Commentary
Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"authors": [
"Evan A. Feigenbaum"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Pakistan",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Kazakhstan",
"Kyrgyz Republic",
"Tajikistan",
"Turkmenistan",
"Uzbekistan",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Belarus"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Central Asia, and the United States
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization will likely become less functional and coherent as the group gets bigger. Form will start to drive function, and the group will begin to search for a purpose.
Published on Jun 23, 2016
Source: Voice of America
Speaking to the Voice of America, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum explained why the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is likely to become weaker, less coherent, and more diffuse as it expands to include India and Pakistan and potentially other partners in future. He argued that all such institutions weaken when form begins to drive function rather than the other way around. That has been the experience across Asia since the end of the Cold War. Feigenbaum explored the origin of the SCO in a single, focused function: the settlement of border and territorial disputes among China and four Central Asian neighbors. As it has grown to include Uzbekistan and various observers and dialogue partners, the SCO has lost focus and become less functional.
Beyond the SCO itself, Feigenbaum also discussed motivations and drivers for Chinese and Indian strategies and policies in Central Asia. And he reflected on some aspects of the U.S. experience with the SCO from his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the region during the George W. Bush administration.
This broadcast was originally published by Voice of America.
About the Author
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Vice President for Studies
Evan A. Feigenbaum is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees work at its offices in Washington, New Delhi, and Singapore on a dynamic region encompassing both East Asia and South Asia. He served twice as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and advised two Secretaries of State and a former Treasury Secretary on Asia.
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia
- Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows WhyCommentary
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Recent Work
EconomyTradeForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceSouth AsiaIndiaPakistanEast AsiaChinaCentral AsiaKazakhstanKyrgyz RepublicTajikistanTurkmenistanUzbekistanRussiaEastern EuropeBelarus
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- What We Know About the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear DealCommentary
Despite the agreement’s uncertainty, it’s still a significant development in regional and nuclear policy.
Andrew Leber, Jane Darby Menton
- A Path Forward on AI Safety for the United States and ChinaCommentary
“AI safety in parallel” is modest and pragmatic but vital.
Matt Sheehan
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- The Alternative für Deutschland and Germany’s Unsettled Place in the WorldPaper
Unresolved tensions within the AfD may ultimately constrain the its potential as a leader among European and global populist forces.
Jeremy Cliffe
- Negotiating an Age of Conquest: Converting American Power Into Durable Political OutcomesPaper
There is a deeply rooted assumption in post–Cold War American statecraft that overwhelming military and economic power translates directly into favorable political outcomes. But force alone is rarely enough. To meet the challenges of the mid-21st century, Washington needs a cultural shift toward a mindset that takes negotiation far more seriously.
Cecily Brewer
