• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "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",
    "East Asia",
    "Southeast Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The United States in the New Asia

Asia's emergence as a principal center of economic and strategic power requires a new engagement by the United States—one that moves beyond the traditional "hub and spokes" approach.

Link Copied
By Evan A. Feigenbaum
Published on Nov 1, 2009

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

No region of the world today is more dynamic than Asia. Across the continent, booming countries have built engines of economic growth that have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Along with this economic strength has come increased strategic importance, leading to Asia's emergence as a principal center of global power in the twenty-first century.
As Asia's economic and strategic weight has grown, Asians have sought to build multilateral frameworks capable of effectively channeling the region's energies. But for more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as proposals multiply and the region organizes itself into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups.

The Obama administration has an opportunity to help define new roles for the United States in this changing Asia. But to sustain its position in the region, Washington will need to move beyond its traditional "hub and spokes" approach to Asia--with the United States as the hub, bilateral alliances as the spokes, and multilateral institutions largely at the margins of U.S. policy. Otherwise, the United States will pay increasing costs to its interests, credibility, and influence.

In this Council Special Report, commissioned by CFR's International Institutions and Global Governance program, Evan A. Feigenbaum and Robert A. Manning examine Asia's regional architecture and consider what it means for the United States. They identify shortcomings in the region's existing multilateral mix and contend that the United States must increase its involvement in shaping Asian institutions in order to advance U.S. strategic interests and protect the competitiveness of American firms.

The authors outline six principles for U.S. policy toward Asia as a whole and recommend particular policies toward Northeast and Southeast Asia. Among other steps, they urge the United States to maintain a strong presence at Asian meetings; avoid intractable security issues and focus instead on topics ripe for cooperation; make use of ad hoc groupings as well as formal ones; vigorously pursue regional and global trade liberalization efforts; and view some Asian institutions that exclude the United States as acceptable, just as with the European Union.

The report also presents thoughtful recommendations for how Washington can influence the multilateral landscape in ways beneficial to American interests. The result is a document with important implications for U.S. policy toward a region that promises to play a central role in shaping the coming era of history.

Full text available at the Council on Foreign Relations. 

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

Evan A. Feigenbaum
Vice President for Studies
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaSoutheast Asia

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with Israel

    Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.

      Mohanad Hage Ali

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire

    Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.