Why Sino-U.S. Interdependence Is Not Enough

{
  "authors": [
    "Evan A. Feigenbaum"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S.-China Relations"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy",
    "Trade",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Why Sino-U.S. Interdependence Is Not Enough

The United States and China need to define an affirmative economic agenda to strengthen their relationship and move their economies forward.

By Evan A. Feigenbaum

Published on Jul 8, 2013

Source: CNBC

Speaking on CNBC, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum stated that Sino-U.S. interdependence alone is clearly not sufficient as each country pursues regional trade treaties that exclude the other (for example, the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the United States and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in China). The challenge is for the two countries to create amuttually beneficial affirmative economic agenda. One way to do this is to focus on investments through a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) that examines issues across borders and behind borders, Feigenbaum stated, such as competition policies and subsidies.

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
Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows Why
- Evan A. Feigenbaum
Commentary
The Trump-Modi Trade Deal Won’t Magically Restore U.S.-India Trust
- Evan A. Feigenbaum

Economy Trade Foreign Policy North America United States East Asia China

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
Shockwaves Across the Gulf
The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with Iran
In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
The Greatest Dangers May Lie Ahead
In an interview, Nicole Grajewski discusses the military dimension of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Firepower Against Willpower
In an interview, Naysan Rafati assesses the first week that followed the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?
At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.
Yezid Sayigh

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center