Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"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": [
"East Asia",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
China’s Power: Up for Debate
China has not necessarily been successful at leveraging its economic might to promote its interests.
Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies
At the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ “China’s Power: Up for Debate” conference, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum debated with SAIS’s David M. Lampton the question of whether China can successfully leverage its economic weight in support of its broader strategic interests. Feigenbaum was asked by the organizers to advocate for the “no” position. He acknowledged the undeniable increase in China’s economic weight over the past decade, adding that it is simply intuitive that more trade, more investment, and a bigger economy give any country greater leverage than less trade, less investment, and a smaller economy. But, he argued, that is not the end of the story of Chinese economic power overseas.
Feigenbaum noted several constraints on Beijing: First, he noted the collision between economic integration in Asia, which has enabled a larger Chinese role, and security fragmentation, with many countries reacting to Beijing with fear, suspicion, or counter-balancing actions. Specifically, Feigenbaum argued, there have been notable backlashes against China’s exercise of economic power, including a nationalist backlash (he cited land and labor protests in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan as examples) a security backlash (for instance, the prospective tightening of investment rules in Australia and the United States), and a backlash related to economic competition (he noted some examples from India). These, he concluded, place constraints on China’s ability to straightforwardly translate economic weight into political leverage.
Second, Feigenbaum pushed back against the notion that pan-Asian initiatives automatically demonstrate that China is “writing the rules” in Asia. Feigenbaum argued that other regional states, such as Japan, India, and Southeast Asian countries have long been involved in developing pan-Asian institutions, pacts, and bargains. China will not simply be dictating new rules to countries like Japan. Instead, he said, these will likely result from pan-Asian bargains.
Third, Feigenbaum addressed the concept of “connectivity” in Asia, a major focus of recent Chinese economic diplomacy. This, he said, did not start in 2013 with President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, but has considerable history in Asia, involving choices and action by many countries, both on the demand side and as infrastructure, capital, and trade providers. In conclusion, Feigenbaum noted again that China’s economic weight is a fact but suggested that the strategic situation in Asia is vastly more complex than the current debate.
The debate was originally broadcast live by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
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.
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in AsiaCommentary
- 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
- The Two Logics Driving Japan’s Security PolicyArticle
Japan’s revision of its three strategic documents reflects an intention to keep the United States engaged in the region while Japan fills any vacuums of U.S. power to preserve the Indo-Pacific order.
Ryo Sahashi
- Caught in the Middle: Chinese Biotech Firms’ Divergent Responses to U.S. SanctionsCommentary
Chinese biotech companies have been on the receiving end of U.S. economic coercion. Yet their responses have differed significantly because firm and state interests are not uniformly aligned. For Washington, treating all Chinese tech firms the same, irrespective of their actual interests, risks pushing them farther into Beijing’s corner.
Xue Gong
- Inside the Global Race to Erode a Battery Manufacturing MonopolyCommentary
Over the past decade, China has moved from marginal player to major producer of all things batteries. The United States, Europe, and others are aiming to balance the market.
Milo McBride
- Why Korea’s President Skipped Washington for Silicon Valley and BrasíliaCommentary
Lee’s tour shows how Seoul is reorganizing its diplomacy away from Pyongyang and toward industrial networks and the geography of the compute economy.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares
- The Migration Wave That Embarrassed Morocco and Rattled EuropeCommentary
Most migrants may have left Ceuta, but the effects may linger.
Alejandro Martin Rodriguez, Sarah Yerkes