Thucydides Trap

The term is primarily used and was coined in relation to a potential military conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China.[2] Xi Jinping, the paramount leader of China, has himself referenced the term, cautioning that "We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides trap".[13] The term gained further influence in 2018 as a result of a surge in US-Chinese tensions after US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on almost half of China's exports to the US, leading to a tit-for-tat series of economic escalations.[2][14]

Western scholars have noted that there are a number of pressing issues the two nations are at odds over that increase the likelihood of the two powers falling into the Thucydides trap, including the de facto independence of Taiwan, China's digital policing and its use of cyber espionage, differing policies towards North Korea, China's increased naval presence in the Pacific and its claims over the South China Sea, and human rights in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.[1][12][14][15] Some also point to the consolidation of power by Xi Jinping, supposedly irreconcilable differences in values, and the trade deficit as further evidence the countries may be slipping into the Thucydides trap.[14][16]

A number of scholars have criticized the application of the Thucydides trap to US-China relations. For instance, Richard Hanania, a research fellow at Columbia University, has argued that there is no Thucydides Trap between the United States and China because China's ambitions are limited primarily to combating internal issues, signifying that China does not pose a significant threat to US interests.[17] Hu Bo, a professor at Peking University's Institute of Ocean Research and one of China's foremost naval strategists, has similarly said that he does not believe the current balance of power between the United States and China supports the Thucydides hypothesis.[12] Other scholars like Historian Arthur Waldron have claimed that China is still far too weak for such a conflict, pointing in particular to China's "economic vulnerabilities" and an exodus of Chinese people out of China.[18]

Others have derided the Thucydides Trap as a quaint piece of ancient history that is not particularly applicable to modern times. James Palmer, a deputy editor at Foreign Policy, in his article "Oh God, Not the Peloponnesian War Again", wrote of the Thucydides Trap that "conflicts between city-states in a backwater Eurasian promontory 2,000 years ago are an unreliable guide to modern geopolitics—and they neglect a vast span of world history that may be far more relevant".[19] He further noted derisively that Thucydides shouldn't "hold the same grip on international relations scholars that Harry Potter does on millennial readers".

In a reverse of Allison's concerns, Harvard University political scientist Joseph S. Nye has argued that the primary concern is not the rise of China leading to a Thucydides trap, but rather internal issues within China leading to a weakening of China in what he calls a "Kindleberger Trap".[15][20]

Finally, some have noted that Chinese state propaganda outlets have latched onto the narrative of the Thucydides trap in order to promote a set of power relations that favors China.[21]

The research by Graham Allison supporting the Thucydides trap has also been criticized. Harvard University political scientist Joseph S. Nye has contested the claim that 12 of the 16 historical cases of a rising power rivaling a ruling power resulted in war on the basis that Allison misidentifies cases.[20] For example, he points to the case of World War I, which Allison identifies as an instance of emerging Germany rivaling established Britain, saying that Allison misidentifies the causes of World War I. Historian Arthur Waldron has similarly argued that Allison mischaracterizes several conflicts.[18] For example, he says of the Japan-Russia conflict included by Allison: "Japan was the rising power in 1904 while Russia was long established. Did Russia therefore seek to preempt Japan? No. The Japanese launched a surprise attack on Russia, scuttling the Czar’s fleet."

Others have questioned Allison's reading of Thucydides. In a case study for the Institute for National Strategic Studies, the military research arm of the National Defense University, Alan Greeley Misenheimer says that "Thucydides’ text does not support Allison's normative assertion about the 'inevitable' result of an encounter between 'rising' and 'ruling' powers" and that while it "draws welcome attention both to Thucydides and to the pitfalls of great power competition" it "fails as a heuristic device or predictive tool in the analysis of contemporary events".[11]

Harvard University political scientist Joseph S. Nye has argued that Graham Allison misunderstands the Peloponnesian War, arguing that it was not in fact a result of a rising Athens challenging Sparta.[20] Historian Arthur Waldron relatedly argued that Professor Donald Kagan of Yale University and the late Professor Ernst Badian of Harvard University have "long ago proved that no such thing exists as the 'Thucydides Trap'" with regards to the Peloponnesian War.[18]