Commentary
Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"authors": [
"Evan A. Feigenbaum"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China"
],
"collections": [
"Belt and Road Initiative"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Turkmenistan"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
China Didn’t Invent Asian Connectivity, May, 14, 2017
China hopes to use three strengths to make the Belt and Road Initiative a success: its large foreign exchange reserves, dominance in certain infrastructure fields, and unique forms of state backed project finance.
Published on May 14, 2017
Source: CNBC
Speaking on CNBC, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum explained that China already had major projects underway in Central Asia even before announcing its “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) plan. He noted that China has “upped the game,” in terms of connectivity, but it did not invent the concept of Asian connectivity. This idea, he said, has a long history; it did not begin in 2013 nor, he added, did it spring from the mind of Xi Jinping like Athena emerging from Zeus’s head. Instead, he argued, it needs to be looked at organically as the product of the actions and choices of many players in Asia, including Japan, India, and the international financial institutions.
Feigenbaum argued that China hopes to leverage three main strengths to make its OBOR strategy a success. First, he said, the government has access to a “huge pile” of foreign exchange reserves that it hopes to leverage by ploughing it into direct investments and infrastructure projects; thus vehicles like the Chinese Silk Road Fund are capitalized in part or in whole by the state foreign exchange administrator. Second, Chinese companies dominate certain areas of infrastructure, for example hydropower. Finally, he said, China can employ unique forms of state backed project finance—a model that Beijing knows few other countries or banks can compete with. One area to watch, he noted, is the degree to which China uses OBOR projects to export its indigenous engineering standards and thus make them de facto global standards.
The United States, Feigenbaum continued, is missing in action on connectivity in Asia; it is reactive instead of proactive and on defense instead of offense. He contended that Washington needs to think about how to better deploy its strengths rather than an apples to apples approach to China’s initiatives. The United States has a different model, distinct strengths, more leverage than it thinks, he continued, and doesn’t do state-backed China-style project finance. But ultimately, he said, the inevitably more integrated Asia is making the United States less relevant in large swathes of the region except as a security provider. So Washington had better figure out how to get more skin in the game, and quick, he concluded.
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
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
- Methods of National Power Analysis: Pitfalls and Best PracticesPaper
Power assessments shape our perceptions of the limits of the possible, but quantitative rankings and dashboards can provide false confidence.
Nicholas Kitchen
- From Labor Scarcity to AI Society: Governing Productivity in East AsiaArticle
The debate over AI and work too often centers on displacement. Facing aging populations and shrinking workforces, East Asian policymakers view AI not as a threat, but as a cross-sectoral workforce strategy.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Sophie Zhuang
- Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI CompetitionArticle
In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee
- Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?Commentary
China’s rapid technological progress and its first-rate infrastructure are often cited as refuting the claim that China has been systematically overinvesting in non-productive projects for many years. In fact, as the logic of overinvestment and the many historical precedents show, the former is all-too-often consistent with the latter.
Michael Pettis
- The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead EndCommentary
For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.
Friedrich Conradi
