One of the key questions in contemporary international relations is not whether there will be a transition of power between China and the United States but what kind of transition it will be based on global trends in world development. Will it be peaceful and stable or will violence and conflict accompany it? Such sentiments are shared not only by the parties involved in the potential confrontation but also by many academic researchers. They point to the inevitability of such a transition, emphasizing that it is only a matter of time.

In this situation, the following question arises: will violence accompany the transition of power between China and the United States or is there a possibility of its peaceful implementation? To answer this question, the topic will be considered through the prism of theories of international relations — realism, liberalism and constructivism. Additional attention will also be paid to the concept of the Thucydides Trap, which is widely used in the academic and political environment to describe the possible dynamics of relations between the United States and China. In the conclusion, the results will be summarized and the author's opinion on this situation presented.

Thucydides Trap

Before examining the question at hand through the lens of international relations theory, let's first consider the nature of the concept of the Thucydides Trap and its application to the U.S.-China context. The term was popularized by Graham Allison to describe the apparent tendency toward a conflict that occurs when a rising power, gaining strength, poses a threat to an established great power seeking to maintain its position as the international hegemon. Allison argues that war is highly likely in such rivalries, basing his view on historical analysis. A study of cases over the past 500 years found that war resulted in 12 out of 16 cases. In the rare instances where war was avoided, critical and painful adjustments were required in the attitudes of both sides.

The term's origins date back to the 5th century BC, when the Athenian historian Thucydides articulated the idea that it was the rise of Athens and the fear it caused Sparta that made war inevitable. Thucydides' central idea is that there was an inexorable structural tension caused by the rapidly changing balance of power between the two rivals. As Athens grew in influence and confidence in its power, it became increasingly insistent in demanding a reconsideration of the existing distribution of power. Sparta's fear of losing its preeminence was natural since Athens represented a direct threat to the system Sparta had established itself. Similar trends can be observed in the modern world, with Western countries, particularly the United States, seeking to shape the political landscape in their favor. However, the emergence of a new superpower such as China inevitably changes the structure of that landscape, creating the potential for conflict and tension.

However, this concept faces criticism from opponents who argue that the modern world is significantly different from the reality on which the concept of the Thucydides Trap is based. In the context of globalization, when many states participate in the activities of numerous international organizations, although it has been weakened, they still can influence international dynamics. In addition, transnational corporations also significantly impact international relations, creating additional layers of influence and interdependence.

There is also a view that the Thucydides Trap concept is Western-centric, relying on an antagonistic political narrative perceived exclusively through the prism of Western powers' interests. Critics argue that this approach ignores China's historical traditions, cultural characteristics and current political interests. Moreover, the possibility of a war that would undermine economic and strategic interests, including trade relations with China, could serve as a significant deterrent. Thus, critics believe the Thucydides Trap concept reflects Western fears and interpretations rather than objective reality.

Realism

Since the concept of the Thucydides Trap is closely related to political realism, it is from this school of thought that the following analysis should begin. The realist school generally emphasizes that each state must rely solely on its resources and strategies to ensure its security since no central authority in the international system can guarantee protection from external threats. Even if states are formally at peace, the possibility of war always remains relevant. Realist theories argue that two superpowers, such as China and the United States, will inevitably be in a state of constant readiness for war since each views the other as the most significant threat to its existence. This scenario holds regardless of the internal characteristics of the states or who is in power at a particular time. However, different schools of thought within the realist school offer various approaches and predictions regarding the outcome of such a rivalry.

Offensive realism

Offensive realists, most famously represented by John Mearsheimer, argue that the best way to ensure survival in the international system is to become the most powerful state possible. This is achieved by maximizing its power relative to other actors and preventing rivals from gaining strength. However, the rivalry between the United States and China is unique. Projecting power beyond one's territory, in this case across oceans and onto a hostile shore, poses a significant challenge. In such a situation, hegemons should, according to the theory, strive for regional dominance, that is, to become a regional hegemon, as the United States already is in the Western Hemisphere. Strengthening one's position in one's region is seen as a prerequisite for projecting power beyond its borders, making this a priority strategy. At the same time, both sides should work to prevent the other from achieving this goal.

Based on this, many U.S. policies aim to isolate China from the global community and maintain U.S. military superiority at all levels. Offensive realists do not view war as a desirable outcome but believe that maximizing U.S. power remains the best guarantee of U.S. security. Moreover, they argue that zero-sum competition between the U.S. and China is virtually inevitable and the risk of war between them remains significant.

Defensive realism

The opposite of offensive realism is defensive realism, which, although it shares the view that the international system is anarchic and that the primary goal of a state is to ensure its security, takes a different position on the role of force. According to defensive realism, the pursuit of power maximization can be detrimental to a state's security. This is because the excessive strength of one state can provoke the formation of coalitions of other actors aimed at containing it. In this context, defensive realists argue that to survive, a state should focus on ensuring sufficient power to protect its vital interests. However, this should be done in a way that minimizes threats to other states and does not provoke them into aggressive retaliation.

In the context of U.S.-China relations, the theory of defensive realism offers a more optimistic view of the prospects for interaction between the two powers despite their inevitable competition. According to defensive realists, neither side poses an existential threat to the other. They also emphasize that China's achievement of regional hegemonic status in the modern world is complicated due to the high level of nationalist sentiment in Asia and the persistence of ideas about the balance of power in the region. In this case, defensive realists believe that the task of containing China as a potential hegemon should not lie with the U.S. but with local, regional powers for whom such hegemony poses a more immediate threat. At the same time, according to the supporters of this theory, one of the key goals of the U.S. should be to prevent allies from distancing themselves from Washington against the backdrop of growing competition with China.

Liberalism

Liberal theories, unlike realism, focus on the influence of domestic agreements, economic ties and international institutions on the behavior and decisions of states. Political liberalism emphasizes that the type of political regime in a state has a significant impact on its foreign policy. Within this theory, there is an opinion according to which "democracies do not fight each other." In addition, liberal states tend to seek to spread liberal values ​​and principles beyond their borders. Economic liberalism argues that strong economic ties help reduce the likelihood of conflict since it is much more profitable for states to trade than to engage in military action. Liberal internationalism, in turn, suggests that to ensure compliance with agreements, states can create rules and institutions to achieve shared goals.

However, the impact of liberalism on China-U.S. relations remains controversial. On the one hand, liberal theory argues that close economic and political ties should moderate the possibility of conflict. On the other hand, in practice, liberalism faces the reality of its double standards and declining popularity. In particular, the United States has seen the rise of Trumpism and the European Union of populism, which casts doubt on the universality of liberal values. In addition, economic agreements are increasingly being broken down by political disagreements and a reluctance to cooperate with states that do not share liberal principles. The liberal view that democratic regimes are the only reliable protectors of fundamental rights may also contribute to skepticism about the possibility of a peaceful transition of power, adding to the uncertainty in U.S.-China relations.

Social constructivism

Social constructivism, unlike realism and liberalism, is not a predictive theory and, therefore, cannot predict the outcome of the rivalry between the United States and China. However, the theory offers an alternative perspective by explaining why the rivalry exists. The basic idea of ​​social constructivism is that the behavior of states is dynamic and changes depending on the social and cultural trends that dominate in a given historical period.

According to social constructivists, understanding the nature of the rivalry between the United States and China requires examining how both sides interpret their pasts and how these interpretations shape their contemporary positions. The United States views its rise to superpower and international hegemony as an almost inevitable process, arguing that this alignment of forces benefits the entire world. China, by contrast, views its history through the prism of exploitation and humiliation at the hands of Western powers and views its current rise as a return to justice and a return to its role as a leading power. This theory suggests that Beijing will seek to prevent any attempt to deprive it of what it sees as its rightful status.

Conclusion

Based on the three theoretical approaches — realism, liberalism and constructivism — it is impossible to state clearly that any one of these theories provides the most convincing explanation for the possible outcomes of the conflict between the United States and China. However, each of them, in its own way, emphasizes the nature of the conflict and points to its potential inevitability.

According to realism, the structure of the anarchic international system makes conflict almost inevitable. This is especially noticeable in the context of criticism of the Thucydides Trap concept, which, being closely related to realism, points to structural causes of tensions between the rising and the dominant powers. However, critics of realism emphasize that its approach is often Western-centric and based on an antagonistic narrative, which can contribute to the escalation of the conflict.

The author believes that the escalation of the conflict, contrary to expectations, may not be initiated by China but rather by the United States, given its role as a hegemon and its desire to maintain this status at any cost. This view is based on historical analysis demonstrating that the United States has repeatedly resorted to military intervention over the past decades. Over the past half-century, American forces have been involved in more than 30 separate operations to settle economic or territorial disputes on terms favorable to the United States or by overthrowing leaders that Washington considered unacceptable, even if these actions took place outside the national territory of the United States.

However, the author is also not inclined to perceive China's foreign policy as passive or purely defensive. China's aggressive actions aimed at strengthening its influence in various regions, as well as its ability to benefit from the prevailing geopolitical conditions, indicate that Beijing is ready to use any opportunity to advance its interests.

From a liberal perspective, the author believes this theory is an overly optimistic view of the prospects for China-American relations. As noted earlier, despite the positive narrative offered by liberal theory, the reality in recent years has shown radically different dynamics. Economic agreements are increasingly violated due to political disagreements and unwillingness to cooperate with states that do not share liberal principles. In addition, the Western-centric nature of liberalism, which assumes the incompatibility of democratic and autocratic political systems, implies the need to replace the latter with the former, which only intensifies tensions between countries with divergent political regimes and significantly reduces the likelihood of a peaceful transition of power.

From a constructivist perspective, this theory supports the author's view that different interpretations of a conflict play an essential role in its dynamics and emphasizes that to make more balanced and less aggressive political decisions, it is necessary to take into account the perception and interpretation of actions by the opponent, which, in turn, contributes to the development of strategies aimed at reducing tensions and preventing violent escalation.

In short, based on the realist school of thought, the violent transition of power, whether in direct military conflict or proxy war, seems more likely than a peaceful transition. In the liberalist context, there is a possibility of a peaceful transition of power, but this chance is decreasing every year due to the opposing tendencies of contemporary politics. From the social constructivist perspective, the probability of a violent transition of power increases due to disagreements in the interpretation of international power and its distribution.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!