Thucydides Trap: A few fragmented thoughts

President Xi invoked Thucydides Trap, yet again. Therefore, it is now back in fashion, yet again. This has left me perplexed.

I have read Graham Allison's book and I get it: A rising power makes the hegemon uneasy and this leads to war, just as it did in the Peloponnesian War. But what I don't get is why Xi is talking about it and why everyone else is getting excited.

For starters, let's set the record straight: Despite the historical reputation of Athens, it was Sparta which was the hegemon and Athens was the rising power, and at the end of the war, Athens lost. Assuming that Xi, like everyone else, sees China as the rising power, he should know better than invoking Thucydides. Besides, Thucydides knew better than projecting history to the future and making predictions. It is a story we want to tell ourselves, but there is no inevitability that history has to play out in a certain way. It never does.

For example, Allison's thesis draws much from the Britain vs Germany conflict in the Great War. It fits nicely into the model too, considering the Kaiser's naval ambitions and investments in sea power. But, equally, it is a poor example. For example, Britain never planned to go to war, but rather stumbled upon it, and one can argue that it was more the Russian ambition rather than Germany's that led to the war. Even in the original case, the Athens-Sparta conflict has another player - Persia - which played no minor part in dragging out the conflict, and contrary to the logic of the 'trap', went on to help the Spartan side (isn't it like China helping the US in an intra-western conflict with Russia?)

The trouble with theories such as Thucydides Trap is that one one hand, they are too obvious, and on the other, can always be explained away by looking at the details. There was a marriage proposal on the table for Elizabeth before the Armada was launched, and France played only a bit part in the conflict. In conflicts such as these, intentionality and contingency both play a role, as do the players themselves. Elevating the natural competition of nations (or societies) to the level of historically pre-determined patterns is always a temptation, but is always wrong.

So why is Xi talking about it? I shall hazard a guess: That he is warning against the trap of Thucydides Trap, a deterministic mode of thinking that the American policy-makers are so fond of (they are still indulging in civilisational conflicts in the Middle East). He has, at hand, a much more nuanced way of understanding of great conflicts, Sima Qian's logic of conflict which takes into the account the factors such as geopolitics and economic incentives. He can see the 'Imperial' mode of thinking from his vantage point, and intends to make the point that any overreach would come at the cost of all concerned (just as the Grand Historian said). 

One final point: The biggest limitation of the Thucydides Trap is that it operates with a binary - the hegemon vs the rising power - whereas the world, as in Ancient Greece as now, is infinitely more complex. The physicists know that even with a third object present, predictions of future trajectories of an object becomes impossible ('three body problem'), and this indeed the case in the affairs of men and the nations. Therefore, as Xi is saying, let's keep calm and carry on.