• 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
    Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Performance Art or Meaningful Collaboration?

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • Commentary
    In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia

      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
    Ten Years After Karimov’s Death, How Much Has Uzbekistan Really Changed?

    In the tenth year of his presidency, President Mirziyoyev’s system is becoming even more personalized than that of his predecessor Karimov.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World Order

    With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Exporting Its Fuel Crisis to Central Asia

    When faced with fuel shortages in the past, Central Asian governments could always count on additional supplies from Moscow. That safety net no longer exists.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Where Are President Tokayev’s Political Reforms Leading Kazakhstan?

    Tokayev’s predecessor, Nursultan Nazarbayev, outlined arrangements for a power transition too soon and in too much detail, ultimately losing control over the process. Tokayev is determined not to meet the same fate.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the Kremlin

    Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.

      Konstantin Skorkin

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