It’s dangerous to dismiss Washington’s shambolic diplomacy out of hand.
Eric Ciaramella
{
"authors": [
"Evan A. Feigenbaum"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"South Asia",
"India",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Southeast Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Pan-Asian institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, as well as the reconnection of Asia’s sub-regions into a more integrated whole, will challenge the United States. Washington needs to adapt if it is to compete successfully in this new Asia.
Source: Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Spurred by the rise of Asian powerhouses China, Japan, and India, new political and economic institutions and pacts are emerging across the region. Encouraged by rapid economic growth and declining reliance on the West following the 2008 financial crisis, an era of pan-Asianism is set to strengthen integration among Asian countries through enterprises such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the newly formed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. As the United States seeks to maintain its influence in the region, how can Washington maximize its interests and compete?
In a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum argued that Asia is changing dramatically but the United States, notwithstanding its “pivot” or “rebalance” to Asia, is “losing the plot.” He explored three key areas of change with which the United States must wrestle—first, the growing collision between economic integration and security fragmentation; second, the certainty that some pan-Asian ideas, pacts, and institutions that do not include the United States will persist and cohere regardless of American views and preferences; third, and perhaps most important, the reconnection of disparate sub-regions of Asia—East, Central, and South—into a more integrated strategic and economic space. Unless Washington adjusts, this more integrated Asia, Feigenbaum added, could make the United States less relevant in each of Asia's constituent parts. Feigenbaum explored how the United States should (and, in some cases, should not) adjust its intellectual, strategic, and bureaucratic approaches to Asia in light of these dramatic changes.
This conversation was originally published by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
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.
It’s dangerous to dismiss Washington’s shambolic diplomacy out of hand.
Eric Ciaramella
The India AI Impact Summit offers a timely opportunity to experiment with and formalize new models of cooperation.
Lakshmee Sharma, Jane Munga
EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
Europe’s policy of subservience to the Trump administration has failed. For Washington to take the EU seriously, its leaders now need to combine engagement with robust pushback.
Stefan Lehne
Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.
Rym Momtaz