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": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Pakistan",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Kazakhstan",
"Kyrgyz Republic",
"Tajikistan",
"Turkmenistan",
"Uzbekistan",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Belarus"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}Source: Getty
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Central Asia, and the United States
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization will likely become less functional and coherent as the group gets bigger. Form will start to drive function, and the group will begin to search for a purpose.
Source: Voice of America
Speaking to the Voice of America, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum explained why the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is likely to become weaker, less coherent, and more diffuse as it expands to include India and Pakistan and potentially other partners in future. He argued that all such institutions weaken when form begins to drive function rather than the other way around. That has been the experience across Asia since the end of the Cold War. Feigenbaum explored the origin of the SCO in a single, focused function: the settlement of border and territorial disputes among China and four Central Asian neighbors. As it has grown to include Uzbekistan and various observers and dialogue partners, the SCO has lost focus and become less functional.
Beyond the SCO itself, Feigenbaum also discussed motivations and drivers for Chinese and Indian strategies and policies in Central Asia. And he reflected on some aspects of the U.S. experience with the SCO from his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the region during the George W. Bush administration.
This broadcast was originally published by Voice of America.
About the Author
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.
- Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows WhyCommentary
- The Trump-Modi Trade Deal Won’t Magically Restore U.S.-India TrustCommentary
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
- The Iran War Is Also Now a Semiconductor ProblemCommentary
The conflict is exposing the deep energy vulnerabilities of Korea’s chip industry.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Tim Sahay
- The Other Global Crisis Stemming From the Strait of Hormuz’s BlockageCommentary
Even if the Iran war stops, restarting production and transport for fertilizers and their components could take weeks—at a crucial moment for planting.
Noah Gordon, Lucy Corthell
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- India’s Foreign Policy in the Age of PopulismPaper
Domestic mobilization, personalized leadership, and nationalism have reshaped India’s global behavior.
Sandra Destradi