• price increases
• job losses
• decline in the stoke market
• domestic peace
• world peace
• faith and confidence in your life
• faith and confidence in your community
• faith and confidence in your country
• faith and confidence in the world

What is especially sad is that President Trump and his whole administration’s assessment of the world around him is constantly changing, Because of this, you cannot argue with him, because his position is always changing. His arguments are not based on facts or normal logic. He considers only positions that are only similar to his. He cares so much on what can enrich him and his family. He doesn’t care about you when you don’t see things the way he sees things. He ignores the world around him, and retreats from important world pursuits such as the 2025 Paris Agreement on Climate Change, even doing otherwise could lead to a non-survivable world.

Basically he is running the U.S. based on his own wishes, and on those wishes he is also trying to run the world. He is trying to run the U.S. without a well-thought-out plan with the support from other Americans. Sooner or later, his plan will fail, and it will be up to the rest of America to bail out his plan.

2025 is 80 years past the end of WWII. WWII was a world war involving countries all over the world. Japan surrendered to the U.S. on 9/2/1945. Germany surrendered on May 8-9/1945 shortly after Adolf Hitler committed suicide on 4/30/1945. The third major adversary country Italy surrendered on 9/8/1943. WWII was known for two major unforgettable happenings. One was the encampment and murder of millions of Jew, especially in Europe. The other was the atrocity, murder, and enslavement of millions of so-called comfort women all over Asia, especially in China and Korea.

West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s kneeling before a memorial to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during a state visit to Poland in 1970 showed a sign of profound humility, and an apology for the wrongs that Germany did during WWII. That sign of apology is accepted by the world, and Germany is welcome back to the world of nations. However, up to now, Japan still has not acknowledged for what they did during WWII. As a matter of fact, they have repeatedly tried to rewrite history so that many of the younger generations of Japan do not know the atrocity, murders, and enslavement of millions of so-called comfort women all over Asia, especially in China and Korea. This kind of falsification of history is wrong, and is not good for Japan and for the world. The sooner this falsification is corrected, the better it will be for Japan and the world. Until that happens, Japan, unlike Germany, will have great difficulty to be welcome back to the world of nations.

Unfortunately, in the last half a century, the U.S. has repeatedly tried to destabilize many countries of the world, including trying to separate Taiwan from China. Instead of setting an example for Japan to follow, the U.S.is trying to set an example to turn back the history of time. As the world’s most important and most powerful countries, the U.S. and China should help the world to solve many important and crucial problems. If they cannot do that, they should at least not work against each other, because the world has many important crucial problems which if not solved can lead to a world that cannot be saved. (Ref. 1, 2, 3)

In the past decades, there are many organizations around the world who have tried to point out and remind Japan of the atrocities, the inhumane actions of the Japanese government, and its attempts to rewrite history so that future generations of Japan will not be aware of what their government has done in the past. It is urgently important that these actions should be pointed out and Japan should come out of hibernations and take an active role to correct history.

Here are a list of organizations that have played active roles during parts of these 80 years to remind Japan and the world of what happened during WWII, and that these actions cannot be forgotten:

• Alliance for Learning and Preserving the History of WWII in Asia (the website is “ALPHA”). There are branches of this organization in many parts of the U.S. and Canada. E.g., in New Jersey, the prefix “NJ-” is added in front of ALPHA to become the NJ organization “NJ-ALPHA”. In Toronto, Canada, this organization is also known as ALPHA Education (https://www.alphaeducation.org/).

• Global Alliance for Preserving History of WWII in Asia (“GA”): This and the next one of “APTSJW” are two of the earliest non-profit organizations to address WWII atrocities in Asia.

• Alliance for Preserving Truth of the Sino Japanese War (“APTSJW”): APTSJW is one of the earliest organizations to address WWII atrocities in Asia.

• The Statue of Peace first erected in 2011 in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to remind people of the inhuman suffering of Comfort Women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Peace#/media/File:Japanese_Embassy_in_Seoul_and_watch from_behind_a_bronze_statue_of_comfort_women).

• Rape of Nanking Redress Coalition (“RNRC”): The RNRC was to ensure the historical truth and events of WWII in Asia are not forgotten.

• 10,000 Cries for Justice (“10000criesforjustice.org/about-us-en/?lang”): An organization to remember WWII atrocities.

Many of these organizations have existed for over 35+ years, and their websites may not be kept current.

————————–

References

[1] “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,” Stephen Kinzer, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, New York, 2006. This is a book by veteran New York Times writer who reported from over 50 countries and served as the paper’s bureau chief in Turkey, Germany and Nicaragua.

[2] “United States Involvement in Regime Change,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991%E2%80%93present:_Post-Cold_War.

[3] “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War,” Lindsey L. O’Rourke, The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/. According to the author, of the 72 times, 60 were covert operations and 6 were overt operations. And among the 60 covert operations, only 20 successfully brought the U.S.-backed government to power, and 40 failed.

Independent of how one feels toward these other issues, one should take four assessments in mind: (1) whether his policies are based on facts, (2) whether his policies are partison, i.e. very much pro Republicans and against Democrats, (3) very punitive against those who have opposed his actions, and (4) making vast amount of money for himself or the Trump family.

In this article, we will not discuss whether his policies are or are not good for the Americans, although there are many indications that a lot of Americans are very critical of these policies. We will now focus our discussion on the 4 assessments mentioned in the previous paragraph.

(1) Whether His policies are based on facts, which is normally used to assess whether the policy makes sense. The fact that his policies are not based on facts, it is very difficult to convince him that his policy (or policies) are not good for the country.

(2) President Trump is the President of the U.S.A.. He is not just the president of the Republican Party. So his policies or actions should be assessed with respect to the whole country.

(3) His arguments against anyone should be based principally on whether this person’s argument is good or bad for the country, and not whether it is good or bad for the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. A person’s policy should be criticized if is not good for the country, and not whether it is good or bad for the Republican Party or the Democratic party.

(4) A President of the U.S. should be making policies on whether that policy is beneficial for the U.S. How that policy will affect him personally should not be part of the consideration. President Trump seems to be doing just the opposite.

Unfortunately, President Trump has failed in each of these four assessments.

We will now come back to the issue mentioned in the first paragraph. In response to the statement that several members of Congress have said that “One can refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” President Trump has said that those members of Congress should face the death penalty. However, that statement by several members of Congress is absolutely correct. President Trump should take back his statement and apologize to the American people.

However, there are also tariffs that the Trump administration will impose on China (and tariffs during his previous term as the U.S. President). As the matter of fact, the Biden administration already has imposed many tariffs (including those from the first President Trump) on China. China has also purchased large amounts of certain agricultural products from countries like Brazil. (See, e.g., Ref. 1) China has also taken certain counter measures, such as forbidding or restricting trade of certain rare earth elements to the U.S. (see, e.g, Ref. 2). Some of these rare earth elements have military and technology applications.

Recently I also just read an article in the Foreign Times (Ref. 3) that “by tying subsidies to technology transfers and local production requirements, Brussels ensures that Chinese companies contribute to the EU’s industrial base rather than merely exporting batteries. This approach mirrors other global trade practices, The US Inflation Reduction Act, for example, ties clean energy subsidies to domestic content. Tariffs, by contrast, have done little to achieve their intended goals. Whether the U. S. will do something similar to Belgium, we will have to wait and see.

As to the U.S.’s heavy tariffs on Chinese made automobiles, especially on those automobiles which plan to meet modern emission restrictions, I don’t see how the U.S. without a change on its current position is going to solve the problem, because it is essentially China who is producing such vehicles. Either the U.S. is not going to meet these emission standards or the U.S. is going to drop such tariffs. We will just have to see how the future will evolve in front of our eyes.

References

1. A. “Brazil becomes China’s largest agricultural produce trader, followed by US, Thailand, Australia,” Global Times, Jan. 31,2024. B. “Brazil, China Sign Wide-Ranging Deals, Including Agricultural Products”, Ag/Web.com (Brazil and China signed 37 deals covering agriculture, tech cooperation, trade and investments, infrastructure, industry, energy and mining, among other areas), Pro Farmer Editors, Nov. 20, 2024. C. “China’s Top Crop Trader Blunts Impact of US Trade War With Brazil Bet,” Alfred Cang, Hallie Gu and Dayanne Sousa, Yahoo/Finance, Dec 19, 2024.
2. A. “China Bans Rare Mineral Exports to the U.S.,” by David Pierson, Keith Bradsher, and Ana Swanson, Dec, 3, 2024, New York Times. B. “China banned exports of a few rare minerals to the US. Things could get messier,” by Casey Crownhart, MIT Technology Review, Dec. 12, 2024. C. “China Has Banned Exports of Some Rare Minerals to the United States,” Commentary by Institute for Energy Research, Dec. 12, 2024. D. “China bans export of key minerals to U.S. as trade row deepens even before Trump’s second term,” by Haley Ott, CBS News, Dec. 4, 2024. China announced on Tuesday a ban on the export of a number of minerals with military and technology applications to the U.S., one day after the Biden administration further curbed its own exports as part of its crackdown on China’s semiconductor industry.
3. Europe’s demand for Chinese tech transfers beats tariffs,” by Lizzi lee, Financial Times, December 17, 2024 (https://www.ft.com/content/4b1b7270-4725-4c88-814a-6fa85045f558). The article states that linking subsidies to intellectual property is the sort of stratigic inclusion that fosters mutual benefits.

Major Issue and Need Change of Mindset

In the last issue [Ref.1], I mentioned that I always thought for a long time that the best approach to U.S.-China Relationship is for the U.S. and China as the world’s most important countries to work collaboratively to address the many critical problems facing the world, problems like poverty, diseases, unemployment, lack of education, disarmament, climate change, and nuclear arms race. Unfortunately, instead of living together to try to improve the world, the U.S. is creating confrontations and adopting a foreign policy toward China that is so antagonistic that can easily escalate into wars.

Let’s look at some of the key issues in the U.S.-China relationship, such as South China Sea, Taiwan, and Xinjiang.

South China Sea Issue

We will first consider the South China Sea issue. A major partner/ally of the U.S. in the South China Sea is the Philippines government. A brief history of the Philippines can be found in Ref. 2. Phillipines was a Spanish colony and takes its name from Philip II, who was king of Spain during the Spanish colonization of the islands in the 16th century, and was under Spanish rule for 333 years and then became a colony of the U.S. for another 48 years from 1899 to 1946 [Ref. 3].  The Philippines government actually has no legal jurisdiction on any of the contested areas in the South China Sea.

On the other hand, China claims sovereignty over the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands (the two major islands in the South China Sea) dating back at least several hundred years, and Chinese fishermen have also been fishing around these islands for also hundreds of years. See, e.g., Ref. 4 for Chinese exploration of the South China Sea areas, as well as many other areas of the world. These islands have been marked as part of China in various maps.  For example, even textbooks approved by the Indonesian government in the 1940s and 1950s recognized these islands as belonging to China.  In 1946 after WWII ended and Japan returned Taiwan to China, China sent four military ships, accompanied by an American naval ship, to Taiping Island (the largest island of the Spratly Islands, also known as Itu Aba Island) and several other islands in the South China Sea to take back the control of these islands from Japan.  The Philippines has also deliberately grounded (since 1999) a Philippine naval ship (actually a former U.S. naval vessel) called the Sierra Madre (on a “disputed” island between the Philappines and China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. This tries to add credence to Philippine’s claim to these South China Sea islands.

The U.S. is also conducting joint military operation practices with countries such as Philippines, Japan, and Australia, all while openly criticizing the legal actions of land reclamation of islands under China’s sovereignty. Similar land reclamation activities have also been done by Vietnam.  The U.S. has also complained about China setting up an oil exploration rig near one of her islands, but the U.S. has never said anything negative about similar, earlier, and larger-scale actions by Vietnam who has been extracting oil from various oil rigs and making millions of dollars every year.  Furthermore, in 1956, North Vietnam had also declared that the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands are historically Chinese territory.

It is clear that the U.S. is not playing fairly in the so-called South China Sea dispute. Although the U.S. has no role to play in this area, it has for no good reason at all obviously thrown its support to so-called allies like the Philippines, Vietnam, and even Japan who caused so much pain and suffering to the people all over the world during WWII, especially including launching the unwarranted aerial attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Taiwan Issue

Now we discuss the issue of Taiwan. In a sense, this issue is really trivial if you follow the history of China and the U.S.-relationship with respect to Taiwan, but in reality, because the U.S. is not acknowledging history and wants to rewrite history, this issue could trigger the next world war and another nuclear war.

Historically, Taiwan has been a part of China for many centuries and universally so recognized by the world. The island of Taiwan was ceded to Japan after Japan won the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. After WWII ended, Japan was supposed to relinquish all territories in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (another name for Taiwan), and the Pescadores (a group of small islands just off the western coast ot Taiwan), shall be restored to the Republic of China. This agreement was clearly stated in several major international declarations.

The 1943 Cairo Declaration [5]:

In particular, it was so stated in the November 26, 1943 Cairo Declaration by President Franklin Roosevelt of the U.S., Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China. The declaration developed ideas from the 1941 Atlantic Charter, which was issued by the Allies of WWII to set goals for the post-war order. The Cairo Declaration also stated that following the war, Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores Islands would be returned to China.

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration [6]:

On July 26, 1945, the Allied Powers represented by President Franklin Roosevelt of the U.S., Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China issued the Potsdam Declaration that offered an unconditional surrender of Japan to WWII and reiterated the 1943 Cairo Declaration that all territories that Japan seized or occupied from the Chinese, including the island of Taiwan, should be returned to China.

The 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender [7]:

On September 2, 1945, representatives from the Japanese government and Allied forces aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which ended World War II and also reiterated the Potsdam Declaration that the island of Taiwan should be returned to China.

Xinjiang Issue

Now we discuss the issue of Xinjiang. For several years, the U.S. has made many negative remarks on Xinjiang with respect to China’s treatment of the Uyghurs minority and imposed many sanctions on Chinese products from Xinjiang. Recently the UN has released a report by the UN Special Rapporteur Professor Alena Douhan on 5/17/2024 [Ref. 9] that “states should lift sanctions against China and also take strong action to curb sanction over-compliance by businesses and other actors under their jurisdistion. She also emphasized that “decline in business activities and the significant loss of global markets either due to unilateral sanctions per se or due to over-compliance with such measures by foreign businesses and entities have led to job losses with consequent disruptions in social protection schemes, by disproportionatly affecting the most vulnerable, particularly in labour-intensive sectors, including women, older persons, and all those in informal employment.” The U.N. Special Rapporteur is warning that such unitateral sanctions can do irreparable harms to many people and companies.

There have been numerous commentaries by very knowledgeable foreigners [Refs 11-13] who have lived and worked in China for many years criticizing the U.S. sanctions against Xinjiang and who have voiced opinions similar to the comments of the UN Special Rapporteur Professor Alena Douhan. The UN Special Rappoteur Dunhan will present her Xinjiang report to the Human Rights Council of the UN in September 2024.

Conclusion and New Perspective on U.S.-China Relationship

The issues that we have discussed in this artilce, whether it is the South China Sea issue, the Taiwan issue, or the Xinjiang issue are also so much intertwined with the internal politics of the U.S. because both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have adopted in the past 5-10 years such discrminatory practices against China. It is time for them to see the world in a new light that such policies are wrong, and do great harms to the econimic and political benefits of the U.S. government and the American people.

If the U.S. government and the American people can acknowledge and make this major mental change, i.e., the U.S. does not always have to be the single dominant player in a unipolar world, but one of the major players in a multipolar world, then the U.S. can become a major player economically and politically. It can still become a major player in many markets, including the electric vehicle market. At the same time, it is also contributing to what the world needs from a global environmental perspective.

These issues are also so much intertwined with the internal politics of the U.S. because both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have adopted in the last few years such discrminatory practices against China. It is time for them to see the world in a new light that such policies are wrong, and do great harms to the econimic and political benefits of the U.S. government and the American people. It is urgent that the American government and people can change this perspective on China, because the trajectory of the U.S.-China relationship leads directly to conflicts, wars, and more and more instabilities in all parts of the world, while the world needs to work together to address these problems. At the same time, the world is also facing more and more enviromental problems that without a concerted effort by the world working together to solve these problems, it may be too late to save the world from this sinking ship and save humanity.

If the U.S. government and the American people can acknowledge and make this major mental change, it can regain its important role as a vital player economically and politically. It can still become a major player in many markets, including the electric vehicle market. At the same time, it is also contributing to what the world needs from an environmental perspective.

—————————————–

References

[1] D. M. Tow, “A New Post on U.S.- China Relationship (June 2024): https://www.dontow.com/2024/06/a-new-post-on-u-s-china-relationship/

[2] See, e.g., “History of the Philippines,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines.

[3] See, e.g., “The Philippines: Facts and History,” https://www.thoughtco.com/the-philippines-facts-and-history-195655, including the Philiappino-American war that ended when Spain ceded the archipelago islands of the Philippines to the U.S. in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.

[4] The famous Chinese navigator Zheng He and his large fleet of ships sailed all over Asia and many other parts of the world between 1405 and 1433 during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), sailing through the South China Sea many times on their way to India, Africa, and other places. See, e.g., Louise Levathes, When China Ruled the Seas, Open Road Distribution, 2014.

[5] See, e.g., “The 1943 Cairo Declaration“: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration.

[6] See, e.g., “The Potsdam Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration.

[7] See, e.g., “September 2, 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender”: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan

[8] See, e.g., National Archives, Surrender of Japan (1945): https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan

[9] “China: UN expert says unilateral sanctions must not be used as foreign policy tool and means of economic coercion,” UN Special Rapporteur Professor Alena Douhan, May 17, 2024: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/china-un-expert-says-unilateral-sanctions-must-not-be-used-foreign-policy. The Special Rapporteur will present her Xinjiang visit report to the Human Rights Council of the UN in September 2024.

[10] Numerous commentaries by very knowledgeable foreigners who have lived and worked in China for many years have criticized the U.S. sanctions against Xinjiang and who have voiced opinions similar to the comments of the UN Special Rapporteur Professor Alena Douhan. See, e.g., Refs 11-13.

[11] Jerry Grey and his wife Ann, who have lived and worked in China during the last 20 years, including visiting Xinjiang several times and who have cycled across China including Xinjiang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jlUy2DR8TQ.

[12] An interview by Cyrus Janssen with Fernando Munoz Bernal and Noel Lee who visited Xinjiang in 2021 in “What It’s Really Like to Travel to Xinjiang, China?”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qnr8DXZOc. Cyrus Janssen is an American businessman who has lived and worked in China for about 10 years, and has gone back and visited China several times. Fernando Munez Bernal from Columbia (sometimes under the heading “Alex from Reporterly Media & Travel” has also other video broadcasts of his travels in many parts of China.

[13] Daniel Dumbrill, a Canadian businessman who has lived in China for many years and visited Xinjiang in 2021 in “Xinjiang Genocide: An Except from the ‘Genocide’ Panel”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH-0l_zToN4. He has also many video broadcasts of his visits to China, which you can find in the web.

Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations and adopt a foreign policy toward China that is so antagonistic that can easily escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s major problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi-modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.  This answers a lot of questions, such as the U.S.’s position toward Taiwan, and why the U.S. wants to turn back the clock more than half a century.  It also answers the question why the U.S. government is adopting such a demonic eye toward its American citizens who are Chinese Americans who also want the best for the U.S. 

There is no reason for the U.S. to turn back its position that Taiwan has been part of China for several hundred years. There is no reason to believe a country like Japan who has looked upon Taiwan with a luscious eye to be part of Japan, and who has tried to keep others to think that way. Is the U.S.’s words worth anything?

Part of the U.S. strategy toward China is to use its allies (e.g., Philippino troops or Japanese or other troops) to fight its proxy wars against China. The Philippines has a deliberately grounded (since 1999) a Philippine naval ship (actually a former U.S. naval vessel) called the Sierra Madre (on a disputed island between the Philappines and China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. However, most of the press coverage on incidents like these are very much pro-Western (or pro-U.S.); so it is difficult to find an objective analysis of incidents like this.

Similarly the U.S. has imposed many large sanctions against Xinjiang products, even though the U.N. Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan) has recently (5/17/2024) stated that “states should lift sanctions against China and also take strong action to curb sanction over-compliance by businesses and other actors under their jurisdistion. She also emphasized that “decline in business activities and the significant loss of global markets either due to unilateral sanctions per se or due to over-compliance with such measures by foreign businesses and entities have led to job losses with consequent disruptions in social protection schemes, by disproportionatly affecting the most vulnerable, particularly in labour-intensive sectors, including women, older persons, and all those in informal employment.” The U.N. Special Rapporteur is warning that such unitateral sanctions can do irreparable harms to many people and companies.

The U.S. is also imposing large tariffs on electric vehicles from China, although the details are still being worked out. See, e.g., “A US-China EV trade war threatens Biden’s clean-car agenda” May 14, 2024 (https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-china-ev-trade-war-threatens-bidens-clean-car-agenda-2024-05-14/), or “Biden Calls Chinese Electric Vehicles a Security Threat” (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/us/politics/biden-chinese-electric-vehicles.html). The real reason behind these actions by the U.S. is because the Chinese-made electric vehicles are so much less expansive than U.S. made electric vehicles, even though the reason given by the U.S. is that the China-made electric vehicles pose a security threat to the U.S. The U.S. is not concerned about climate-change impacts from non-electric vehicles and the impacts of the higher costs on the American economy.

Again because the U.S.’s position so much dominates the press coverage around the world, it is difficult for others to get a fair and objective coverage of their situation. We want to urge the importance of the U.S.’s to adopt a valid and impartial assessment of its policies because it has large implications affecting people all over the world.

I have raised this comment/question for a long time.  It finally dawned on me why it has not happened.  The reason is because the U.S. wants a unipolar world with the U.S. being the center of that unipolar world, and the U.S. sees that China is the main challenger keeping the world from changing from a unipolar world to a multipolar world.  Instead of looking at the world to see what is good for the world, the U.S. sees what is good for the U.S. even it is not achievable.

Now with this new perspective, we can understand why the U.S. is adopting that policy, i.e., a policy that is not good for the world.  Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations and adopt a foreign policy toward China that is so antagonistic that can easily escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s major problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi-modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.  

This answers a lot of questions, such as the U.S.’s position toward Taiwan, and why the U.S. wants to turn back the clock more than half a century.  It also answers the question why the U.S. government is adopting such a demonic eye toward its American citizens who are Chinese Americans who also want the best for the U.S.  It also helps to understand the recent U.S. government’s policy toward companies like TikTok.

In future issues of this website, we will elaborate on the consequences of this attitude of the U.S., and why that policy should change.

This chapter will discuss several important “issues” between the U.S. and China.  We will recall and analyze history and see what history has to say about these issues.

The first issue is Taiwan:  Every one knows that Taiwan has been a province of China.  After China was defeated by Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), China, besides being required to pay to Japan an extremely large indemnity to Japan, also ceded Taiwan to Japan.  After WWII ended with the defeat of Japan, all parties agreed that Japan should give up the territories stolen from China (including Taiwan) and returned them to China.  This was consistent with the 1943 Cairo Declaration [1], the 1945 Potsdam Declaration [2], and the September 2,1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender [3].  After recalling this part of history regarding Taiwan, the issue of Taiwan should be closed, and Taiwan should be part of China.

Another issue is Diaoyu Islands (or Senkaku Islands):  Most of the people of the world probably have never heard of these islands.  The Diaoyu Islands are a small set of unoccupied islands off the northern part of Taiwan in the East China Sea.  They have been part of China (part of Taiwan) for several hundred years (dating back to as early as 1403).  Since near the end of the 19^th century, Japan has also claimed that these islands are part of the Ryukyu Islands (or Okinawa), as part of Japan’s attempt to steal the Diaoyu Islands from Taiwan.  More information on the background history of the Diaoyu Islands can be found in Chapter 19 “Experiencing the Worldwide Diaoyu Islands Students Movement” and the details will not be repeated here. 

The reason that the Diaoyu Islands is often cited as an issue involving also the U.S. is because the U.S. claims that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty should also be applicable to the Diaoyu Islands even though the official position of the U.S. government is that the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is still to be determined, thus  showing that these two positions [(1) that the Diaoyu Islands should be covered under the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, and (2) the territorial sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is still to be determined] are internally inconsistent. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discuss again this issue besides pointing to Chapter 19 for the details.  Thus, after recalling history regarding the Diaoyu Islands, the issue of the Diaoyu Islands should also be closed, and the Diaoyu Islands should be part of China, and the U.S. has no justification to claim that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty should be applicable to the Diaoyu Islands.

Another issue is the dispute over the South China Sea Islands:  Although one may often hear claims that China is doing a lot of illegal things in the South China Sea (in particular, the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands) such as stealing territories belonging to other countries, or building artificial islands, or blocking traffic over the international sea or air in the South China Sea area.  Often these people will bring in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to make accusations against China.

In particular, several years ago (around 2016), Philippines was involved in a case with the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) declaring that all of the islands in the Paracel or the Spratly area are rocks, and not islands that can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own under UNCLOS.  Although the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) is also under UNCLOS, it is clearly stated in UNCLOS that the AT should not rule in cases where the parties have territorial sovereignty/historical rights.  For China since historically China does own the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands [see, e.g., Ref. 4 and Ref. 5 for that part of history], from the very beginning, China declared in writing that it would not participate and not abide by the decision of the AT because this dispute involves territorial sovereignty/historical rights, which should not be arbitrated under the Arbitral Tribunal.

Furthermore, Taiping Island (the largest island of the Spratly Islands) is 0.9 mile in length and ¼ mile in width with an area of 110 acres and has a hospital and an airport.  It has fresh water, can grow vegetables, can support livestock, as well as the habitation of people permanently living there.  This is contrary to Philippines’ claim that these islands cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own.

The U.S. has often stated that China’s activities in the South China Sea have violated UNCLOS which was signed in 1994.  One of the accusations is that China has built landfills on some of these islands.  First of all, UNCLOS does not forbid building various facilities, including docks and airstrips, on the islands that a country has sovereignty over if those islands are not always submerged under water all the time.  Of course, we have all heard of the famous Palm Islands in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, which involve massive landfills to build the large islands with residential, business, and entertainment skyscrapers.  But has the U.S., or anyone else, made protests on what Dubai has done?

Once again, history shows us that there is a lot of purposedly spread misinformation (another example of abuse of world power) creating a false image of China.  Thus, after recalling and analyzing history, the issue of the South China Sea Islands is also closed, and China is not doing anything illegal.

Recent talk on a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S.: Recently there is some talk whether a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S. that will lead to war.  We and others have analyzed this issue and the conclusion is a definite no. [6].  Interested readers can read the two articles mentioned in [6] for more details.  Basically the story is between Athens, a then rising power, and Sparta, the then established power.  Initially there might not have been a serious conflict between Athens and Sparta. But the conflict became serious when Athens became an imperial power with influence over many cities along both sides of the Aegean Sea. Furthermore, in the case of China and the U.S., the conflict is not due to China’s economic rise, but it is due’s to the U.S.’s economic decline. The U.S. should then take actions to correct its own economic decline, and should not blame China for something due to their own shortcoming.

In his book, Allison discussed how order was decided, or how does one decide whether one can keep your adversary in line. A rule that is often used is a “Two-Power Standard” announced in 1889 as the general method to maintain Britain’s naval primacy, that is to keep Britain on the top of the order hierarchy is to maintain a fleet of battleships equal to the numbers deployed by its next two competitors combined since naval supremacy was key to the battlefield in the past, including the 19th century and first part of the 20th century. This was a rule used by the British to ensure that the British had enough military power to help to enforce its rule-based order. This was used by Winston Churchill in his various positions as the British Secretary of state for War, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Prime Minister, as well as other positions. Similarly, it was also used by other countries in planning for conflicts or wars with potential adversaries.

In the imperialistic world, it was your military might that settled conflicts. The question of fairness was of secondary importance. In our current world with nuclear powers that can lead to the destruction of the whole world and end civilization as the world knows, we should not rely on the “Two-Power Standard” to keep your potential rival in its place and to maintain your rule-based order.

Why does the U.S. government continue to carry on a mass media campaign to demonize China and create a phobia in the public against China and the Chinese? It is especially important to ask this question when the U.S. and China are the two most important economic and political powers in the world, and as we have previously mentioned, it is crucially important for the U.S. and China to work cooperatively to address the many difficult global problems. 

There are many differences between U.S. and China, e.g., their histories, how the governments operate, the way freedom and people’s wishes are expressed and reflected in the government, how government policies are formed and carried out, the country’s strategic alliances with other countries, the conduct of foreign policies and treatment of other governments and countries. These differences could easily lead to conflicts between the U.S. government and the Chinese government, especially when the differences lead to different political orientations. However, such differences should not lead to the two countries getting to diametrically opposite opposing corners. For example, China’s Bell and Road Initiative (BRI) could help a democratic government that is based on free elections and also an autocratic government whose family basically controls the whole country. It could help to improve the livelihood of the people of both countries, and therefore, it should not lead to their foreign policies on China that are diametrically opposite to each other.

Why is the relationship between U.S. and China keep on getting more antagonistic when a better relationship can benefit the American people, the Chinese people, as well as the other people of the world? Why is that relationship moving toward more confrontations and even war?

To understand the answer to that question, one needs to take an unbiased assessment of the history of the U.S. and especially what it has done in its foreign policy toward other countries in the last 75 years, since the end of WWII.

The U.S. government always presents itself as a government that is democratic, respects human rights, treats other countries with peaceful intention, and helps to solve world problems. That is the image that the U.S. government and the U.S. mass media depict itself. In reality, the U.S. government doesn’t act that way. It is not a democratic government working for the benefits of all its people; it treats its citizens differently depending on race, sex, place of origin, wealth, social and political status, etc.; it involves in many wars and instigates numerous regime changes in many countries.

Just look at how the government of the U.S. behaves when former President Donald Trump has been charged in four criminal cases, including 44 federal charges and 47 state charges, all of them felonies.  In Washington, D.C., he faces four felony counts for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In Georgia, he faces 13 felony counts for his election interference in that state. In New York, he faces 34 felony counts in connection with hush money payments to a porn star. And in Florida, he faces 40 felony counts for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them. [7] Numerous mass shootings and killings of innocent people, including children, occur frequently in the U.S., to the tune of 686 mass shootings incidents in 2021. [8]  U.S. Americans’ trust in their government has consistently fallen in the past 20 years and now fewer than two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right. [9] At the same time when the U.S. government has consistently trying to demonize China, and President Biden has as recently as November 2023 called President Xi Jingping a dictator. [10]

Furthermore, in many respects the U.S. government behaves contrary to what a democratic government is supposed to behave.  Not only that it often doesn’t get involved in solving various world problems. It sometimes drops out of critical agreements (e.g., Paris Agreement on Climate Change) and criticizes or even sabotages other countries’ contributions.”  The U.S. really needs to look inward at itself to have a real assessment of its government, its political leaders, and its actions and attitudes toward other countries and people.  Hopefully after such as assessment, the U.S. would look at the world differently and treat other countries and people differently and with more respect.

The conclusion is that the U.S. is not the same as what the U.S. government depicts itself.  I will now discuss the real conflict between the U.S. and China, and why that relationship is getting worse with more confrontations and possibly leading to war. 

The Real Conflict Between U.S. and China:  In the last 40+ years, China has transformed itself from a very poor and backward country into the world’s second largest economy, lifted most of its huge population out of poverty, became basically the factory of the world, became the world’s third largest nuclear power, and has the world’s second strongest military, and can compete with the best of the world in science, engineering, bio-medicine, space explorations, and new patents, as well as gaining influences in world affairs. What is best for the world is for China and the U.S. to work cooperatively to address and solve the many difficult problems facing humanity. If the world’s two richest economies and the most powerful countries cannot work cooperatively, at least we hope that they don’t try to sabotage each other. Unfortunately, it seems that one country, the U.S., has been working hard to do just that.

Why? Instead of living together to try to improve the world, why would the U.S. try to create confrontations that can escalate into wars? If U.S. and China work together to address the world’s problems, then the U.S. would not be able to control the world and dictate their so-called rule-based order for the world to follow. Instead of creating a world with multi-modality, the U.S. wants to create a single modality world with the U.S. in the center and in control of that modality.

This may be surprising to many people, but it is consistent with U.S. policy in how it has been treating the rest of the world in the past century. Unlike the image that the U.S. government has been presenting to the world that it is a democratic and benevolent country trying to do the best for all the people of the world, unfortunately, that image has been repeatedly shown to be false, as illustrated by the large number of regime change activities engaged by the U.S. [11] [12] [13]

Some of the activities of the U.S. government have been so evil that it is almost unimaginable. An example of that is what the U.S. did in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, using island natives as guinea pigs to see the effects of nuclear radiations. [14]

Unfortunately, we have to face reality because the U.S. is not willing to give up its power to dominate the world, the U.S. is willing to create conflicts with China, even leading to a war between the world’s two most powerful military powers, possibly leading to a world war with the use of nuclear weapons. This is the essence of the real conflict between the U.S. and China.

In future releases of this website, we will discuss in more details how the world can address this issue. An important component must have the U.S seriously look inward at herself and figure out how it can improve herself, including its government structure and whether its government leaders are working to improve the welfare of the American people, or improve their own livelihoods or stay in power, and whether the U.S. treats other  countries and people fairly and with respect.  Another major component is to mobilize the pro-peace/anti-war movements of the world into a unified and formidable force.

References for Chapter 36

[1]    See, e.g., “The 1943 Cairo Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Cairo_Declaration.

[2]    See, e.g., “Potsdam Declaration”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration.

[3] See, e.g., “National Archives: Surrender of Japan (1945)”: https://www.aarchives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan.

[4]    For the history of the South China Sea islands like the Paracel Islands (西沙群島) and Spratly Islands (南沙群島), please read Chapter 34 “South China Sea Dispute:  Abuse of World Power,” the contents of that chapter was also published by the author in China-US Focus, September 15, 2016.  The link for the English version is: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/south-china-sea-dispute-abuse-of-world-power/.  The link for the Chinese version is: http://cn.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/20160915/8681.html

[5]   “Some Thoughts on South China Sea Dispute”:  https://www.dontow.com/2015/12/some-thoughts-on-south-china-sea-dispute/.

[6] Recently there is some talk whether a rising power like China will inevitably have a conflict with the established power like the U.S. that will lead to war.  Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston-New York, 2018.  We and others have analyzed this issue and the conclusion is a definite no.  See “Review of ‘Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?’”:  https://www.dontow.com/2023/06/review-of-destined-for-war-can-america-and-china-escape-thucydidess-trap/.  See also Alan Freeman, “Is war between China and US inevitable?”, video broadcast by Thinkers Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi5J6ppjvk, April 16, 2023. See in particular, the (5:10-6:50) segment of this video showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea.

[7]    “Breaking down the 91 charges Trump faces in his four indictments,” by Derek Hawkins and Nick Mourtoupalas, The Washington Post, August 23, 2023.

[8]    “Mass Shootings in the U.S.,” An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis, November 2023 was last updated. 

[9]    Pew Research Center “Public Trust in Government:  1958-2023,” September 19, 2023.

[10]  After President Biden’s remark that his most recent discussion with President Xi Jingping on November 17, 2023 was one of the most interesting and productive discussions that they have had, President Biden then made the comment that Xi Jingping is a dictator.

[11] Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, New York, 2006. This is a book by veteran New York Times writer who reported from over 50 countries and served as the paper’s bureau chief in Turkey, Germany and Nicaragua.

[12]  United States involvement in regime change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1991%E2%80%93present:_Post-Cold_War.

[13] “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War,” Lindsey L. O’Rourke, The Washington Post, December 23, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-says-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/. According to the author, of the 72 times, 60 were covert operations and 6 were overt operations. And among the 60 covert operations, only 20 successfully brought the U.S.-backed government to power, and 40 failed.

[14] The Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Australia is part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands under the administrative control of the U.S. after WWII. It was here that the U.S. tested nuclear weapons 67 times between 1946 and 1958. There are several documentaries on Marshall Islands and the sufferings experienced by the Marshall Islands natives from the numerous nuclear bomb testings there. The best one is probably the one made in 2011 by Adam Jonas Horowitz:  “Nuclear Savage:  The Islands of Secret Project 4.1.”  You can see a 7-minute summary of this documentary for free at https://vimeo.com/30869044

The post-Western, multipolar international order is coming to pass. As the world grapples with the implications of this shift in power, the foundations of a great reckoning are taking shape. This reckoning will challenge the long-held beliefs and structures that have sustained Western dominance of the world for the past few hundred years, exposing along the way the nature of the West’s perceived entitlement to lead the global pecking order. The end result will be a significant re-evaluation of international relations as we know it.

This great reckoning will be driven by five major trends, which are compelling Western nations to confron* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023.t and adapt to a future where power must be shared with the rest in a multipolar world. A failure to recognize, or attempting to strongly resist, these trends could pose significant risks not only to the West itself but also to global stability. Yet future conflicts can be avoided if this period of change is viewed as an opportunity to build a more equitable world, rather than as a crisis that threatens preferred and entrenched privileges.

* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023.

Five Trends to Consider:

What future awaits the West—a smooth transition toward multipolarity or a period of instability and potential conflict—will largely depend on how policymakers respond to the following five trends.

First is the unravelling of the hitherto telling of history. The West, across its colonial history, has practiced and perfected the selective interpretation and telling of events, choosing to portray itself as the originator of modern civilization and a benevolent guiding force. This is now changing; information technologies, such as the Internet and social media, have broken the monopoly over information and history once held by Western gatekeeping institutions (media companies, universities, book publishers, and more). As a consequence, people around the world are recognizing that history is no longer confined to Western interpretation—including its projection of benevolence.

A significant component of this has been the West’s frequent failure to acknowledge its own imperfect past. Despite amplifying the perceived wrongdoings of others, it has been silent about its own unsavory moments, such as early American pioneers’ destruction of First Nation cultures, European exploitation of the African continent, or Australia’s treatment of aboriginal peoples. Addressing these historical episodes matters all the more because they affect current behavior; Western nations also have problems admitting to contemporary mistakes and intentions.

Non-Western nations can now make clear that their own countries and communities have long histories that not only exist despite Western interpretation, but these histories need to be explored, understood, and told. The West must grapple with this trend and its implications, rather than continue to obscure it in denial. Consider the ongoing diplomatic efforts of the Indian government to compel Great Britain to return the treasure stolen from India, including some of the crown jewels.

The second trend is the re-evaluation of the” rules-based” international order. Policymakers in Washington may not like hearing it, but the concept is the subject of much derision around the world and is widely regarded as a tool used by the West to control global affairs and maintain hegemony. There is ample resentment growing against Western nations given the repeated breaching of their own rules, meaning that the legitimacy of this order is being questioned despite its positive aspects.

Coinciding with this growing frustration is the reality that the distribution of power across more nations is transforming the current world order and creating new opportunities and challenges. China has assumed a more prominent position, offering global public goods such as peacemaking and addressing climate change in a manner Western nations are not willing, or able, to do. Similarly, India is beginning to assert itself, as are other smaller nations, like the UAE and Indonesia.

As more countries determine their own trajectories in the twenty-first century, the West must recognize that the international balance of power has shifted. It cannot continue to impose its will on others—the rise of China and other nations is evidence of such. The West must come to terms with this new reality and recognize that a new, more pragmatic, and multipolar approach is needed, where nations pursue foreign policies committed to co-existence, driven by their own best interests rather than aligning themselves with “one side” or the other.

Third is the unmasking of Western “peacekeeping.” Despite portraying itself as the guarantor of global security, much of the world now views the United States‚ and Europe to a lesser extent, as profiting from war rather than being interested in promoting authentic peace. The Western military-industrial complex—particularly the United States’—is so powerful that it is now well-known to drive U.S. foreign policy to the extent that it perpetuates conflicts to thus profit from war.

At present, the United States and its NATO allies are driving the rise in global military spending, with America spending more on defense than the next ten countries combined. It is similarly well known that almost half of the Pentagon’s budget goes to private contractors each year, and the military-industrial complex donates millions of dollars to U.S. Congressional races, resulting in state capture and significant increases in defense budgets.

The rest of the world has realized that the West alone cannot be trusted to lead global peace efforts, especially if a significant portion of their economies are geared to profit from conflict. In light of this, a positive change is occurring, with China brokering ground-breaking peace agreements—between Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example—while world leaders like Indonesia’s Joko Widodo, India’s Narendra Modi, and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva pitch peaceful resolutions to modern conflicts.

The fourth trend underway is the dethroning of the Western financial superstructure. That the West makes ample use of its financial might for geopolitical advantage and purposes is no great secret—policymakers and experts openly talk about the “weaponization of finance” and applying sanctions on countries that do not comply with Western intentions. Likewise, the ability of the United States and its allies to freeze and even confiscate the reserves of sovereign states—Afghanistan, Venezuela, Russia—sent shock waves across the world.

Because of this and the West’s own track record of financial greed and impropriety—which resulted in devastating crises such as the 2007–2008 financial crisis and the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which has had global reverberations—distrust in and a rejection of Western financial structures is growing.

Efforts are now underway to dismantle the exorbitant privilege bestowed on the United States via its currency. De-dollarization is very much happening, with the currency’s share of global reserves falling to 47 percent last year, down from 73 percent in 2001. Additionally, countries are seeking alternatives to the SWIFT system, which also has been used in aid of Western-based sanctions and thus alarmed the global majority. As countries with stable currencies gain influence, a more multipolar economic order emerges, reshaping geopolitical alliances, economic diplomacy, and the balance of power within international institutions. This change may grant developing nations greater flexibility in managing their currencies and monetary policies and limit the West’s capacity to unilaterally impose sanctions. Moreover, BRICS nations have recently surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP, signaling a redistribution of economic power and hinting at a future of cooperation in trade, investment, infrastructure, and development assistance.

Fifth and finally, there is the notable collapse of the Western press’ credibility. This comes at a critical juncture, as repeated shortcomings in the last few years have heightened global awareness of Western media’s role in perpetuating the West’s preferred aspects of the current world order—often to the detriment of other countries.

For instance, persistent China-bashing in Western headlines has perpetuated an unproductive and fear-mongering narrative of Beijing as a threat to its own citizens and the world at large. The geopolitical contexts of Hong Kong and Taiwan, though complicated affairs, have been particularly and selectively drummed up to push an “us vs. them” narrative, rather than encouraging understanding between the West and China.

Similarly, overwhelmingly one-sided coverage of the Ukrainian conflict regularly overlooks national and regional geopolitical complexities in the long-standing Russian-Ukrainian relationship and the history of NATO expansion in Europe. A lack of reporting on the Nord Stream bombing, which many believe was perpetrated by a Western nation—with reporting to back this claim up—is a glaring hole that has contributed to the lack of trust in Western media from both non-Western and Western readers alike. Only months later is the Western press quietly admitting potential Western culpability, or at the very least, knowledge.

Moreover, inadequate, and biased coverage of non-Western conflicts, such as those in Yemen, Myanmar, and Palestine, has led to global accusations of neglect, bias, and even racism.

The Writing on the Wall

Western governments operating in an echo chamber of denial need to reach out to their friends across the world and realize what is obvious to everyone except to themselves: that the world is not like what it was in the post-Cold War era. The old ways are finished, and the West simply does not have the political and financial power, not to mention the international legitimacy, it once did. Western nations must adapt to this changing international environment, rather than stubbornly insisting upon business as usual. Failure to do so will make the world a more dangerous place and erode the credibility and influence of the West even further.

——————————————————————————————————————–

* This article is by Chandran Nair. It was first published in The National Interest on June 8, 2023. Chandran Nair is the Founder and CEO of the Global Institute For Tomorrow (GIFT), an independent pan-Asian think tank based in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur focused on advancing a deeper understanding of global issues including the shift of economic and political influence from the West to Asia, the dynamic relationship between business and society, and the reshaping of the rules of global capitalism.

This article provides a review of the recent book [1] Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucdydides’s Trap? by Graham Allison. The book discusses whether a situation with a rising power facing a ruling power will likely end up in war. In the book, Allison analyzed several such world situations, it argues that the answer is more likely, although not necessarily, and the book asked the important question, known as Thucydides’s trap, whether the current situation of China as a rising power and the U.S. as a ruling power will end up in war. That is the purpose of this article. The answer to the question of Thucdydides’s trap is not a simple and straight-forward answer, as discussed below.

Sparta Versus Athens in the 5th Century BC or BCE (Before Common Era): Before the Persian invasion of Greece in 490 BCE, in the Greek peninsula known as the Peloponnese, the city-state of Sparta, highly militaristic with a powerful army where their sons were enrolled in military academies starting at age of seven, had been the region’s dominant power for more than a century. Athens, another city-state in the Peloponnese area, was a port city and interested always as a trading nation with merchants who crisscrossed the Aegean Sea, and had developed a vast navy, was interested in culture, history, philosophy, and democracy, but at the same time had no reservations about interfering in the affairs of other states.

Athens was a rising power and Sparta was a ruling power. As Athens’ power and influence continued to grow, there were even thoughts of a preemptive attack by Sparta on Athens to remind the entire Greek world who was number one. To reduce the tension and avoid a series of all-out conflicts known as the First Pelonponnean War, Sparta and Athens agreed to a peace treaty in 446 BCE that laid the groundwork for a regional peace treaty that lasted for about 30 years. However, later a conflict between two smaller partner states of Sparta and Athens escalated to a conflict that neither side wanted to back away from and let to a war between Sparta and Athens. This gave rise to Thucydides’s Trap that a rising power would lead to war between the rising power and the ruling power.

Initially there might not be a serious conflict between Athens and Sparta. But the conflict became serious when Athens became an imperial power with influence over many cities along both sides of the Aegean Sea and trying to convert them to become Athens’ allies or colonies. The American historian and economist Alan Freeman gave an excellent video broadcast “Is war between China and US inevitable?” discussing the conflict between Sparta and Athens, Thucydides’s Trap, and the current conflict between the U.S. and China. [2] See, in particular, the segment (5:10-6:50) of his video broadcast showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea. However, in the case of China and the U.S., the conflict is not due to China’s economic rise, but it is due’s to the U.S. economic decline. Furthermore, the U.S. should be responsible for taking actions to correcting its own economic decline, and should not blame China for its own economic decline.

What Is the Likelihood of a Rising Power Leads to War with a Ruling Power? Actually even in Graham Allison’s book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Allison did not conclude that the answer is a definite yes, although when he and his team at Harvard studied 16 historical cases between a rising power and a ruling power, they concluded that the answer is yes in 12 of the 16 cases they studied. However, their conclusion can leave a lot of room for debates, as in the discussion of Sparta and Athens. Furthermore, history in the world has a lot more cases that can be studied that could lead to the answer to Thucydides’s Trap as no. We next discuss how was world order decided, then follow with a discussion of the current U.S.-China conflict.

How Was World Order Decided? The book often mentioned how order was decided, or how do you decide whether you can keep your adversary in line. A rule that is often used is a “Two-Power Standard” announced in 1889 as the general method to maintain Britain’s naval primacy, that is to keep Britain on the top of the order hierarchy is to maintain a fleet of battleships equal to the numbers deployed by its next two competitors combined since naval supremacy was key to the battlefield in the past, including the 19th century and first part of the 20th century. This was a rule used by the British to ensure that the British had enough military power to help to enforce its rule-based order. This was used by Winston Churchhill in his various positions as the British Secretary of state for War, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Prime Minister, as well as other positions. Similarly, it was also used by other countries in planning for conflicts or wars with potential adversaries. In the imperialistic world, it was your military might that settles conflicts. The question of fairness was of secondary importance.

The Current U.S.-China Conflict: In the current world, the U.S. is the world’s richest country and the most powerful country, with the world’s most number of inventions and patents, with the best built infrastructures, and with the best universities. Therefore, the U.S. is the ruling power in the world. China is the second most productive country in the world, with the fastest growth in the last 30+ years, with the greatest reduction in poverty, and leads or nearly leads the world in inventions and patents, and has become the manufacturing center of the world, and leads the world in modern infrastructures. Therefore, China is the world’s rising power. This leads to the question of Thucydides’s Trap whether the rising power China and the ruling power the U.S. will lead to conflicts and war.

What makes this question even more urgent is that the U.S. is declining in power. The U.S.’s economy is relatively stagnant, its infrastructures are getting old and not being rapidly replaced, its manufacturing capabilities are migrating overseas, and its people and government do not seem to have the same urgency or zeal. At the same time, China’s economy and manufacturing capacities seem to continue to grow, its infrastructures are rapidly expanding, its education system seems to continue to improve and grow, and its people seem to work with more urgency. Will this lead to more conflicts between U.S. and China? It could, but on the other hand, the U.S.’s declines are not due to China, and it must revitalize itself and should not blame China. Furthermore, synergy can come if the sides are willing to collaborate and help each other, and the rest of the world as a whole can also improve.

There is, however, one important question that has not been brought up for discussion. In all past conflicts, it was possible to have a winner. However, with countries now owning hundreds, if not thousands, of thermonuclear weapons that can annihilate a country, the world, and humanity, there may not be any winner after a war. Therefore, that could alter all our plannings and strategies, as we contemplate Thucydides’s Trap.

Concluding Remarks: There seems to be several major issues in the conflict between the U.S. and China, at least from the eyes of the U.S., in particular Taiwan, South China Sea, and East China Sea islands. Since all these issues have already been discussed in my other articles in this website, I will not address them further in this article, except to point out their references. See, e.g., Ref. 3 and references referred to in that article.

——————————-

References

[1] Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston-New York, 2018.

[2] Alan Freeman, “Is war between China and US inevitable?”, video broadcast by Thinkers Forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STi5J6ppjvk, April 16, 2023. See in particular, the (5:10-6:50) segment of this video showing the map of Athen’s imperial power and Athen’s many potential partners and allies in the Aegean Sea.

[3] “It Is Time for the U.S. to Acknowledge History”: https://www.dontow.com/2021/06/it-is-time-for-the-u-s-to-acknowledge-history/, as well as articles referenced in that article.