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.
The AU summit is an opportunity for decisive action to end the war in Sudan
English Summary
Chatham House argues that the African Union’s handling of Sudan has become a major leadership failure and that the February 2026 AU summit is a narrow chance to reset strategy before state fragmentation becomes irreversible. It cites the scale of the crisis (about two-thirds of 53 million people needing aid, 13.6 million displaced, and nearly half facing severe food insecurity) and shows how AU inconsistency and weak enforcement have reduced leverage over both the SAF and RSF. The paper also highlights a fragmented mediation landscape, with the US-led Quad, AU-led Quintet, and AU internal mechanisms pulling in different directions while key regional actors are widely perceived as biased. For policy, it recommends the AU reassert primacy, enforce norm-consistent neutrality, and link ceasefire/humanitarian negotiations to a unified AU-led political process to increase pressure on the warring parties and limit wider regional spillover.
中文摘要
研究指出，非洲聯盟對蘇丹危機的處理已構成重大領導失誤，而2026年2月的非盟峰會是在國家碎片化走向不可逆之前重設整體戰略的狹窄機會。報告援引危機規模：在5,300萬人口中，約三分之二需要人道援助，1,360萬人流離失所，且近半人口面臨嚴重糧食不安全。報告並顯示，非盟政策不一致與執行乏力，已削弱其對蘇丹武裝部隊（SAF）與快速支援部隊（RSF）雙方的槓桿力。論文亦指出調停格局碎片化：美國主導的四方機制、非盟主導的五方機制及非盟內部機制彼此方向分歧，而關鍵區域行為體普遍被視為帶有偏向。政策上，報告建議非盟重申主導地位、落實符合規範的一致中立，並將停火與人道談判連結至統一的非盟主導政治進程，以提高對交戰各方的壓力並抑制更廣泛的區域外溢風險。
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.