China as a Responsible Stakeholder? A Decade Later

{
  "authors": [
    "Evan A. Feigenbaum"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Other

China as a Responsible Stakeholder? A Decade Later

An examination of the ways that Chinese power has changed over the past few decades.

By Evan A. Feigenbaum

Published on Mar 23, 2016

Source: Project 2049 Institute

In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick used the term "responsible stakeholder" to address how China should wield its influence in the coming future.

In his remarks, he classified the U.S.-China relationship as one that must be built on not only shared interests but shared values. A decade later, how has China contributed positively to the international system and met U.S. expectations as a responsible stakeholder? Going forward, what challenges, changes, and concerns will shape China's developing role in global and regional affairs?

This conference brings together an expert panel to identify and assess areas where China challenges the existing international order and offers recommendations for a U.S. response to reinforce the pre-existing security and economic architecture in the Asia-Pacific. Speaking at the conference, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum discussed the ways Chinese power has changed over the past few decades, and assesses China’s success in becoming a “responsible stakeholder” of the international system.

This talk was originally posted by the Project 2049 Institute.

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.

Recent Work

Commentary
In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia
- Evan A. Feigenbaum
Commentary
Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why
- Evan A. Feigenbaum

Security Military Foreign Policy East Asia China

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

Commentary
Emissary
A Thousand Days After October 7, Washington Still Has No Strategic Plan
Five major trends are shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller
Paper
Will American Power in Europe Run Out?
American power is entrenched in Europe. Yet the depth of this relationship has become a source of unease in Europe and Europeans are working to reduce their exposure to the vicissitudes of U.S. politics wherever they can.
Sophia Besch, Tara Varma
Paper
When AI Agents Attack: Autonomous Cyber Operations and Europe’s Governance Gap
Autonomous AI agents are increasingly prevalent in cyberspace. The EU needs a real-time monitoring strategy, to invest in AI defenses, and to reduce its strategic dependence on U.S. frontier models.
Raluca Csernatoni, Patryk Pawlak
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s Weakness
The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.
Artyom Shraibman
Paper
Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Commentary

Emissary

A Thousand Days After October 7, Washington Still Has No Strategic Plan

Five major trends are shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller

Paper

Will American Power in Europe Run Out?

American power is entrenched in Europe. Yet the depth of this relationship has become a source of unease in Europe and Europeans are working to reduce their exposure to the vicissitudes of U.S. politics wherever they can.

Sophia Besch, Tara Varma

Paper

When AI Agents Attack: Autonomous Cyber Operations and Europe’s Governance Gap

Autonomous AI agents are increasingly prevalent in cyberspace. The EU needs a real-time monitoring strategy, to invest in AI defenses, and to reduce its strategic dependence on U.S. frontier models.

Raluca Csernatoni, Patryk Pawlak

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s Weakness

The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.

Artyom Shraibman

Paper

Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

Saheb Singh Chadha