Advertisement

Journal of Chinese Political Science

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 67–86 | Cite as

Did Thucydides Believe in Thucydides’ Trap? The History of the Peloponnesian War and Its Relevance to U.S.-China Relations

  • James LeeEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

The Peloponnesian War, a conflict between the Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta and their respective allies, is held to be a classic example of war between a hegemon and a rising power. Graham Allison has recently coined the term “Thucydides’ Trap” to emphasize how structural forces are leading to instability in U.S.-China relations. This interpretation of history is inaccurate and reflects the influence of misleading translations. Drawing on the original Greek text of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, I argue that the concept of Thucydides’ Trap does not find support even in the case that has given it its name. Thucydides’ famous attribution of the war to “the growth of the power of Athens” actually refers to the expansion of the Athenian Empire rather than a shift in the distribution of capabilities. Structural arguments do offer valuable insights about potential sources of conflict in U.S.-China relations, but the causal mechanism has little to do with the analogy of Athens and Sparta. As exemplified by the flashpoint in the Strait of Taiwan, structural change has aggravated long-standing differences between the United States and the PRC. Beijing’s growing economic and military power has resulted in a growing threat to Taipei, which has led the United States to affirm its commitment to Taiwan’s security in ways that are inconsistent with the One-China policy. If this trend continues, it will raise the potential for a military confrontation between the great powers in East Asia.

Keywords

Thucydides trap Cross-strait relations U.S.-China relations Taiwan 

References

  1. 1.
    Allison, Graham. 2017. Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrewes, A. 1959. Thucydides on the causes of the war. The Classical Quarterly 9 (2): 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bagby, L. 1994. The use and abuse of Thucydides in international relations. International Organization 48 (1): 131–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BBC News. 2017. Trump agrees to honour ‘one China’ policy despite threats. BBC News. Accessed at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38927891. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  5. 5.
    Beard, M. 2010. Which Thucydides can you trust? The New York Review of Books. Accessed at https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/09/30/which-thucydides-can-you-trust/. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  6. 6.
    Boegehold, A. 1996. The Athenian empire in Thucydides. In The landmark Thucydides: A comprehensive guide to the Peloponnesian war, ed. Robert B. Strassler. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolton, John. 2017. Revisit the ‘One-China Policy.’ Accessed at https://www.wsj.com/articles/revisit-the-one-china-policy-1484611627. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  8. 8.
    Brands, H., and W. Inboden. 2018. Wisdom without tears: Statecraft and the uses of history. Journal of Strategic Studies 41 (7): 916–946.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2018.1428797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brzezinski, Z. 2014. Can China avoid the Thucydides trap? New Perspectives Quarterly 31 (2): 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bush, R. 2004. At cross purposes: U.S.-Taiwan relations since 1942. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc..Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bush, R. 2017. A One-China policy primer. Accessed at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/one-china-policy-primer-web-final.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  12. 12.
    Chan, L. 2017. Soft balancing against the US ‘pivot to Asia’: China’s geostrategic rationale for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Australian Journal of International Affairs 71 (6): 568–590.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1357679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, D.P. 2012. US Taiwan strait policy: The origins of strategic ambiguity. London: FirstForumPress.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiu, H., H. Lee, and C.T. Wu, eds. 2001. Implementation of Taiwan relations act: An examination after twenty years. Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Law.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christensen, T.J. 2002. The contemporary security dilemma: Deterring a Taiwan conflict. The Washington Quarterly 25 (4): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christensen, T.J. 2015. The China challenge: Shaping the choices of a rising power. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Churchill, O. 2018. China hasn’t changed belt and road’s ‘predatory overseas investment model’, US official says. South China Morning Post. Accessed at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2163972/china-hasnt-changed-belt-and-roads-predatory-overseas. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  18. 18.
    Crane, G.R., editor. Perseus digital library. Accessed at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  19. 19.
    De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. 1972. The origins of the Peloponnesian war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doyle, M. 1990. Thucydidean realism. Review of International Studies 16 (3): 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Finley, J.H. 1951. The Peloponnesian war by Thucydides. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forde, S. 2012. Thucydides and ‘realism’ among the classics of international relations. In Thucydides and the modern world, ed. Katherine Harloe and Neville Morley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friedberg, A. 2005. The future of U.S.-China relations: Is conflict inevitable? International Security 30 (2): 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Friedberg, A. 2011. A contest for supremacy: China, America, and the struggle for mastery in Asia. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Friedberg, A. 2018. Globalisation and Chinese grand strategy. Survival 60 (1): 7–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1427362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garst, D. 1989. Thucydides and neorealism. International Studies Quarterly 33 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gilpin, R. 1981. War and change in world politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilpin. 1988. The theory of hegemonic war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (4): 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glaser, B.S. 2015. Conflict in the South China Sea: Contingency planning memorandum update. Council on foreign relations. Accessed at https://www.cfr.org/report/conflict-south-china-sea. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  30. 30.
    Grene, D. 1989. The Peloponnesian war: Thucydides, the complete Hobbes translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haggard, S. 1990. Pathways from the periphery: The politics of growth in the newly industrializing countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hass, R. 2017. Risk of U.S.-China confrontation in the East China Sea. Brookings. Accessed at https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/risk-of-u-s-china-confrontation-in-the-east-china-sea/. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  33. 33.
    Hornblower, S. 1991. A commentary on Thucydides, Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    H.R.535 – Taiwan Travel Act. Congress.gov. Accessed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/535. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  35. 35.
    Hsiao, A.H. 2017. The South China Sea arbitration and Taiwan’s claim: Legal and political implications. Journal of Chinese Political Science 22: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson, C. 1987. Political institutions and economic performance: The government-business relationship in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In The political economy of the new Asian industrialism, ed. Frederic C. Deyo. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones, H.S., and J.E. Powell. 1942. Thucydidis Historiae, recognovit brevive adnotatione critica instrvxit Henricvs Stuart Jones, apparatvm criticvm correxit et avxit Johannes Enoch Powell, tomvs prior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kagan, D. 1969. The outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kallet, L. 2017. The Pentecontaetia. In The Oxford handbook of Thucydides, ed. Ryan K. Balot, Sara Forsydke, and Edith Foster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Keohane, Robert O. 1986. Theory of world politics: Structural realism and beyond. In Neorealism and its critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khong, Yuen Foong. 1992. Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim, Woosang. 1992. Power transitions and great power war from Westphalia to Waterloo. World Politics 45 (1): 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirshner, J. 2010. The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European Journal of International Relations 18 (1): 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kirshner, J. 2015. The economic sins of modern IR theory and the classical realist alternative. World Politics 67 (1): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kirshner, J. 2018. Handle him with care: The importance of getting Thucydides right. Security Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2018.1508634.
  46. 46.
    Lebow, R. 2001. Thucydides the constructivist. American Political Science Review 95 (3): 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lebow, R. 2012. International relations and Thucydides. In Thucydides and the modern world, ed. Katherine Harloe and Neville Morley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lebow, R., and B. Valentino. 2009. Lost in transition: A critical analysis of power transition theory. International Relations 23 (3): 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lee, W. 2017. Taiwan, the South China Sea dispute, and the 2016 arbitration decision. Journal of Chinese Political Science 22: 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Levy, J.S. 1987. Declining power and the preventive motivation for war. World Politics 40 (1): 82–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Levy, J.S. 1998. The causes of war and the conditions of peace. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Wang Jisi. 2012. Addressing U.S.-China strategic distrust. The John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings. Accessed at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0330_china_lieberthal.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  53. 53.
    Liu, K. and S. Yeh. 2018. President thanks U.S. counterpart for signing travel act. Focus Taiwan. Accessed at http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201803170019.aspx.
  54. 54.
    Lu, Zhenhua. 2018. How Donald Trump’s Taiwan hands approach cross-strait tensions as Tsai Ing-wen lands in America. South China Morning Post. Accessed at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2158721/behind-status-quo-us-transit-tsai-ing-wen-how-donald. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  55. 55.
    Lu, Zhenhua. 2018. Top US officials reject Chinese demand to stop military moves that ‘undermine’ Beijing’s sovereignty in South China Sea. South China Morning Post. Accessed at https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2172583/top-us-officials-reject-chinese-demand-stop-military-moves. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  56. 56.
    Mastro, O.S. 2018. In the shadow of the Thucydides trap: International relations theory and the prospects for peace in U.S.-China relations. Journal of Chinese Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-9581-4.
  57. 57.
    Mazza, Michael. 2018. It’s time for Trump to rethink the one China policy. Accessed at https://nationalinterest.org/feature/it-time-trump-rethink-the-one-china-policy-26042. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  58. 58.
    Monten, J. 2006. Thucydides and modern realism. International Studies Quarterly 50: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Morgan, P. 2018. Can China’s economic statecraft win soft power in Africa? Unpacking trade, investment, and aid. Journal of Chinese Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-018-09592-w.
  60. 60.
    Murray, W. 2013. Thucydides: Theorist of war. Naval War College Review 66 (4): 30–46.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Naughton, B. 2007. The Chinese economy: Transitions and growth. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Novo, Andrew R. 2016. Where we get Thucydides wrong: The fallacies of history’s first “Hegemonic” war. Diplomacy & Statecraft 27 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Organski, A.F.K. 1958. World politics. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Organski, A.F.K., and J. Kugler. 1980. The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Powell, R. 2012. Persistent fighting and shifting power. American Political Science Review 56 (3): 620–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rahe, P. 2015. The grand strategy of classical Sparta. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Robinson, E. 2017. Thucydides on the causes and outbreak of the Peloponnesian war. In The Oxford handbook of Thucydides, ed. Ryan K. Balot, Sara Forsydke, and Edith Foster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schelling, T. 1966. Arms and influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Strassler, R. 1996. The landmark Thucydides: A comprehensive guide to the Peloponnesian war. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Su, Chi. 2009. Taiwan’s relations with mainland China: A tail wagging two dogs. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Taipei Times. 2017. Office repeats commitment to peace across the strait. Taipei Times. Accessed at http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/09/19/2003678731. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
  72. 72.
    Thucydides. 1919. History of the Peloponnesian war, books I and II, with an English translation by Charles Forster Smith. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tucker, N. 1994. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States, 1945–1992: Uncertain friendships. New York: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tucker, N. 2005. Strategic Ambiguity or Strategic Clarity? In Dangerous Strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis, ed. Nancy Bernkopf Tucker. New York: Columbia University press.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tucker, N. 2009. Strait talk: United States-Taiwan relations and the crisis with China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wade, R. 2004. Governing the market: Economic theory and the role of government in east Asian industrialization. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of international politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Warner, R., and M.I. Finley. 1972. Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian war. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yeh, J. 2018. Taiwan cuts ties with Dominican Republic. Focus Taiwan. Accessed at http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201805010004.aspx. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Journal of Chinese Political Science/Association of Chinese Political Studies 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European University InstituteSan Domenico di FiesoleItaly

Personalised recommendations