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.
How middle powers can weather US and Chinese AI dominance
English Summary
Chatham House argues that middle powers can retain meaningful agency in an AI system dominated by the US and China by pursuing "sovereign AI" strategies tailored to national interests. The paper identifies four practical pathways: specialize in a strategic segment of the AI supply chain, align with one superpower, pool sovereignty through partnerships with peers, or hedge by combining capabilities from multiple providers. Its reasoning is that full technological independence is unrealistic, but selective control over how AI is adopted and governed is still achievable. For policymakers, the priority is to choose and sequence these strategies based on domestic strengths and risk tolerance so AI deployment serves national and public-interest goals despite structural dependence on US and Chinese ecosystems.
中文摘要
研究所指出，在由美國與中國主導的人工智慧體系中，中等強國若推動符合本國利益的「主權AI」策略，仍可維持具實質意義的行動自主性。該報告提出四條務實路徑：在AI供應鏈的戰略環節中專業化、與其中一個超級強權對齊、透過與同儕國家合作來匯聚主權，或透過整合多個供應方能力進行避險。其核心論點是，全面技術自主並不現實，但對AI採用與治理方式的選擇性控制仍可達成。對決策者而言，首要任務是依據國內優勢與風險承受度，選擇並安排這些策略的推進順序，從而在結構上依賴美中生態系的情況下，仍使AI部署服務國家與公共利益目標。
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.