Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"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": [
"Middle East",
"South Asia",
"India",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Southeast Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
The New Asian Order And How America Can Compete
Pan-Asian institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as well as the reconnection of Asia’s sub-regions into a more integrated whole, will challenge the United States. Washington needs to adapt if it is to compete successfully in this new Asia.
Source: Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Spurred by the rise of Asian powerhouses China, Japan, and India, new political and economic institutions and pacts are emerging across the region. Encouraged by rapid economic growth and declining reliance on the West following the 2008 financial crisis, an era of pan-Asianism is set to strengthen integration among Asian countries through enterprises such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the newly formed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. As the United States seeks to maintain its influence in the region, how can Washington maximize its interests and compete?
In a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum argued that Asia is changing dramatically but the United States, notwithstanding its “pivot” or “rebalance” to Asia, is “losing the plot.” He explored three key areas of change with which the United States must wrestle—first, the growing collision between economic integration and security fragmentation; second, the certainty that some pan-Asian ideas, pacts, and institutions that do not include the United States will persist and cohere regardless of American views and preferences; third, and perhaps most important, the reconnection of disparate sub-regions of Asia—East, Central, and South—into a more integrated strategic and economic space. Unless Washington adjusts, this more integrated Asia, Feigenbaum added, could make the United States less relevant in each of Asia's constituent parts. Feigenbaum explored how the United States should (and, in some cases, should not) adjust its intellectual, strategic, and bureaucratic approaches to Asia in light of these dramatic changes.
This conversation was originally published by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
About the Author
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.
- Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Performance Art or Meaningful Collaboration?Commentary
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
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 Europe
- Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from CeutaCommentary
The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.
Richard Youngs
- Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?Commentary
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe’s Self-Confidence ProblemCommentary
The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical AssetsArticle
European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.
Marc Pierini
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz