The China-Russia partnership is a highly consequential geopolitical alignment driven by a shared goal of countering U.S. hegemony and reshaping the international order into a multipolar system. While not a formal alliance, this relationship is strengthened by Russia's increasing economic reliance on China following Western sanctions, which allows Beijing to leverage its influence. Policymakers should note that while the partnership projects deep solidarity (as seen in high-level summits), it remains complex and limited by mutual mistrust and competing strategic interests. This enduring alignment poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests and requires continued diplomatic vigilance.
Asia Pacific Programme hosts event on Japan and the Global South
English Summary
Chatham House argues that as the US turns inward and multilateral institutions weaken, the Global South is becoming a central arena of geopolitical and economic competition in which Japan is an increasingly important actor. Evidence came from a January 2026 expert event at Japan House London, where specialists assessed how Global South countries are reacting to great-power rivalry, including China’s expanding role, and compared Japanese, US, and Chinese approaches. The discussion suggests influence will depend less on rhetoric and more on how partner countries in the Global South perceive concrete differences in engagement models. For policy, Japan and like-minded states should design pragmatic, development-focused partnerships aligned with Global South priorities and recognize these countries as active shapers of the emerging global order.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所主張，隨著美國日益內向、多邊機構影響力走弱，全球南方正成為地緣政治與經濟競爭的核心場域，而日本在其中的重要性正持續上升。此判斷的依據之一，是2026年1月於倫敦日本之家舉行的專家活動；與會者評估了全球南方國家如何回應大國競爭（包括中國角色的擴張），並比較日本、美國與中國的對外互動路徑。討論指出，未來影響力的關鍵將較少取決於論述話語，而更取決於全球南方夥伴國如何感知各種參與模式在實質層面的差異。就政策而言，日本及其理念相近國家應設計務實、以發展為導向且符合全球南方優先事項的夥伴關係，並將這些國家視為塑造新興全球秩序的主動行動者。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The Chatham House analysis concludes that the UK's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will be viewed by NATO allies as a mixed bag, primarily due to its failure to commit to higher GDP spending targets. However, the plan signals critical strategic improvements by emphasizing novel technologies—such as autonomous systems and digital infrastructure—and enhancing readiness. Crucially, the DIP adopts an international focus through major collaborative programs (e.g., AUKUS, GCAP) and establishes a new National Armaments Director Group (NADG). This structural shift toward flexible, portfolio-based collaboration is strategically valuable for NATO allies seeking reliable partners as US conventional forces reduce their European presence.
-
3.
The article argues that the U.S., through recent policy signals—such as questioning NATO's value or sympathizing with great-power territorial claims—is inadvertently adopting the core tenets of non-alignment, prioritizing transactional national interests over binding alliances. Historically, while non-alignment allowed developing nations to gain benefits without commitment, the analysis notes that this approach lacks the deep trust and shared obligations necessary for robust security structures. The implication is critical: by undermining established alliances, the U.S. risks losing its greatest strategic asset—the network of mutual commitments—as allies actively seek alternative bilateral or regional defense pacts.
-
4.
Myanmar has collapsed into Asia’s deadliest conflict, marked by massive economic collapse, widespread famine, and extreme brutality from the military junta. Despite this catastrophic humanitarian crisis, international actors—including major powers and regional blocs like ASEAN—are largely ignoring or withdrawing support for democratic forces. This neglect allows the junta to consolidate power, receiving critical military aid from authoritarian allies such as Russia and Belarus. Policy implications suggest that global indifference is enabling a failed state environment, making Myanmar a highly volatile flashpoint whose instability threatens broader Indo-Pacific security.
-
5.
The Brookings analysis finds that EdTech scaling efforts in South and Southeast Asia often fail because decision-making prioritizes immediate motivation and feasibility over long-term sustainability and evidence, risking increased educational inequity. The core recommendation is for policymakers to shift focus from adopting specific products to defining clear learning purposes and measuring impact rigorously. To ensure lasting improvements, strategies must include strengthening local institutional capacity through teacher training, designing innovations for low-resource settings, and ensuring contextual relevance across the system. Ultimately, sustainable EdTech adoption requires a commitment to evidence-based policy that prioritizes equity alongside technological access.