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": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Central Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Secretary Kerry’s Visit to Central Asia
The Central Asia 5+1 initiative offers a forum that will inject the United States directly into the regional conversation.
Published on Nov 1, 2015
Source: Voice of America
As Secretary of State John Kerry begins his Central Asia tour, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the region, spoke to Navbahor Imamova, VOA Uzbek, about the U.S. role in this part of the world and the challenges Washington faces there. Feigenbaum suggested that the Central Asia 5+1 initiative is a good forum that will inject the United States directly into the regional conversation but draws off prior U.S. experience, including the Bush-era Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Central Asia. Cynicism over the effort to promote regional economic integration stems from perceptions among regional elites that the U.S. role has been mostly “talk” rather than action, but also from the fact that the United States brings little tangible investment to the table yet has been a greater enthusiast of regional cooperation than the Central Asian governments themselves. Feigenbaum argued that such cynicism does not negate the importance of trying to promote regional cooperation. There is a substantial body of research that shows that noncooperation regionally erects significant transaction costs that hinder growth. Cooperation could, therefore, spur growth. But what is more, China, among others, is making tangible investments that have begun to overcome such obstacles in some areas, such as through the construction of new cross-border pipelines. Before 1991, regional cooperation was unnecessary because the Soviet authorities in Moscow could simply compel cooperation by administrative fiat. Cooperation in a post-independence environment has proved to be hard but nonetheless can be achieved with the right tools. Feigenbaum explored some of these tools in the interview. He also examined at some length the involvement of China and Japan in Central Asia. He contrasted Beijing’s and Tokyo’s activities with the U.S. role, arguing that there are ways, for example, for the United States and Japan to concert their agendas and piggyback on existing initiatives, such as the Asian Development Bank’s Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation program.
This interview was originally broadcast 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
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.
More Work from Carnegie India
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
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
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
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 Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
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
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 EraResearch
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
- +6
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …
