Is war between China and the US inevitable? The Thucydides Trap.

[sukumvit boy]

Ancient principles of political realism from 460 BC describe the situation when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...headed-for-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides

http://www.belfercenter.org/thucydid...hucydides-trap

[Stavros]

Is war between the USA and China inevitable? No.

What would such a war look like -naval battles, aerial bombardments? Is China going to rain missiles over Los Angeles from its warships off the coast of California? Is the USA from its bases in South Korea going to bomb Shanghai?

Why would war be the only solution and to what political problem? The US has opposed China's illegal occupation of the Spratly Islands but has not taken any action to prevent it, nor did the Philippines, one of the States with a claim on the islands ask the US for assistance, indeed Rodrigo Duterte has deepened rather than restricted his country's relations with China.

Could the war be a re-run of the Korean war with China pouring in troops and materiel to maintain the supremacy of the Communist Party in the North? Is China willing to go to war with the US over Korea again? If the war does not have a clear outcome, would even the current Generals in charge of the US military see it is a 'winnable war'? Presumably, victory would be the dissolution of, even surrender of the North Korean regime and the re-unification of Korea, is that achievable?

So if there is to be a 'war', it would not look like the conventional wars of the 20th century; it could be a cyber-war, a trade war, an info-war but what would they achieve and for what objectives? China has prospered because of its relations with the USA and the rest of the world, as is also true of the USA. Only an idiot would want to change that balance of power...

The President of the USA has been given permission to sell trademarks in China under his company names, a commercial advantage that he will want to protect along with the contracts his daughter has to Make In China not America her commercial products. The Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, yet this President has relinquished power to Defence and State and the Generals have extended US military actions in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, the Yemen and Somalia and want to increase it in Afghanistan so in theory they might see an opportunity for yet more millions or billions of dollars to be thrown at a problem they cannot control that produces outcomes that fail.

In any case Thucydides was trying to explain how the war between Athens and Sparta ran out of control once it had started, with pride and emotion being part of the mix that prevented a diplomatic solution, proof that whatever political cause leads to military conflict, once the conflict begins, the military takes over and creates its own agenda, and the fighting continues until someone decides to revive the talks about the politics that started it all.

Germany did not go to war with Britain and the rest of Europe in 1914 out of fear, it resented the fact that the British and French Empires were larger and more global, and wanted to dominate Europe as compensation for its lack of power elsewhere -it was a threat to the balance of power in Europe that mattered, just as Europe went to war with Napoleon's attempt to dominate Europe and replace existing monarchies with his own version, often staffed by members of his own family.

If you want to shift your gaze from China, try this, which argues the 'Thucydides Trap' is more accurately a description of war between the Red and Blue states of the USA...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...a-go-war-19063

[Stavros]

Reading this again, I stand by my post above with regard to China. Indeed, just as the President threatened to impose tariffs on China last week, so it now appears that he may be willing to suspend them if he can reach an agreement on intellectual copyright. Just as interesting is that the NYT today published an article which reported that Steve Bannon has said tariffs are the key to the administration being bold and implementing the original programme -the one he and Stephen Miller drafted for the Inauguration Speech- and that if the President does not go ahead with the tariffs it means he has sold out and become just another Republican machine politician. Compare that to what Ann Coulter said I think two weeks ago that it was the Wall which would define the authenticity of the 'new deal' in the White House. So I guess its take your pick: the wall or tariffs?

However, there is one sense in which the Thucydides Trap could apply, and that is emerging in the currently confused messages from France and the USA with regard to their reaction to the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria. The point would be that in both cases there are powers which may not actually be in decline, but believe themselves to be weaker than they once were. A major part of the platform on which the President based his campaign was the claim that under Obama the USA had become a weak player on the international scene, that other states were taking advantage of this weakness, and that only he could be relied on to revive American power abroad, even as it dealt the 'American carnage' of a 'Broken America' at home.

Similarly Putin has based a lot of his international affairs on the belief that Russia became a weak country under Yeltsin's 'leadership', that foreign interests took advantage of this weakness to extract wealth from Russia, and duped the Russians when Putin took over by telling lies abut Iraq and Libya in particular. Thus Russia's involvement in the Syrian war is a demonstration of its power, just as its interference in various election but notably the US Presidential election, and the chemical attacks on the UK are pokes in the eyes to remind us that Russia is a great and powerful state.

The Trap opens up when the two sides becomes hostage to their own rhetoric, insisting that an action must produce a reaction but in the Syrian context not offering a solution to the core problem -that Syria is a failed state without a functioning government with authority across the state, with political representation that is fractured and without legitimacy, a shattered economy, and the absence of civil society. As if often the case, a weak leader who relies on external forces to survive, if in some way removed from the scene would not by itself solve the problem of the State. To make it worse, the Syrian conflict has lasted so long because of internal divisions stretched by external actors, creating a separate layer of conflict between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US on one side, Russia, Iran and Syria on the other, with Turkey playing its own role by focusing its military (assisted it seems by former members of Daesh and al-Qaeda) on the Kurds.

On the one hand both the Americans and the Israelis may feel compelled to act -Israel having attacked Iranians in Syria in the last seven days- but knowing Iran and the Russians will react, but not knowing how. This could in fact just be another round of gestures, such as the US air strike on Syria last year, but the potential for this to get out of hand is there, not least because the more moderate voices in the President's government have gone to be replaced by hard-liners like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Maybe Macron is urging caution; maybe the Generals are pointing out the limited options; but with the President under siege from Robert Mueller's investigation -the raid on his lawyer's premises is itself premised on the view the law has been broken- the President may seek some positive news if he can get it from a military response to the current situation in Syria.

It is indeed a trap, but will the President act, or bark loudly before taking a more moderate course of action?

[Stavros]

“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria,” the US president tweeted. “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’ You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”

Earlier this year he criticised Obama for telegraphing US military intentions in Iraq in advance, and on North Korea said the US was playing “a very, very hard game of poker and you don’t want to reveal your hand” .

Hmmm...barking from the White House in advance, showing your hand...who benefits from this?

[filghy2]

I can think of only one historical example where the previously dominant power was able to accommodate the rise of another power without conflict. That was when the US supplanted the UK in the early 20th century, which is probably an unusual case because of the high degree a cultural affinity between the two. Are there any other examples?

Of course, it may not be a direct, conventional war between the US and China. The US and USSR never fought directly during the cold war. But miscalculations can happen, particularly when adults are not in charge.

[Stavros]

I can think of only one historical example where the previously dominant power was able to accommodate the rise of another power without conflict. That was when the US supplanted the UK in the early 20th century, which is probably an unusual case because of the high degree a cultural affinity between the two. Are there any other examples?
Of course, it may not be a direct, conventional war between the US and China. The US and USSR never fought directly during the cold war. But miscalculations can happen, particularly when adults are not in charge.

I am not convinced by your example because while the US overtook the UK in terms of industrial production before 1914, the UK should really be thought of as the British Empire, which had more extensive global reach than the US although the latter had its own imperial possessions in Cuba and the Philippines and under the 'Monroe Doctrine' from 1823 claimed superior rights across the Americas to Britain. By that time the US had become the British Empire's most valued trading partner and because both benefited from their economic relationship there was no basis for conflict, whereas when the British Empire was in decline and had lost the dominance in the US it once had, relations soured, notably during the Suez War of 1956 when the UK went cap in hand to the IMF and the US refused to support its appeal for a short-term loan; and the USA's gradual undermining of British influence in the Middle East beginning with the intervention in Lebanon in 1958 and the cultivation of King Hussein of Jordan who was put on the CIA payroll around this time when he had been having internal problems with a confused group of Arab nationalists and communists.

There may be examples, such as in Latin America where, with the exception of the 'small' ie, not total wars- of the 1860s there has been an absence of inter-state wars, but a great deal of political violence within the state (article linked below); while it could be argued that South East Asian states such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand all grew around the same time between 1960-2000 without going to war with each other although Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand have all had internal political problems.
http://www.postwesternworld.com/2016...ation-america/

War by proxy was a characteristic feature of the Cold War era, notably the use of clandestine 'terrorist' networks such as the Gladio network in Italy where the Communist Party was considered a serious enough threat to warrant the manipulation of elections and severe acts of violence; the wars of succession that followed the demise of the Portuguese Empire in southern Africa, and confrontations over Israel in the Middle East. In all cases the worst case scenarios -Cuba in the 1960s, China and the USSR in 1969, Israel and Egypt in 1973- nuclear confrontation was avoided through diplomacy and the reluctance of nuclear powers to use the weapons at their disposal.

The current US administration is significantly weaker than the Obama administration,most of the highest ranking officials appointed at the start of the Administration in Janaury 2017 have either been sacked or resigned; it has already lost three high ranking members of its National Security Council in the last year while appointing as its director a man known for advocating military rather than diplomatic solutions to US foreign policy; it has weakened the capacity of the State Department to offer informed advice to the President who, in any case, has little or no interest in it, relying instead on military men who may have their own agenda, and he is more concerned with taking a militant position because it sounds good on tv and is what his 30% want to hear.

That the President has telegraphed the USA's intentions in Syria in advance means that his Russian backers can move their assets from identified targets to avoid being hit; just as the Syrians can move any chemical weapons stocks they have at identified locations and move materiel from vulnerable airfields. Cruise missile strikes costing millions can then rain down on all but useless targets but provide the President with his glorious tv twitter moments.

Although there is a belief that the use of chemical weapons should not go 'unpunished' -as if the Syrian government cared- the longer term aim of the USA can be summed up quite easily.

Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and his successor craves it with a passion that may be greater than his passion for pussy (even more than money? This is conceivable). His scenario thus sees him talk up the prospects of war in Korea and the Middle East, only to then use his phenomenal (as defined by him) skills in drawing down the threat and thus opting for peace, though in fact he is incapable of ending the civil war in Syria or persuading Russia and Iran to stop supporting Bashar al-Asad, and it appears de-nuclearization in Korea means to Kim Jong-un something different from what it means in the White House.

Either way, he wants that Nobel Peace Prize, seeing it as a political Oscar more worthy than the Prize that was given to the Black Man he hates and upon whom he is dedicated to extract revenge.

[filghy2]

But we are talking about situations in which there is an established leading power and a rising power that is no longer willing to accept a subsidiary position. The question is whether they can reach an accommodation without resorting to conflict. As I said, I can only think of one case where this happened. I don't think Latin America or South East Asia are relevant because no country in those regions was in a position to dominate the others and, in any case, they were operating under US global hegemony.

Another book that is very relevant to this situation is Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ri...e_Great_Powers

[Stavros]

The question would be, did the USA think it was a subordinate power in the early 20th century? I don't think so. Moreover, while the US entered the First Word War to decisive effect in 1917, and although Woodrow Wilson saw this as an opportunity to place the USA at the centre of World Politics through his promotion of 'national self-determination' -an anti-imperialist project that was little different from what Lenin was advocating and which could be read as anti-British, the Republican victory in the 1920 Presidential elections led to the USA opting out of an international role in the League of Nations, so they did not challenge the British Empire at all.

Meanwhile it is reported in the Guardian:

• Fears of a military confrontation between Russia and the West over Syria remain high, but Donald Trump has dialled down his rhetoric on the imminence of airstrikes against the Assad regime. “Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!” the president said in his latest early morning tweet.
  
• A “deconfliction” telephone line for Syria between Russia and the US is being used by both sides, the Kremlin has said. “The line is used and it is active. In general the line is used by both sides,” the Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters.
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...g-live-updates

give the man a prize.

[filghy2]

Let me put it this way. Historical experience suggests X and Y are almost always followed by outcome Z. Which of these interpretations is the more plausible:
(i) X and Y lead to Z unless there are other factors that offset this tendency; or
(ii) X and Y do not lead to Z, which is caused instead by other factors?

In statistical terms, the only way that (ii) could be supported is if there are other factors causing Z that are independent of X and Y, but just happen to be correlated with them.

[Stavros]

Let me put it this way. Historical experience suggests X and Y are almost always followed by outcome Z. Which of these interpretations is the more plausible:
(i) X and Y lead to Z unless there are other factors that offset this tendency; or
(ii) X and Y do not lead to Z, which is caused instead by other factors?
In statistical terms, the only way that (ii) could be supported is if there are other factors causing Z that are independent of X and Y, but just happen to be correlated with them.

The real problem may be that Thucydides Trap only works for the original example, and that too many complicating factors in more recent history weaken the thesis. If that sounds like a cop-out, it probably is. I do see your point about Britain and the US, and I almost accept it, but those other factors just don't get it over the finishing line.