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.
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.
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 article argues that bond market behavior is not driven by an 'addiction' to tariff revenue but rather by the government’s overall fiscal health, growth prospects, and debt servicing capacity. Key evidence shows that customs duties generate a fraction of total federal receipts compared to core tax streams, meaning tariffs are too small to fundamentally alter the nation's fiscal trajectory. Furthermore, market reactions were dictated by the aggregate economic damage caused by large tariffs (inflation/growth concerns), not merely the revenue generated. Policymakers should recognize that the real concern for bond investors remains persistent budget deficits and high interest costs, issues that require comprehensive structural reform rather than reliance on tariff income.