Can The United States and China Avoid the Thucydides Trap?

"The defining question about global order for this generation is whether China and the United States can escape Thucydides’s Trap. More than 2,400 years ago, the Athenian historian Thucydides offered a powerful insight: “It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this inspired in Sparta, that made war inevitable.” Others identified an array of contributing causes of the Peloponnesian War. But Thucydides went to the heart of the matter, focusing on the inexorable, structural stress caused by a rapid shift in the balance of power between two rivals.

Note that Thucydides identified two key drivers of this dynamic: the rising power’s growing entitlement, sense of its importance, and demand for greater say and sway, on the one hand, and the fear, insecurity, and determination to defend the status quo this engenders in the established power, on the other. The Greek historian’s metaphor reminds us of the attendant dangers when a rising power rivals a ruling power—as Athens challenged Sparta in ancient Greece, or as Germany did Britain a century ago.

Most such contests have ended badly, often for both nations, a team of mine at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has concluded after analyzing the historical record. In 12 of 16 cases over the past 500 years, the result was war. When the parties avoided war, it required huge, painful adjustments in attitudes and actions on the part not just of the challenger but also the challenged.

A risk associated with Thucydides’s Trap is that business as usual—not just an unexpected, extraordinary event—can trigger large-scale conflict. When a rising power is threatening to displace a ruling power, standard crises that would otherwise be contained, like the assassination of an archduke in 1914, can initiate a cascade of reactions that, in turn, produce outcomes none of the parties would otherwise have chosen.

War, however, is not inevitable. Four of the 16 cases in our review did not end in bloodshed. Those successes, as well as the failures, offer pertinent lessons for today’s world leaders. Escaping the Trap requires tremendous effort. As Xi Jinping himself said during a visit to Seattle on Tuesday, “There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap in the world. But should major countries time and again make the mistakes of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for themselves.”

- In the 21st century, China's precipitous rise has been met in America for the most part with great complacency; much of our foreign policy in East Asia has simply coasted on autopilot, on the blithe assumption that our regional strategic pre-eminence since WWII was a natural state of affairs and would never end. But we are reverting to the historical mean now, with China being the regional hegemon in East Asia. We are not taking seriously China's deep interest in regaining this position, or the sacrifices they are willing to endure, to attain it. Right now we suffer from the same somnambulism about the status quo that afflicted European countries in the run-up to World War 1. But we have to check our head, here: NOTHING is worth a war with China. Not Pride, not Alliances, not relative strategic position. China's advantages in regaining their regional pre-eminence are insuperable. We need to start planning immediately to climb down from our forward-position in East Asia, and re-set the geostrategic table to accommodate China, while also protecting our true core strategic interests. We cannot wait on a crisis to stage a humiliating volte face; we need to cooperate with China to move peaceably to a new strategic equilibrium, where we draw back to a defensible perimeter, keep their navy OUT of the Western hemisphere (including the Arctic Ocean), and focus our defense efforts in the Cyberspace and Earth-orbit arenas.

Will we be smart enough as a people to make this strategic shift? Most Americans have a knee-jerk belligerence as a reaction to the prospect of a rising China; sadly, that is precisely the kind of somnambulism that is going to lead us directly into the furnace of another World War.





https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ited-states-china-war-thucydides-trap/406756/

 

Are there more advantages or disadvantages to giving up Asia?

That will determine if it's fighting over.

You didn't list any, only that we should run.

They can hit hard but so can we.

 

How we going to keep China's navy out of international waters worldwide?

 

Why would you?

 

Hey, I was just asking. The poster stated "...keep their navy out of the western hemisphere (including the Arctic Ocean)..". I want to know how people think that can be credibly done considering International Waters means just that.

 

It's not "worldwide" that we have to be concerned about; it's our own Hemisphere. We need to reinvigorate the Monroe Doctrine, as part of what we could call a "strategic accommodation" with the Chinese; we withdraw from East Asia, on the understanding that they will not meddle in the Americas. We can't keep their military vessels from transiting, but we can discourage it, by threatening to resume interloping in their own waters. The very reason why our military is so vulnerable in their home region, applies likewise to them when they try to project power into ours. The Chinese I believe are reasonable, and will not try to provoke us the way we are provoking them at present.

Besides, our presence in East Asia is currently providing a valuable free service to them; we are an "off-shore balancer," mitigating strategic conflict that would spring up in our absence. But if we are gone from South Korea, from Japan, suddenly the Japanese will be compelled to re-arm. So would South Korea. And North Korea would overnight become the CCP's responsibility.

 

My whole point is that the balance of the advantage is on our side, for getting ourselves out of there.

After you go beyond a certain threshold of "hitting hard," the cost-benefit of getting into a real fight becomes a ratio of mutual destruction. And long before it gets to that point, the Chinese would be willing to suffer a casualty-count that we would blanch at even contemplating. NOT worth it, and we need to see around this particular corner and start adapting, now.

 

Just curious, but hasn't the world changed, a lot, and China specifically, since the Atlantic article was published in 2015? The world isn't the same. Trump isn't the same threat Obama was to US capitulation to the Chinese. It is not a forgone conclusion that Beijing Biden will be elected. But isn't that the point of trotting out this old Atlantic article? To explain away his willingness to continue the disaster that was the Susan Rice policy of appeasement? This isn't very subtle. But it is instructive about just how willing the left are to never stop offering up useless fear to try to control the public.

 

Good post. I created a thread on this exact topic a while ago, being prompted by a TED talk I had listened to:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...china-escalate-into-military-conflict.561046/

My take: We have to out-innovate China. This conflict is not won on the battlefield, but rather in research laboratories. China realizes that and is pouring funds into education, research and high tech, especially on the biomedical and new energy fronts. In the meantime, 73 million Americans voted for someone who had preservation of coal jobs on his agenda. You connect the dots, as to which of the two sides is competing with an arm tied behind their backs.

 

Yes, the world isn't the same; our strategic position prior to 2016 was in gradual decline; under Trump it has dropped off a cliff.

Biden will be President; if you can't recognize that reality, I have no reason to credit any observation you make about U.S. geostrategy in East Asia.

The Thucydides Trap is a perennial feature of international relations; it describes a strategic dynamic that goes back to Ancient times, and one that is sadly all-too applicable for the United States and China right now. Typical for Americans to think "Oh, the article is a few years old, the lessons don't apply."

Unfortunately, the Biden/Rice policy will likely be one of mealy-mouthed confrontation, the exact wrong stance to have after Trump kicked over the table over there.

This, by the way, is another reason why we have to draw back to defensible perimeter. Attitudes like yours reveal how much our foreign policy has become contaminated with our domestic ideological fights. It distorts our ability to see the national interest clearly; and since we are a House Divided, we are likely to lose, and lose badly, any major-state war we get into.

 

I must have missed the part where Biden would reinvigoration the old NEOCONS into this kind of stupidity.

 

That's a pretty big blanket statement to say the Chinese wouldn't care about casualties as if they are more Savage than Americans or something.

I would remind you of the Civil War when sending tens of thousands to their death in a hopeless charge was standard practice.

 

Thanks. Back before Trump got into the 2016 race, I also posted here about this. I figured it was time to open the conversation about it again (and hoping that people will be more reasonable and less blinkered than last time)

Agreed. The Chinese are a very serious, multi-spectrum competitor. And we need to re-arrange our priorities, to compete with them in the most effective way possible.

 

Forgive me, but I find your analysis at best ridiculous. I'd almost characterize this as extra national propaganda. Your obvious wish to reignite the Obama idiocy of China capitulation is readily apparent. Why? Unless your intent is to embolden chinese adventurism, why recycle this stupidity at all? I know LOTS of never trumpers who said this same ridiculous crap and demanded everyone listen to them. That if only we retreated to ur hemisphere, and entirely ignored the threat of China that everything would be ok. Well, until it wasn't, and of course, just in case, let's deplete the treasury spending money of crap that wouldn't protect the nation. This is fear mongering at its worst. And frankly, it is as transparent as the first time Susan Rice et al trotted this out and neocons leapt to it. Biden has no intention of confrontation, and everyone except desperate never trumper neocons knows this. Give it a rest. This was BS in 2015, and it's BS now.

 

Needless to say, fighting a huge state on the other side of the world that poses no existential threat to us, is not going to elicit the kind of national willingness to sacrifice that a civil war does.

I don't see how it's controversial at all to say that the Chinese are willing to sacrifice lives on a scale that we are not. The default of their civilization discounts individualism and the solicitation of individual concerns, vs. the collective interest; and then you have to consider that they are in the throes of the kind of 19th century enthusiasm for nationalism and national glory, that led directly to the World War (1914-1945). That should make it obvious enough, just how many lives people are willing to sacrifice over such things.

 

Now, what did trump achieve with his China confrontation, except for getting votes from his fans? It looks like China will come out of the four years of Trump much better than the US. They have contained the virus and have a growing economy, by 4.9% in quarter three of 2020. Meanwhile, the US is in a culture war and self destructs because people are upset about wearing masks and not being able to go to the bars. If we keep going at that rate, China will eat our lunch, because they focus on innovation, while we focus on getting back to the 1960s.

 

Just a question, but your logic is, "china isn't a threat" and then you whiplash to "but they're a foe who will exhaust to the last man in battle..."

Look, you can't have it both ways. Your little capitulation strategy just empowers the thing you say you fear. It's a stupid argument to make.

 

What was US GDP last quarter? 33%? I mean, it was humming along nicely until the threat of Biden actually being president entered into the picture..... So, ask the hard question. You support the democrats which means you support all of the factors that you're complaining now about. Not being very consistent here. So, what is your prognosis then? Fear China? Capitulate? Since you say both, you seem pretty conflicted.

 

Obama did not "capitulate" to the Chinese (or if you want to say he did, produce the evidence). Instead, Obama mostly was just following on autopilot the same strategic position we've had there for decades, even as the condition on the ground has been revolutionized by China's rise.

Chinese adventurism does not have to wait on us and is not waiting on us.

Myself I've never encountered a single Trumper who's held that view. For one, you don't - and I would take your view as typical.

- ?? Part of the motive of getting the Hell out of there, is too stop throwing away money we don't have (money, indeed, we are borrowing from the Chinese)!! You are holding a brief for us sticking around, and complaining about spending money? Incoherent, just like a Trumper.

What nonsense are you talking about? Source, please.

Read the article, genius. "A risk associated with Thucydides’s Trap is that business as usual—not just an unexpected, extraordinary event—can trigger large-scale conflict."

 

C'mon - we are meddling in their home region, a region which they view as theirs, for historical reasons. They haven't done anything about it before now because they didn't have the power to. They do now, or they will very soon.

But just because they want us out of their home region, does not mean that they are going to aggressively project power into ours. And if we retreat to a more defensible perimeter, we will be in a much better position to keep them out.

 

Your partisan obsessions are clearly distorting your ability to rationally evaluate the situation. Attitudes like yours, your kind of complacency regarding China, is all too typical in America. It's going to lead to disaster.

No, just because I am a Democrat doesn't mean I have to support their neo-Imperial foreign policy! And I do not. I am not distracted by ideology from looking at this squarely in the terms of the national interest. Maybe you should give it a try!

Only for minds that aren't capable of nuance.

 

Obama didn't capitulate to China? Really? Laughable. How many millions of jobs did he allow to be exported? You seem willing to ignore the economic destruction of the US economy. More, he failed at best to engage Chinese adventurism, allowed US assets to be detained by Chinese Military, and failed to provide real security to allies like Taiwan. You have zero idea what "autopilot" means. Nor have you used it correctly within your contextual assertion.

Chinese adventurism is entirely defined by either our willingness to ignore it, or not. Simple as that.

The rest of your comment is simply an extension of your purpose based argument that capitulation is the only way forward. You have no intention of impeding China, or the threat to world stability they might be. In your theory, we must harken back to fortress america and watch while China spreads their versions of authoritarianism around the globe. If anyone is asking for a return to "Business as usual", it's you. So why stoke the neocon fires? If this was a test balloon for "how might span rice be perceived in a Biden administration, I can tell you, not well. Just sayin.

 

And there it is. Spoken like a dutiful member of the CCP. You just couldn't help yourself.... Its folks like you that cause real conflicts. Look to history and see just how much of a failure Neville was.

 

Nah. I understand that Joe is bought and paid for. And here you come trotting out the same BS Susan Rice did that got Neocons all riled up the last time. If by democrat, you mean the USCCP, then perhaps. I doubt you actually understand national interest, given your posting so far. Running away and hiding doesn't seem to help anyone here except for the Chinese. And here you are, shilling it. There is zero nuance in your posting, its patently obvious who and what you're shilling and for whom.

 

- ?? What, the President is some sort of king that can summarily decide macroeconomic policy? Do you have even an rudimentary understanding of how economics works?

Taiwan is a client-state, not an ally. And supporting them is soon going to become much more trouble than it's worth. And you need to back up your fact-free charge that Obama failed "to engage Chinese adventurism."

Start backing up your assertions, please.

Woefully ignorant of historical realities. It's precisely this kind of chest-thumping that gets you into a World War. Very typical of a Trumper.

Ah, Here We Go. This, for your information, is the autopilot. It is indeed the bi-partisan delusion about the role of the U.S. in the world, and Ms. Rice would find nothing to disagree with you, here.

Incoherent. Frankly we're extremely lucky that we got through the past 4 years without you Trumpers getting us into another World War.