The ongoing Ebola outbreak in the DRC serves as a critical warning that the global health security system is fundamentally unprepared for future biological threats. The difficulty in containing this outbreak is compounded by the rising risk of emerging pathogens and the growing potential for AI misuse in bioweapon development. Policy must therefore shift from reactive, crisis-driven funding to sustained, proactive investment in resilient public health infrastructure, particularly in conflict zones. Addressing this requires strengthening global surveillance, ensuring consistent international cooperation, and mitigating the intersection of conflict, climate change, and disease spread.
How middle powers can weather US and Chinese AI dominance
English Summary
Chatham House argues that middle powers can retain meaningful agency in an AI system dominated by the US and China by pursuing "sovereign AI" strategies tailored to national interests. The paper identifies four practical pathways: specialize in a strategic segment of the AI supply chain, align with one superpower, pool sovereignty through partnerships with peers, or hedge by combining capabilities from multiple providers. Its reasoning is that full technological independence is unrealistic, but selective control over how AI is adopted and governed is still achievable. For policymakers, the priority is to choose and sequence these strategies based on domestic strengths and risk tolerance so AI deployment serves national and public-interest goals despite structural dependence on US and Chinese ecosystems.
中文摘要
研究所指出，在由美國與中國主導的人工智慧體系中，中等強國若推動符合本國利益的「主權AI」策略，仍可維持具實質意義的行動自主性。該報告提出四條務實路徑：在AI供應鏈的戰略環節中專業化、與其中一個超級強權對齊、透過與同儕國家合作來匯聚主權，或透過整合多個供應方能力進行避險。其核心論點是，全面技術自主並不現實，但對AI採用與治理方式的選擇性控制仍可達成。對決策者而言，首要任務是依據國內優勢與風險承受度，選擇並安排這些策略的推進順序，從而在結構上依賴美中生態系的情況下，仍使AI部署服務國家與公共利益目標。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
-
3.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
4.
The article argues that China's ongoing purges are not signs of weakness, but rather a sophisticated, historically rooted process of 'rectification' that strengthens the CCP's grip on power. This mechanism requires cadres to submit mandatory self-criticisms and build permanent, detailed personnel files (dossiers). This system of record-keeping is the CCP's primary source of resilience, creating profound, internalized discipline that controls internal dissent. Policymakers must recognize that the regime's durability stems from this deep internal control mechanism, making succession—rather than internal purges—the ultimate strategic vulnerability.
-
5.
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.