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.
Why a resurgent Japan is good for Asia
English Summary
Chatham House argues that a stronger Japan under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi would be broadly beneficial for Asia by helping balance both Chinese dominance and excessive dependence on the United States. The piece reasons that many Asian governments value Japan’s predictable diplomacy, investment record, and growing security cooperation, especially as China’s military pressure rises and multilateral institutions weaken. It also notes major constraints: Takaichi’s tax-cut and spending agenda is fiscally difficult, constitutional military reform faces high political hurdles, and Tokyo is under simultaneous pressure from Beijing and Washington. Strategically, the article implies Japan should build domestic economic resilience while deepening ties with India, Southeast Asia, and other US allies (such as the UK and Australia) and stabilizing relations with China to avoid regional escalation.
中文摘要
英國皇家國際事務研究所（Chatham House）主張，若由高市早苗出任首相、且日本實力進一步增強，將整體有利於亞洲，因其可同時協助制衡中國主導地位與降低對美國的過度依賴。文章指出，在中國軍事施壓升高與多邊機構功能轉弱之際，許多亞洲政府重視日本可預測的外交路線、穩健的投資紀錄，以及持續擴大的安全合作。文中亦強調主要限制：高市的減稅與擴張性支出議程在財政上難以承受；憲政層面的軍事改革面臨高度政治門檻；東京同時承受來自北京與華府的雙重壓力。就戰略意涵而言，文章認為日本應在強化國內經濟韌性的同時，深化與印度、東南亞及其他美國盟友（如英國與澳洲）的連結，並穩定對中關係，以避免區域升高對抗。
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.