• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "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

Other

The New Asian Order And How America Can Compete

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.

Link Copied
By Evan A. Feigenbaum
Published on Jan 19, 2016

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.

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

Evan A. Feigenbaum
Vice President for Studies
Evan A. Feigenbaum
EconomyTradeForeign PolicyMiddle EastSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChinaCentral AsiaSoutheast Asia

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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Can the Disparate Threads of Ukraine Peace Talks Be Woven Together?

    Putin is stalling, waiting for a breakthrough on the front lines or a grand bargain in which Trump will give him something more than Ukraine in exchange for concessions on Ukraine. And if that doesn’t happen, the conflict could be expanded beyond Ukraine.

      Alexander Baunov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Once Neutral on the Ukraine War, Arab States Increasingly Favor Moscow

    Disillusioned with the West over Gaza, Arab countries are not only trading more with Russia; they are also more willing to criticize Kyiv.  

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Signs of an Imminent End to the Ukraine War Are Deceptive

    The main source of Russian aggression is a profound mistrust of the West and the firm belief that it intends to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. As long as this fear persists, the war will not end.

      Tatiana Stanovaya

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Where Does the Split in the Ruling Tandem Leave Kyrgyzstan?

    Despite its reputation as an island of democracy in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan appears to be on the brink of becoming a personalist autocracy.

      Temur Umarov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.