難以成形。文中援引近期峰會成果，多屬不具拘束力且以原則為導向，並指出更有希望的進展來自規模較小、由科學家主導、以技術標準為核心及區域性的平台，這些平台較能建立信任並提出可操作方案。其策略意涵是優先採取「由分散到擴展」（splinter to scale）路徑：先在聚焦論壇中發展經驗證且具包容性的治理工具，再在中等強權支持下，透過更大型外交平台擴大推行。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
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.