This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"India",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
The next U.S. administration needs a clear strategic vision for Asia befitting the region’s status as the new global “center of gravity.” In a new policy brief, Asia—Shaping The Future, Carnegie China Program Director Douglas H. Paal presents key steps the United States should take to advance its interests in “rising Asia.”

WASHINGTON, June 26—The next U.S. administration needs a clear strategic vision for Asia befitting the region’s status as the new global “center of gravity.” In a new policy brief, Asia—Shaping The Future Carnegie China Program Director Douglas H. Paal presents key steps the United States should take to advance its interests in "rising Asia."
Recommendations for the Next U.S. President:
Paal concludes:
"In sum, the new American administration should prepare before taking office and in the immediate aftermath to address this discrete set of issues involving the Asia-Pacific region, some big and bold, others small but telling policy adjustments. Experience has shown that it would not be wise to repeat the Clinton and George W. Bush mistakes of supporting any policy but their predecessors’. Clinton’s “anything but Bush” approach to China and Bush’s “anything but Clinton” approach to North Korea have both been costly. Whether it wins one term or two, the life of any new administration will be short in retrospect. And the time for creativity and policy innovation is much shorter yet.”
###

Carnegie India 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.
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
The ASML MoU with Tata Electronics is an indicator of how far the Indian semiconductor ecosystem has come. This ecosystem has been years in the making and represents real commercial logic.
Konark Bhandari
This paper examines the relationship between India’s evolving space policy and the corresponding growth in private space ventures. It analyzes both the enabling factors created by recent regulatory changes and the persistent challenges facing entrepreneurs in this capital-intensive, highly regulated industry.
Harshan Vazhakunnam
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal