Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The meaning of Thucydides’ Trap
Reasons Allison Contend There is a Possibility of Thucydides’ Trap
Whether I Agree with Allison
Rising Power Challenging A ruling Power
Domains of Competition and Change in Dynamics
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China have been colliding diplomatically several times due to geopolitical tensions from US’s foreign policies and the gradual Chinese rise in the global order. Due to this effect, it is anticipated that the two countries will, at one point, engage in a turf war that neither of them will want (Borger & Graham-Harrison, 2020). Therefore, the war between US and China seems investable due to the US’s predominance as a superpower and China’s growth in terms of political power due to the industrial revolution that has been evident in the Asian-based country.

The situation between the two countries can be compared to the one which ensued between the Greeks and Athens in ancient times, leading to War that saw Thucydides, a writer then, contemplate various factors that led to the military race. In the book Destined for War: Can America and China escape Thucydides’ trap?, Graham Alisson believes that the forecasted War between China and the US is inevitable even if it takes time. Graham compares the current state of affairs between the two countries with that which existed during the Peloponnesian War that led to devastated Greece more than 500 years back (Graham, 2017). Therefore, the book’s concepts can be useful when debating this topic.

The meaning of Thucydides’ Trap

Thucydides’ trap is an adverse pattern of structural stress caused by an intention of a rising power to challenge a ruling one. The issue dates back to the Peloponnesian War in Greece, where Athens, which was perceived as weaker than Sparta, overpowered the existing ruler in a war that had a significant global effect (Zhang, 2021). Thucydides’ effect is evident when a superpower starts fearing the growing powers, which leads to political tension that can escalate further, resulting in War (Graham, 2017). This term has been popularized by American political expert Graham Allison, who authored the book used in this paper.

Thucydides’ trap, in this case, can be framed by the fact that China has diplomatically threatened to displace the US in terms of superiority of global power. In 2012, Alisson introduced the term in his article for the Financial Times (Graham, 2017). Therefore, the history of the Peloponnesian War can be a key determinant as to why Thucydides’ trap can be felt. Thucydides wrote a book titled History of the Peloponnesian War, which has the main events between the Athenians and Spartans. One of the vital texts by Thucydides points out that “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that it instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable” (Graham, 2017). Therefore, the tendency of China to threaten the US can be exemplified by Athens, while the US’s fear was linked to the Sparta fear then.

Reasons Allison Contend There is a Possibility of Thucydides’ Trap

Allison has explained the concept of Thucydides’ trap in the context of the US and China. The author says that ” The world has never seen anything like the rapid, tectonic shift in the global balance of power created by the rise of China” (Graham, 2017). In this case, he compares current China with the one which existed after World War II. Additionally, he says that the US would form 50% of the global economy than before the decline that started in 1980. The reason why Allison feels there is a Thucydides’ trap between US and China is the transformation that China has witnessed and the level of industrialization that has boosted the country’s political milestone.

The Chinese have developed their economy to be a formidable political and military perspective that probes competition from other established countries such as the US. The United States initiated clumsy reactions to Russia’s provocations during the Cold War. One of the signs in the pentagon said “: “If we ever faced a real enemy, we would be in deep trouble.” China is a serious potential enemy” (Graham, 2017). Thus, from this foundational point of view, Allison products that these countries will engage each other in an unfriendly battle one day. Allison puts in his text that people cannot disregard the possibility of War in the current world due to what happened during the start of World War I.

Allison has helped the audience to understand the possibility of War between the US and China. He says that a man has an inconceivable capability and which can erupt to bring new world order. In the case of China, it seems that they are likely to probe the US through the tension that has been evident in the global order (Wu, 2018). It is important to mention that China has completed the US in many areas. For example, nuclear energy production in the US is no longer a threat to the Chinese, who have technical expertise in military and explosives. Allison had given many times when an upcoming power challenges a ruling power; the result is engaging in War in what seems to be a deadly act to settle once and for all (Zhang, 2021). Thus, Allison sees warfare can ensue between these two countries due to the comparison of events that led to the Peloponnesian War.

Whether I Agree with Allison

From the content of the books and the logical reasoning that Allison has offered, I agree with him that one day the US and China might be victims of Thucydides’ trap. Various data are useful to support this answer. First, over the last 500 years, there have been 16 cases that which a rising power threatened a ruling power (Graham, 2017). Out of the total, 12 have emerged as War, making it possible for US and China to engage in a similar matter (Graham, 2017). The US and China are unwilling to adjust the attitudes and actions that may trigger the War. The two countries need to internalize current trajectories that recognize the likelihood of War to ensue. The two countries must work toward making the War impossible and inevitable (Schneider & Macdonald, 2019). Historically, the ruling powers have succeeded in managing relations with emerging powers while avoiding any trigger to a deadly battle.

The second data that can be useful in agreeing with Allison is the leadership constraints that have been evident between the presidents of the two countries concerning a global policy. During the administration of President Donald Trump, a cold war between the US and China escalated due to Trump’s allegations that China was committed to destroying the world (Klare, 2021). The coronavirus development from Wuhan, an urban point in China, probed Trump to cut the relationship in investment and manufacturing. The US take on the global policy bars a country from taking advantage of global socioeconomic matters.

Third, the US and China may stumble in a war due to confrontational military maneuvers undertaken from the coast of China. Historically, the conflict has ensued not from planning and intent but due to indirect race in terms of arms power and attacks that seem to weaken a given target (Farhadi & Masys, 2022). For example, in 1941, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union while Japan took Dutch East Indies into a battle. Additionally, the June 1914 World War I was catalyzed by European power’s extremist terror acts that led to the assassination of Archduke Franz and Sophie, his wife (Zhang, 2021). Due to the tensions, the mobilization of forces led to catastrophic impacts. Therefore, the military actions of the US and China may follow suit of what happened in the two examples given.

Rising Power Challenging A ruling Power

As depicted in previous sections, the Spartans’ ruling power in Greece was challenged by the emerging power, the Athenians; hence, War erupted. The reasons for the Peloponnesian War were the need for democratic reforms. During then, the Spartans had opposed the liberty that Athenians had concerning the need to have a change of state of affairs (Farhadi & Masys, 2022). Due to the dominance of the ruling power, Sparta couldn’t agree with Athens on the control of the Delian League, which would allow the emerging power to dominate the Mediterranean Sea. The 454 BC was caused by the ideological differences that resulted in the killing of many soldiers and civilians.

In the early 20^th century, the United Kingdom (UK) collided with the US, but there was no war. A raft of issues brought along the conflict. For example, the US had accused the UK of global financial dominance and naval sovereignty (Graham, 2017). Then, the US was the emerging power while the UK was the ruling power. The challenge did not lead to the War as the two countries concurred on the thriving measures that would apply to expand an economic strength.

The key difference between the Athenians vs. Spartans and UK vs. the US is the leadership and attitudes toward the possibility of War. Spartans feared being overpowered by Athenians; hence, they had to execute their military power. On the other hand, in the 20^th century, the UK did not want to break ties with the US to safeguard the investment and manufacturing elements that were present in the two countries (Graham, 2017). The major lesson to learn from the two events is that Geopolitical tensions trigger war. It is possible to change the attitude of warfare to allow economic breakthrough the way the US did on the UK.

Domains of Competition and Change in Dynamics

Many domains in which states compete for change dynamics of significant power competition. The dynamics in the domains are not the same due to specific metrics that vary in the economy, cyber issues, and information transfer. The power struggle in the 21^st century is shaped uniquely and driven by digital transformation (Farhadi & Masys, 2022). The US, Russia, and China have been subjected to a new rivalry. Nowadays, the changes that can be felt compared to the 20^th century involve intersections in globalization issues such as the digital economy, science, and security strategies (Borger & Graham-Harrison, 2020). A country that develops a system of integrated remedies to major global issues is seen as an emerging power.

A state that impacts global policy on hunger and disaster is given the same credit. There is no longer significant attention to domestic dynamics as countries compete to secure diplomatic and military ties (IGCC, 2022). A country understands that diplomatic relationships matter when it comes to a challenging issue due to geopolitical power. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine can be an example of how domains for competition change power superiority (Kirby, 2022). Therefore, the current world has pressed more on issues that bind together a support system during turbulent times.

Using Russia’s example to show the changing dynamic in the competition for power, a reader will understand the new goals that are key to superpowers. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has been making efforts to overrun Ukraine and weaken its government to forcefully make the country join NATO (Kirby, 2022). Putin told the media that he intends to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine” while protecting the people from tribulations they have faced under the current administration (Kirby, 2022). Therefore, the dynamics have changed compared to traditional matters that involved countries fighting for territorial occupancy. According to Putin, the fight was not planned since it was not an invasion but rather a special military operation to protect the country’s interests.

Conclusion

From Allison’s perspective, the US and China might indeed, at a one-time launch war hence, fall prey to Thucydides’ trap. The aspect of China and the US as emerging and ruling powers, respectively, relates to the ancient warfare between the Athenians and Spartans due to democratic deficits that the minority felt were evident. Thus, if China and US continue to engage each other in cold wars, the results shall be a tough war that shall come not as per the plans but a random spark from current domains which have changed in terms of dynamics. To avoid the possible War, the two countries have to believe in the inevitability of the War and change their attitude toward oppressive global policy.

References

Borger, J., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2020). Trump and Xi Jinping: Meet the new cold warriors. The Guardian. Web.

Farhadi, A., & Masys, A. (2022). The great power competition. Springer.

Graham, A. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China escape Thucydides’ trap? Mariner Books.

IGCC. (2022). Great power competition in the twenty-first century. Igcc.ucsd.edu. Web.

Kirby, P. (2022). Why has Russia invaded Ukraine, and what does Putin want? BBC News. Web.

Klare, M. (2021). Are the US and China stumbling into War? The Nation. Web.

Schneider, J., & Macdonald, J. (2019). Unmanned capabilities and the future of great power competition and conflict. SSRN Electronic Journal, 9(6), 55-57. Web.

Wu, C. (2018). The Thucydides’ trap, rationalist theories of War, and the China-US relations. SSRN Electronic Journal, 9(5), 66-69. Web.

Zhang, F. (2021). Power contention and international insecurity: A Thucydides trap in China-US financial relations? Journal Of Contemporary China, 30(131), 751-768. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!