The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
The Borders of Responsibility: Migration Control in the Mediterranean Sea
English Summary
European nations are employing sophisticated legal and diplomatic mechanisms, rather than overt force, to control migration across the Mediterranean. The EU has formalized this control through new pacts and external agreements with key neighbors like Turkey and Libya, which allow member states to legally block and interdict migrants while blurring traditional border definitions. This policy framework, however, is criticized for constituting 'liberal hypocrisy' due to its restrictive nature and disregard for humanitarian concerns. The lack of transparency, coupled with labyrinthine legal procedures and minimal oversight, suggests a systemic policy challenge that prioritizes border security over international law and human rights.
中文摘要
歐洲國家正在運用精密的法律和外交機制，而非公開武力，來控制地中海的移民流動。歐盟已透過與土耳其、利比亞等主要鄰國簽訂新的協定和外部協議，將這種控制制度化，使成員國能夠在模糊傳統邊界定義的同時，合法地阻止和攔截移民。然而，這種政策框架因其限制性以及對人道主義關切的漠視，而遭到「自由主義虛偽」（liberal hypocrisy）的批評。缺乏透明度，加上複雜的法律程序和極少的監督機制，顯示出這是一個系統性的政策挑戰，其優先順序是邊境安全，而非國際法和人權。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
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.
-
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.