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.
Global trade imbalances have changed since the 2008 financial crisis. Now they reflect new risks
English Summary
This Chatham House analysis argues that global trade imbalances have fundamentally shifted since the 2008 financial crisis, moving beyond debt-fueled consumer excess to reflect new geopolitical and competitive risks. Evidence shows a narrowing US deficit alongside a rising Chinese surplus, driven by shifts in energy production and China’s ascendancy in global manufacturing. The primary risks now center on intensifying competition from Chinese firms, particularly impacting European industries like automotive and machinery, alongside the broader geopolitical implications of China’s economic dominance. Policy strategies must adapt to address these evolving imbalances, considering exchange rate adjustments and fostering industrial resilience.
中文摘要
本報告由智庫撰寫，認為自2008年金融危機以來，全球貿易失衡格局發生了根本性轉變，已不再僅僅是基於債務推動的消費者浪潮，而是反映了新的地緣政治和競爭風險。 數據顯示，美國赤字正在收窄，而中國的盈餘正在增加，這主要受到能源生產轉型以及中國在全球製造業崛起帶來的影響。 目前的主要風險集中在中國企業的日益激烈的競爭，特別對歐洲的汽車和機械產業產生影響，以及中國經濟主導地位所帶來的更廣泛的地緣政治影響。 政策應當適應這些不斷演變的失衡，考慮到匯率調整以及促進產業韌性。
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.