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 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 Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
- 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
- Corrupted by Absolute PowerCommentary
In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.
Michael Young
