The Western Pacific remains a highly active theater defined by sustained U.S.-led military exercises and escalating great power competition. Key evidence includes continuous joint operations, such as RIMPAC 2026 in Hawaii and the deployment of CSGs into the South China Sea, juxtaposed with increased naval activity from both China (PLAN task groups) and Russia near Japan's critical straits. These movements underscore a strategic push by non-allied powers to assert presence and challenge regional norms. Policy implications dictate that allied nations must maintain robust multilateral cooperation and interoperability to safeguard freedom of navigation and manage escalating tensions in the Indo-Pacific.
Chatham House appoints Professor Marc Weller as the new Director of the Global Governance and Security Centre
English Summary
Chatham House’s announcement frames Marc Weller’s appointment as a leadership move to strengthen the Global Governance and Security Centre at a moment when international order is under strain. The core claim is that, despite geopolitical fragmentation, urgent transnational problems still require rule-based global cooperation on security, health preparedness, AI governance, and international law. The institute supports this by highlighting Weller’s credentials across academia, UN mediation and legal advisory roles, and recent policy interventions on Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, and broader legal-system defense. Strategically, the appointment signals a push for more active institutional reform and coalition-building among governments, business, and civil society to preserve and update multilateral governance frameworks.
中文摘要
Chatham House 公告將 Marc Weller 的任命定位為一項領導層布局，旨在於國際秩序承壓之際強化其全球治理與安全中心。其核心主張是：即使地緣政治日益碎片化，安全、公共衛生整備、人工智慧治理與國際法等迫切的跨國問題，仍須依賴以規則為基礎的全球合作。研究所並以 Weller 橫跨學術界、聯合國調解及法律顧問角色的資歷，以及其近期在加薩、烏克蘭、委內瑞拉與更廣泛法律體系防衛議題上的政策介入，作為論據支撐。從戰略層面看，此項任命釋出訊號：研究所將推動更積極的制度改革與聯盟建構，串連政府、企業與公民社會，以維護並更新多邊治理框架。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
-
3.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
4.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.