The Thucydides trap

Published July 24, 2016
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

THE ancient Greek historian Thucydides theorised that when an established power encountered a rising power, a conflict between them was inevitable. Today, the US, the current global hegemon, and China, the rising power, appear to be hurtling towards the Thucydides trap.

As the former Chinese foreign policy czar, Dai Bingguo, recalled at a US-China conference, in a little over 40 years China-US relations have “produced tremendous and extraordinary outcomes”: in bilateral trade and investment, restraining threats to peace and security and addressing global problems.

However, the US now clearly perceives China’s rise as a threat to its global pre-eminence. President Obama announced a US ‘pivot’ to Asia three years ago. The pivot is now firmly under way.


American military moves to contain China have become more robust and overt in recent months.


Two-thirds of US naval power is being deployed to the Pacific. The US is building a ring of alliances with countries around China’s periphery: from South Korea to Afghanistan. It has interposed itself in China’s maritime disputes; accused China of unfair trade, cyber attacks and espionage and human rights violations; excluded China from the US-sponsored Transpacific Trade Partnership and boycotted the China-sponsored Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

American military moves to contain China have become more robust and overt in recent months.

These include: support for Japan’s militarisation; the stationing of US naval and air forces in the Philippines; aggressive naval patrolling in the South China Sea; ever closer defence cooperation with and supplies to India; pre-positioning of US military equipment and supplies in Vietnam; joint naval and military exercises with Japan, South Korea, Australia and India; an agreement with South Korea to station the sophisticated THAAD anti-missile system there; ostensibly to counter North Korea’s missile threat, but which would also enable the US to partially neutralise China’s long-range missile capabilities; and in the context of China’s assertion of its claims in the South China Sea, the hawkish, half-Japanese head of the US Pacific Command has reportedly told his troops to be ready “to fight tonight”.

The recent ex-parte award against China on the South China Sea islands dispute by The Hague Arbitration Tribunal, set up pursuant to the Philippines’ unilateral approach to the International Court, could bring the growing Sino-US tensions to a climax.

In the aforementioned speech, Dai Bingguo recalled that, at the end of the Second World War, the US had actually helped China to recover control of the South China islands from Japanese occupation, thereby acknowledging China’s historical claim. Dai said that 42 islands and reefs were ‘illegally’ occupied by the Philippines, Vietnam and others after 1970. The later US declaration, that it took no position on the issue of sovereignty over these islands, Dai said, amounted to ‘back-pedalling’. Three years ago, the US declared it had a ‘national interest’ in these disputes and encouraged their multi-lateralisation.

The Hague award has stated that China has no historical claim to several of these islands. The US asserts that this is now international law which China must observe, thus reversing its post-War position. Washington’s stance is all the more invidious since it, unlike China, is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

China asserts that the ‘tribunal’ was constituted unilaterally; it had no jurisdiction under UNCLOS to proceed without China’s concurrence, much less to pronounce on territorial issues which are not within the scope of the convention.

The full scope of China’s response to US moves against it is as yet unclear. Given the rising pride and nationalism in China, Beijing will resist any ‘humiliation’ or concession on China’s ‘territorial integrity’.

China has announced it will soon hold extensive military exercises in sections of the South China Sea, no doubt designed to reaffirm its territorial claims. Any attempt by the US to conduct so-called ‘freedom of navigation’ forays during such exercises could trigger an early test of strength.

China will, no doubt, attempt to persuade the new Philippine president to desist from attempting to ‘implement’ The Hague award and opt for a negotiated settlement. In exchange, the Philippines could be offered extensive Chinese support for infrastructure development. If Manila spurns this offer, Beijing’s response is likely to be harsh, all the more so to ensure that others littoral states do not follow the Philippines’ example.

If Seoul proceeds to deploy the THAAD anti-missile system, China’s political and trade relations with South Korea may deteriorate significantly. Instead of sanctions, China could expand economic and defence assistance to North Korea to prevent its collapse.

Beijing’s posture towards Japan is also likely to harden. The US-Japan-South Korea military exercises could be countered by joint China-Russia naval operations in the North China Sea.

In response to growing Indo-US military cooperation, China could ‘activate’ the northern disputed border, extend its naval operations into the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, further enhance its strategic partnership with Pakistan and intensify efforts to build greater influence in Afghanistan and other South Asian states.

The escalating Sino-US rivalry will compel Pakistan to align itself even more closely with China. Consequently, Pakistan will face even greater US pressure and coercion, including on Afghanistan, terrorism, nuclear and missile issues.

The impact of a Sino-US confrontation would be global. Sino-Russian defence cooperation would intensify. The One Belt, One Road project will link China with Europe through Russia, reducing American influence. In the Middle East, China could align with anti-US states. Africa could divide between Western and Chinese blocs. In Latin America, Mexico, Brazil and some other states may be open to closer relations with China to challenge American domination. The Sino-US economic relationship, including cross-border investment and their trillion dollar trade, would decline sharply, slowing growth in both countries and the world economy and possibly igniting another global economic crisis.

Of the 15 historical cases reviewed by Dr Kissinger of established powers encountering rising rivals, 10 resulted in conflict. The US and China could yet back away from the Thucydides trap. The onus for doing so rests with Washington. Unfortunately, the anti-China populism reflected in the current US presidential campaign does not augur well for the triumph of restraint and reason.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Published in Dawn, July 24th, 2016

Opinion

Editorial

Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...
Provincial share
Updated 17 Mar, 2024

Provincial share

PPP has aptly advised Centre to worry about improving its tax collection rather than eying provinces’ share of tax revenues.
X-communication
17 Mar, 2024

X-communication

IT has now been a month since Pakistani authorities decided that the country must be cut off from one of the...
Stateless humanity
17 Mar, 2024

Stateless humanity

THE endless hostility between India and Pakistan has reduced prisoners to mere statistics. Although the two ...