Asia-Pacific Programme
Chatham House | 2026-02-22 | other
Topics: Indo-Pacific
Visit original source
ThinkTankWeekly provides a curated entry and summary only. Full text and PDF remain on the publisher's website.
English Summary
Chatham House’s Asia-Pacific Programme positions itself as an interdisciplinary policy platform providing objective analysis on major issues across South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific. Its core approach combines independent research, regional partnerships, and direct engagement with decision-makers to shape practical and constructive policy outcomes. The programme supports its analysis through expert roundtables, webinars, conferences, and publications, while also advising private-sector and multilateral stakeholders. Strategically, this model implies that effective policy toward Asia-Pacific dynamics requires cross-sector evidence, sustained regional collaboration, and proactive dialogue between analysts and policymakers.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）的亞太計畫將自身定位為跨學科政策平台，針對南亞、東南亞、東亞與太平洋地區重大議題提供客觀分析。其核心方法結合獨立研究、區域夥伴合作，以及與決策者的直接互動，以推動務實且具建設性的政策成果。該計畫透過專家圓桌會議、網路研討會、國際會議與出版品支撐其分析，並同時為私部門與多邊利害關係方提供政策諮詢。從策略層面觀之，此模式意味著，若要有效應對亞太動態，政策制定必須仰賴跨部門證據、持續性的區域協作，以及分析人員與政策制定者之間的前瞻性對話。
Related Entries
-
1.
Despite MOUD being the standard of care for opioid use disorder, access remains severely limited in Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs), which serve the primary population with co-occurring disorders. A Design Lab pilot identified payment limitations and regulatory complexity as the chief barriers to implementation. The most feasible and high-impact strategy identified was establishing a structured learning exchange between CMHC leaders and insurers to improve reimbursement understanding. Policymakers and payers are therefore advised to pilot this learning exchange model to initiate broader payment reform and expand evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
Read at RAND
-
2.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.
Read at Foreign Affairs
-
3.
Qatar aims to establish itself as a global hub for RDI, recognizing human capital as foundational to a knowledge-based economy. While the nation has launched numerous initiatives—including the Mustaqel Visa and specialized parks—the report finds that Qatar's RDI ecosystem faces structural gaps, evidenced by R&D expenditure remaining significantly below the OECD average and a workforce heavily reliant on expatriates. To achieve its 2030 goals, the study argues that Qatar must deepen the 'Triple Helix' collaboration between academia and industry, diversify private sector funding, and overhaul retention policies. Sustained policy coordination and strengthening career pathways for both local and international talent are critical for transforming potential into long-term economic capability.
Read at RAND
-
4.
The RAND report assesses Qatar's RDI progress, finding that while national strategies are ambitious, systemic gaps limit the country's full potential. Key weaknesses include low domestic STEM engagement, fragmented support for early-career researchers, and limited knowledge transfer between academia and the private sector. To accelerate economic diversification, the report recommends comprehensive policy reforms, such as implementing a coordinated national STEM action plan and standardizing researcher support. Furthermore, Qatar must enhance international talent retention through labor policy reforms and establish clear national frameworks to boost industry-academia collaboration.
Read at RAND
-
5.
The article argues that the U.S.-China relationship is structurally adversarial and cannot be resolved by high-level summits between leaders like Trump and Xi. Historically, breakthroughs required nuanced diplomacy and mutual trust, elements that are currently absent, as both leaders are ill-suited for the complex bargaining demanded by the rivalry. The analysis notes that China continues to assert its strategic independence, exemplified by its focus on partners like Russia, thereby limiting the efficacy of U.S. diplomatic efforts. Policymakers must temper expectations for a sudden breakthrough and prepare for a sustained, managed rivalry that addresses deep structural issues rather than relying on personal chemistry.
Read at Foreign Affairs