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.
Elite capture of Africa’s critical minerals mustn’t be mistaken for resource sovereignty
English Summary
The article argues that genuine resource sovereignty in Africa is not defined by nationalization, but by transparent governance that benefits the citizenry, contrasting this with 'elite capture.' It warns that when narrow political elites seize mineral wealth for personal gain, they often sign opaque deals with malign external actors (e.g., Russia), leading to instability, vulnerability, and external exploitation, as seen in Burkina Faso. For African states to succeed, the focus must be on establishing transparent corporate governance and renegotiating contracts to attract diverse, long-term capital aligned with public development, rather than simply asserting control for a select few.
中文摘要
本文論述，非洲真正的資源主權並非由國有化來定義，而是由有益於公民的透明治理來定義，並將此與「精英俘獲」現象進行對比。文章警告，當狹隘的政治精英為個人利益掠奪礦產財富時，他們往往會與惡意的外部行為者（例如俄羅斯）簽訂不透明的交易，從而導致不穩定、脆弱性，以及外部剝削，正如布吉納法索所見。為使非洲國家取得成功，重點必須放在建立透明的公司治理，並重新協商合約，以吸引與公共發展一致的多元長期資本，而非僅僅為少數人宣稱控制權。
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.