Advertisement

Journal of Chinese Political Science

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 11–24 | Cite as

More Than One Trap: Problematic Interpretations and Overlooked Lessons from Thucydides

  • Steve ChanEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Popular rendition of the so-called Thucydides’ Trap focuses excessively on only one possible explanation of interstate wars to the exclusion of others. It also commits various acts of commission and omission that threaten the validity of its central proposition. This essay reviews some of the major problems pertaining to the logic of inquiry characteristic to this genre of analysis, its interpretation of historical evidence, and its neglect of alternative explanations of war – even those that Thucydides had written about in his account. There is a danger of self-fulfilling prophecy to the extent that leaders in Beijing and Washington are inclined to believe in an analogy to an ancient war that happened some 2500 years ago. Conventional invocations of Thucydides’ Trap fail to recognize that there are several possible pathways to war. Because they offer only a structural explanation based on interstate power shifts, they give short shrift to the role of human agency and fail to attend sufficiently to what leaders can do to avoid conflict.

Keywords

Thucydides’ trap Power transition Sino-American relations Logic of inquiry Alternative paths to war 

References

  1. 1.
    Allison, Graham. 2017. Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnhart, Michael A. 1987. Japan prepares for total war: The search for economic security, 1919–1945. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckley, Michael. 2011/2012. China Century? Why America’s edge will endure. International Security 36: 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourne, Kenneth. 1967. Britain and the balance of power in North America, 1815–1908. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, Stephen G., and William Wohlforth. 2008. World out of balance: International relations and the challenge of American primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan, Steve. 2017. The power-transition discourse and China’s rise. In Encyclopedia of empirical international relations theory, ed. William R. Thompson. New York: Oxford University Press. Available online: http://politics.oxfordre.com/page/recently-published/ (Accessed 18 May 2018).
  7. 7.
    Chan, Steve. 2008. China, the U.S., and the power-transition theory: A critique. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chan, Steve. 2005. Is there a power transition between the U.S. and China? The different faces of power. Asian Survey 45: 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan, Steve. 2004. Exploring some puzzles in power-transition theory: Some implications for Sino-American relations. Security Studies 13: 103–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, Jian. 1994. China’s road to the Korean War: The making of the Sino-American confrontation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christensen, Thomas J. 2001. Posing problem without catching up: China’s rise and challenges for U.S. security policy. International Security 25: 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christensen, Thomas J., and Jack Snyder. 1990. Chain gangs and passed bucks: Predicting alliance patterns in multipolarity. International Organization 44: 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Copeland, Dale C. 2000. The origins of major war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dicicco, Jonathan M., and Jack S. Levy. 1999. Power shifts and problem shifts: The evolution of the power transition research program. Journal of Conflict Resolution 43: 675–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doran, Charles F., and Wes Parsons. 1980. War and the cycle of relative power. American Political Science Review 74: 947–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischoff, Baruch, and Ruth Beyth. 1975. “I knew it would happen”: Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fravel, M. Taylor. 2008. Strong border, Secure nation: Cooperation and order in China’s territorial disputes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ike, Nobutaka. 1967. Japan’s decision for war: Records of the 1941 policy conferences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iriye, Akira. 1981. Power and culture: The Japanese-American war, 1941–1945. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kagan, Donald. 1969. The outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy, Paul. 1987. The rise and fall of great powers. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khong, Yuen Foong. 1992. Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai, David. 2011. The United States and China in Power Transition. Strategic studies institute, U.S. Army War College. www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil. Accessed 21 October 2017
  24. 24.
    Lebow, Richard N., and Benjamin Valentino. 2009. Lost in transition: A critical analysis of power transition theory. International Relations 23: 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levy, Jack S. 2008. Power transition theory and the rise of China. In China’s ascent: power, security, and the future of international politics, ed. Robert S. Ross and Zhu Feng, 11–23. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2006. Hegemonic threats and great-power balancing in Europe, 1495-1999. Security Studies 14: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. 2010. Balancing on land and at sea: Do states ally against the leading global power? International Security 35: 7–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MacMillan, Margaret. 2013. The war that ended peace. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Modelski, George, and William R. Thompson. 1996. Leading sectors and world powers: The coevolution of global politics and economics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Most, Benjamin A., and Harvey Starr. 1989. Inquiry. logic and international politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Organski, A.F.K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The war ledger, 1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Posen, Barry R. 2003. Command of the commons: The military foundation of U.S. hegemony. International Security 28: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42: 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rapkin, David P., and William R. Thompson. 2003. Power transition, challenge and the (re)emergence of China. International Interactions 29: 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rasler, Karen, and William R. Thompson. 2000. Global war and the political economy of structural change. In Handbook of war studies II, ed. Manus Midlarsky, 301–331. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Robertson, Esmonde D. 1963. Hitler’s pre-war policy and military plans, 1933–1939. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Russett, Bruce M., and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence and international organizations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schweller, Randall. 1998. Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Snyder, Glenn H. 1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Snyder, Jack. 1993. Myths of empire: Domestic politics and international ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tammen, Ronald L., Jacek Kugler, Douglas Lemke, Allan C. Stam III, Mark Abdollahian, Carole Alsharabati, Brian Efird, and A.F.K. Organski. 2000. Power transitions: Strategies for the 21st century. New York: Chatham HouseGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. 2017. The world factbook. Available online: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (Accessed 18 June 2018).
  43. 43.
    Vasquez, John A. 1996. When are power transitions dangerous? An appraisal and reformulation of power transition theory. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger, ed. Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 35–56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Welch, David. 2015. Can the United States and China avoid a Thucydides trap? E-international relations. Available online: https://www.e-ir.info/2015/04/06/can-the-united-states-and-china-avoid-a-thucydides-trap/ (Accessed 18 May 2018)
  45. 45.
    Whiting, Allen S. 1960. China crosses the Yalu: The decision to enter the Korean war. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations