Two prominent US think tanks held separate discussions on Wednesday exploring whether global cooperation can endure in an increasingly fragmented international landscape.

At a panel hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Nonresident Senior Fellow Kimberly Clausing examined collective-action problems in areas such as climate change and international taxation. She described the Paris Agreement as a significant step that established a moral foundation and forum for nations to set emissions goals, yet noted it lacks strong enforcement or incentive mechanisms.

"There's a sort of moral persuasion element, but there's not any sort of real concrete incentive mechanism that's baked into that agreement," Clausing said.

Clausing pointed to tools such as Europe's carbon border adjustment mechanism to encourage broader participation while protecting domestic industries. In the same discussion, she highlighted China's progress on climate as noteworthy.

"And you see some of the recent actions in China to really address climate change in a serious way. They're already at peak emissions or perhaps a little past it at this stage of their development. So that's an impressive feat," she said.

Beijing's efforts hailed

China has maintained flat or falling carbon dioxide emissions for more than 21 months through early 2026, according to an analysis by Carbon Brief. The International Energy Agency's Global Energy Review 2025 and the UN Environment Programme's Emissions Gap Report 2025 both confirm that rapid expansion of renewables and industrial adjustments have helped stabilize and reduce emissions in key sectors.

The forum also addressed international tax coordination. Clausing explained that the mobility of multinational corporate income creates free-rider problems and erodes tax bases. She discussed the OECD and G20 minimum tax agreement as an attempt to curb profit shifting, though its implementation faces challenges, particularly due to varying national approaches.

Clausing stressed that issues like climate change and tax competition remain global concerns regardless of any single country's leadership. She pointed to mechanisms that protect ambitious actors while drawing in others.

In a separate event at the Brookings Institution, Lawrence Freedman, emeritus professor of War Studies at King's College London, assessed US strategy in what he described as a turbulent era. He said that allies like the United Kingdom, which has long relied on close ties with the US, are now contemplating hedging strategies.

"If you're no longer sure about the judgments and the policies of your main ally, then you hedge," Freedman said. He added that European nations are discussing greater independence while remaining reluctant to fully replace US security guarantees.

Mara Karlin, a visiting fellow at Brookings Institution, said that current US actions have created opportunities for other powers.

Visiting Fellow Joshua Rovner likened the global situation to an airplane encountering turbulence, with profound uncertainty about the future of international politics. He argued that grand strategy and military strategy do not always reinforce each other, citing historical cases in which tactical successes undermined long-term security.

Recent US military operations in Iran have heightened these concerns.

Freedman said that confidence in transatlantic leadership has waned, leading to practical hedging even as military-to-military ties continue.

The discussions at both forums repeatedly returned to the idea that collective challenges require inclusive solutions, with emerging powers playing larger roles in areas ranging from emissions reductions to economic governance.

yifanxu@chinadailyusa.com