Thucydides Trap
The Dangers of the South China Sea
For all the recent whirlwind talk and panic concerning the relationship between America and Russia today, the more significant relationship in the future just might be the one between America and China. Ever since the late 20th century, the Chinese economic machine has ascended to compete with America on the world stage. Consider this: The resurgent China in recent years has caught up to America in total economic output, up to a point where by 2021, China will have finally reemerged as the world largest economy.[1] This reversal of economic standing has raised the uncomfortable possibility that China may very well one day challenge America for global supremacy.
If the case of a rising global power threatening to displace a current global power sounds familiar, it is because it has happened quite often in history. It is a phenomenon dubbed the “Thucydides Trap”, which is a phrase coined after the famous Greek historian, Thucydides. As a 5th century historian, he watched an ascendant Athens and a ruling Sparta fight in the Peloponnesian War. He remarked: “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”
Partly inspired by this sentiment, researchers at Harvard Kennedy School have put together a study that attempts to identify these same moments when a rising power has challenged a major ruling power.[2] In the 16 cases they found that justified this criteria, 12 of them resulted in war. One of these notable wars was the Russo-Japanese War, where Japan announced their presence on the global stage by defeating Russia in a series of land and naval conflicts surrounding the Liaodong Peninsula. It was a simple case of a rising power (Japan) expanding its sphere of influence at the expense of a ruling power (Russia), leading to a clash that would define the Asian region for the next half century.
The most infamous example of the Thucydides Trap is the most tragic one. The First World War began when Germany, a newly unified nation, started building its navy in the early 20th century. Britain, then the world’s pre-eminent naval power, grew uneasy with the looming threat, and began to reach out to countries that it had previously held an uneasy relationship with, such as France and Russia. In response, Germany, paranoid about being isolated from the rest of Europe, looked further to strengthen its ties with Austria-Hungary. And so when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro - Hungarian throne, was assassinated in 1914 by a Serbian nationalist, war was inevitable.[3] Britain’s alignment with Russia, a Serbian ally, dragged it into conflict with Germany, who came to the aid of Austria-Hungary. This cycle from insecurity on the British side to paranoia on the German side ratcheted up the stakes, and in the end, with deep mistrust of both sides and entangling alliances, they became trapped.
So how does the Chinese-American relationship tie into this? A large part is based on the position China believes it deserves in the global order. Before the 19th century, China had regarded itself as the most advanced of all civilizations; outsiders were barbaric and to be looked down upon, with no need to interact or learn from them. Even the name itself –“Zhong Guo” — means “Middle Kingdom”, a reference to the ethnocentric belief that China is the center of the world. But by the end of the 19th century, China has been humiliated and stripped of its mistaken pride. The opium wars with England had left it burdened with the Treaty of Nanking, which opened the country to foreign trade, forced it to pay restorations, and made it cede land to other countries. But more importantly, the belief that their nation was still the leading global power had been effectively demolished. Since then, much of China’s nationalistic policy has been restoring itself as a leading nation of the world. Meanwhile, its psyche has internalized its humiliation at the hands of foreign nations, and its distrust of outside influences has grown.
This might prove to be a problem. America, a country used to a leading role, might soon have to share the world stage soon with a major rival. Over the past 70 year since World War 2, we have established an international order that has been characterized by an American hegemony. From Vietnam to the Middle East, America has been active on all fronts in maintaining a world order that values democracy and human rights. China, a communist state with a spotty human rights record, does not represent these values. Naturally, both countries have regarded each other with tense mistrust.
The biggest danger to the relationship is the current predicament in the South China Sea. Boxed in from the East by the Taiwanese and from the West by the Vietnamese, it lies under the watchful gaze of the People’s Republic of China to the North. Approximately 1.35 million square miles (Or 1/20th the size of the Indian Ocean), it is now the site of intra-regional bickering over what has become an area of tremendous commercial value. Every year, 5 trillion dollars’ worth of goods pass by, making it the third most valuable maritime shipping route in the world. And while quantitative estimates range, there is a consensus from the US Energy Agency that there is at least 11 billion barrels of oil in the South China Sea.[4] 80% of China’s annual crude oil is sifted through these region, while two-thirds of South Korea’s and 60% of Japan’s energy supplies pass by this choke point.[5] Territorial disputes over the region are of course, no surprise. China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines have all laid varying claims on the sea, and in recent years, the disputes have ratcheted up to a borderline international crisis. China, especially, has become very aggressive, taking part in building military strips on islands and increasing naval patrols in the sea, while also declaring that warships who plan to come within the region must give notification first.
But America has objected to this military buildup, if only for the sole purpose of the freedom of navigation for all countries. As America works to reassure its Asian allies by sending its navy patrols in the region, it has led to flare ups with China. At the heart of the matter is the UNCLOS, an international agreement made by the UN that governs the laws of the oceans. China, for one, takes threat at the fact that the US sends naval patrols to ensure freedom of navigation, and sees it a violation of international law. Just last year, a spokesman for the country said the “UNCLOS allows innocent passage by foreign vessels through others’ territorial waters, but there is no specific term stating that military vessels have such a right”.[6] But this is more of a technicality. While is true that there is no statement that allows the specific travel of warships in territorial seas, Article of 17 of the UNCLOS does state that “ships of all states…enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.[7] However, ships that post an active threat of war do not gain the same benefit, which is a fact that China contends as it considers American warships to be a danger. But in the name of the freedom of navigation, America disagrees.
The Chinese spokesman’s statement also raises another interesting point of contention. The term “territorial waters” implies that China believes the South China Sea is under its sovereignty, a thought that stretches back centuries. For China, control of the sea is based on historical precedent, a narrative that China has encouraged in its quest to establish hegemony in the region. It has claimed that the Paracels and Spratlys, two chains of islands that resides in the region, were key islands of the nation dating back centuries ago. As part of this campaign, China has promoted the “9 Dashes”: a series of lines that graphically define its ownership of the South China seas as far North as the Taiwanese Straits, and as far South as the upper coast of Malaysia.
Unsurprisingly, due to the tremendous value of the region, its neighbors have disputed this claim. Vietnam has criticized China on this front, arguing that it has owned the Paracels and Spratlys since the 17th century. Tensions have always been high between the two countries, with flare-ups occurring regularly. In 1974, China took the Paracels from Vietnam, killing 70 Vietnamese soldiers, and in 1988, the sides fought again over the Spratlys, with 60 Vietnamese soldiers perishing. Meanwhile, the Philippines have laid their claim on area in the South China Sea due to their close proximity to the Spratlys Islands, and Malaysia and Brunei have made smaller claims along their coastal regions.[8]
But due to the relatively small clout of these nations in comparison to that of China, America has been forced to step in on their behalf, a precarious position that balances its position as a global watchdog and its burgeoning relationship with China. On one hand, its freedom of navigation principle is a core tenant of the world it leads today. On the other hand, the relationship with China is one that shouldn’t be poisoned. The Thucydides Trap tells exactly of this danger: A rising power like China, eager to assert itself at the expense of a ruling power like America, precipitates a conflict between the two.
It does not help that the current American administration seems to have fanned the flames. President Trump has repeatedly criticized China on his campaign route for its trade surplus with America, while his early December call with the president of Taiwan was nothing more than a provocative gesture at the PRC. Then, Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State, raised some eyebrows during his senate hearing when he suggested blocking China from the islands it had built in the region,[9] a sure way to ignite a conflict between the two countries. At the very best, the new administration is sending a strong signal that it will establish a hard line with China for the future. At the very worst, the situation can spiral quickly out of control.
This is the wrong way to go about the relationship between the two countries. To successfully avoid the Thucydides Trap would require a rethinking of what type of global presence America wants to project, which is a significant shift in the way our country is used to behaving. This continued insistence on competing with a newly militarized China in the South China Sea can prove deadly not only in terms of human lives, but also in terms of damage to a relationship that is mutually beneficial to both countries: China and America are dependent on each other economically, with the former providing cheap goods and production to the latter. It does not make much sense for a conflict now, or ever. But at the same time, America must also maintain a presence within the region that sends a strong enough signal that will reassures it allies in South Asia, but not so provocative enough to anger China. It is a fine line for the country to walk, but given the immense potential blowback from a botched crisis in the South China Sea, it is worth America’s time to consider all the options and to proceed carefully.
Notes
[1] Economist. 2013. “Catching the Eagle”. Accessed March 3, 2017. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/08/chinese-and-american-gdp-forecasts
[2] Belfercenter. 2017. “Thucydides Trap.” Accessed March 3, 2017. http://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/case-file
[3] Politics and Strategy. 2016. “Churchill, the Thucydides Trap, and the Origins of World War 1. Accessed March 3, 2017. https://politicsandstrategy.com/https-politicsandstrategy-com-churchill-the-thucydides-trap-and-the-origins-of-world-war-i-be58d3b6a7e9#.p95wxwl1s
[4] National Interest. 2016. “$5 Trillion Meltdown: What if China Shuts Down the China Sea?”Accessed March 2, 2017. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/5-trillion-meltdown-what-if-china-shuts-down-the-south-china-16996
[5] Business Insider. 2015. “Why is the South China Sea so Crucial?” Accessed March 1, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-the-south-china-sea-is-so-crucial-2015-2
[6] Fmprc. 2011. “Spokeperson’s Remarks.” Accessed March 3, 2017. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1362394.shtml
[7] Article 17. UNCLOS. Accessed March 2, 2017.
[8] BBC. 2016. “Why is the South China Sea Contentious?” Accessed February, 27 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
[9] New York Times. 2017. “Rex Tillerson’s South China Sea Remarks Foreshadow Possible Foreign Policy Crisis.” Accessed February 27, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/world/asia/rex-tillerson-south-china-sea-us.html?_r=0
