Thucydides Trap, Rise of China and the Opportunity for Bangladesh
“It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this inspired in Sparta, that made war inevitable,” were the famous words of Athenian military general and historian Thucydides as he laid out the reasoning behind the Peloponnesian War that would alter the course of human history forever. In the same account, Thucydides gravely noted: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” To this day, Thucydides Trap serves as a stark reminder of the prospect of bloody conflict when a supposed superpower or hegemon is challenged by a new, rising power that threatens the established world order. In an analysis of 16 such crossroads, 12 resulted in war. Many political scientists and historians believe that the US-China relations is heading towards the same direction, but it is not inevitable.
As a background to this discussion, it is imperative that we look at the US dominance of world order in the past century and China’s quiet rise in the world stage. Looking back at history, we see the marked difference in the US and China foreign policy as they asserted their dominance at the nascent stages and thereafter — and how, interestingly, Bangladesh can stand to benefit as these two superpowers lock horns.
Perhaps the biggest example of a power shift through Thucydides Trap in recent times is that of World War I. The war, which would forever redefine the extent of bloodiness and human aggression, changed Europe’s structure so remarkably that it would lead to another world war shortly after and unleash a human atrocity whose effect lies to this day in the Middle East and throughout the world.
Eight years before the start of World War I, England’s King Edward VII asked his deputies why his country was not looking at the US’s rise rather than focusing on Germany (which incidentally was ruled by his nephew). The answer he got, which still is a remarkable lesson in diplomacy, was that Germany’s economic rise, and the inevitable military rise thereafter, was an existential threat to the British empire. As it turned out, no amount of shared culture and bloodline could prevent the British and the Germans from a deadly conflict.
The US rise that the British King was referring to was led by Theodore Roosevelt, who reimagined and restructured the naval fleet like no other and unleashed a hawkish foreign policy that saw many Central and South American countries either broken up, annexed, or with new autocrats or leaders. The persistence and strongman nature shown by the Americans in the last century saw the British and several Western powers cowering to the former’s whims and, for better or for worse, a domestic economy that is heavily reliant on weapons manufacturing, and as a result, war itself.
In contrast, China’s rise and its policies in the budding stage was defined by the phrase: “hide and bide.” China wanted to enter the global markets, gain economic power, and ultimately rise to a position of reverence by all, including the US. Chinese politicians and military leaders have paraphrased this foreign policy stance to another revealing phrase: “getting stronger before getting even.” Between the entry of China in the world market in 1978 and today, China has surpassed the US in all pertinent economic measures. China now has greater purchasing power parity than the US, over 28 times of foreign reserves than the US, and is the largest manufacturer, exporter, saver, and holder of US debt. And during recent years when the world was busy with the shockwaves sent by the 2008 financial crisis and the Western media pointing to China’s slowing economic growth, many failed to note that China is shifting slowly from an export-focused economy to one driven by domestic consumption. Sprawling on such economic prowess, China has now asserted its political dominance far and wide in what is termed as “Chinese Neocolonialism” and continued the crackdown on its own people in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
The lesson in history of such a clash between two superpowers ultimately boils down to one key metric: domestic performance. When multiple German states were mired in conflict about identity and nation-state dilemma, Otto Von Bismarck unified the country by finding a common enemy in France and unleashed a war. When France threatened the British’s dominance in international water and trade during Napoleon’s time, the British unleashed yet another war. The current rhetoric used by US politicians seems to be surrounded on finding a common enemy in China rather than focusing on the various domestic metrics where the US is lagging behind. When the US had the chance of building on the economic growth made possible by the Obama administration, the new administration started a suicidal trade war with China. Obama’s vision of working in tandem with Asia Pacific leaders and forming a coalition was ultimately thwarted, and now China has tightened its grip on the region by forming a similar yet broader partnership. Instead of focusing on industries where transition is possible and necessary, the US has continued to subsidize agriculture. The radical change in the IT industry made possible by attracting intellectuals and inventors to the US is threatened today by an administration hell-bent on curbing legal immigration through H1B visas.
There is another US foreign policy blunder, in my opinion, that is not addressed adequately. In his farewell speech in 1796, George Washington prophetically cautioned against unnecessary foreign entanglement by saying “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?”. When a foreign policy centered around China’s dominance and the US’s faltering economy, the US instead focused on Iran and followed Israel’s lead. It has continued funding Middle Eastern allies in the hope of curbing Iran’s dominance — which is not even present. Further polarization of such nature will only push Iran towards China and lead to even more power concentration.
The lesson from such a complex yet profound political history for a small power like Bangladesh seems to have already been adopted by the administration led by Sheikh hasina. The warning that George Washington gave to his fellow men about unnecessary foreign entanglement, which was ignored by the US in the last few decades, seems to have been adopted by the Bangladeshi Prime Minister in recent times. During the recent Ladakh conflict between China and India, instead of taking a side with either a long-standing friend in India or the biggest trading partner in China, Bangladesh opted out and called for a peaceful end to the conflict. In recent years, China has financed several Bangladeshi projects and Bangladesh has successfully maintained a healthy diplomatic relationship with all major Asian powers in China, India, and Japan. Political scientists agree that Bangladesh’s bargaining power has now increased, as evidenced by India’s toning down of a clear pro-Myanmar stance to one where India calls for Bangladeshi concern on the Rohingya crisis to be addressed. Whether Bangladesh can further capitalize on a world order threatened by China and increase partnership with India and the US for better export measures remains to be seen.
