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.
Chatham House Prize 2025: A humanitarian lifeline in Sudan
English Summary
The 2025 Chatham House Prize has been awarded to Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) for their vital humanitarian work during the country's ongoing civil war between the SAF and RSF. Operating in areas often inaccessible to international organizations, these grassroots networks provide essential food, water, and medical supplies while maintaining critical infrastructure under significant risk. This recognition underscores the indispensable role of localized, impartial mutual aid groups in addressing one of the world's largest displacement and humanitarian crises.
中文摘要
2025年查塔姆研究所獎（Chatham House Prize）已頒予蘇丹的「緊急應對小組」（Emergency Response Rooms, ERRs），以表彰其在該國蘇丹武裝部隊（SAF）與快速支援部隊（RSF）內戰期間所做出的關鍵人道主義貢獻。這些草根網絡在國際組織往往難以進入的地區運作，在面臨重大風險的情況下提供必要的糧食、飲水及醫療物資，並維持關鍵基礎設施。此項殊榮凸顯了在地化且公正的互助團體在應對全球最嚴重的流離失所與人道危機之一時，發揮了不可或缺的作用。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
4.
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.
-
5.
The article argues against the Department of Defense's push to increase and rely upon tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), asserting that they are not a viable solution for geopolitical dilemmas. Despite being framed as less destructive than strategic weapons, the author provides evidence that even small TNWs are devastating, capable of causing mass casualties and widespread contamination. Furthermore, the use of TNWs carries extreme risks of uncontrollable escalation, making them inherently destabilizing. Instead of expanding the arsenal, the U.S. should accept the limitations of military power, becoming more selective about its security commitments in regions like Europe and the Asia-Pacific.