Rising or Declining?

I present this post at Foreign Policy by Hal Brands and Michael Beckley not because I believe it is true but because it presents a point-of-view that was, at least to me, quite counter-intuitive:

The idea of a Thucydides Trap, popularized by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, holds that the danger of war will skyrocket as a surging China overtakes a sagging America. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping has endorsed the concept arguing Washington must make room for Beijing. As tensions between the United States and China escalate, the belief that the fundamental cause of friction is a looming “power transition”—the replacement of one hegemon by another—has become canonical.

The only problem with this familiar formula is that it’s wrong.

The Thucydides Trap doesn’t really explain what caused the Peloponnesian War. It doesn’t capture the dynamics that have often driven revisionist powers—whether that is Germany in 1914 or Japan in 1941—to start some of history’s most devastating conflicts. And it doesn’t explain why war is a very real possibility in U.S.-China relations today because it fundamentally misdiagnoses where China now finds itself on its arc of development—the point at which its relative power is peaking and will soon start to fade.

There’s indeed a deadly trap that could ensnare the United States and China. But it’s not the product of a power transition the Thucydidean cliché says it is. It’s best thought of instead as a “peaking power trap.” And if history is any guide, it’s China’s—not the United States’—impending decline that could cause it to snap shut.


A dissatisfied state has been building its power and expanding its geopolitical horizons. But then the country peaks, perhaps because its economy slows, perhaps because its own assertiveness provokes a coalition of determined rivals, or perhaps because both of these things happen at once. The future starts to look quite forbidding; a sense of imminent danger starts to replace a feeling of limitless possibility. In these circumstances, a revisionist power may act boldly, even aggressively, to grab what it can before it is too late. The most dangerous trajectory in world politics is a long rise followed by the prospect of a sharp decline.


Over the past 150 years, peaking powers—great powers that had been growing dramatically faster than the world average and then suffered a severe, prolonged slowdown—usually don’t fade away quietly. Rather, they become brash and aggressive. They suppress dissent at home and try to regain economic momentum by creating exclusive spheres of influence abroad. They pour money into their militaries and use force to expand their influence. This behavior commonly provokes great-power tensions. In some cases, it touches disastrous wars.

They go on to present both Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan as examples of just that dynamics.

They conclude:

To be clear, China probably won’t undertake an all-out military rampage across Asia, as Japan did in the 1930s and early 1940s. But it will run greater risks and accept greater tensions as it tries to lock in key gains. Welcome to geopolitics in the age of a peaking China: a country that already has the ability to violently challenge the existing order and one that will probably run faster and push harder as it loses confidence that time is on its side.

The United States, then, will face not one but two tasks in dealing with China in the 2020s. It will have to continue mobilizing for long-term competition while also moving quickly to deter aggression and blunt some of the more aggressive, near-term moves Beijing may make. In other words, buckle up. The United States has been rousing itself to deal with a rising China. It’s about to discover that a declining China may be even more dangerous.

I will only make one observation. In the entire history of the world there has never been a country that has been rising in power while declining in population and China’s population is already declining. Perhaps China is the exception that proves the rule.

2 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    More ignorant nonsense from our “Elite.” Our “Elite” doesn’t even reach Central African standards.

    China has the same low fertility problem as has every country outside sub-Saharan Africa, and that includes the US. Japan’s population is actually falling, but its GDP is rising both in aggregate and per caput. Japan’s situation is actually the ideal from an environmental perspective. In the US it is the productive White population that is falling, and Progressives actually celebrate this although the American future is probably more like Mexico today.

    So how will China cope? First, China has 30% of all the world’s manufacturing capacity and 70% of all the world’s 5G base stations. As David Goldman at Asia Times pointed out, China has Huawei’s true 5G, not the fake 5G being rolled out by American companies like Verizon. Huawei’s 5G technology is very much faster, has a larger bandwidth, and a much lower latency that its competitors. Moreover, China is putting its 5G bases in factories and running AI on the networks. This will greatly enhance the efficiency of China’s already world-class manufacturing, and it will drive a stake into the heart of US and EU companies.

    China still has 600 million people to raise out of poverty up to the middle class life standard of the other 800 million. That will take a generation of heavy investment. China will go on any adventures until that goal is achieved, which means no war until 2040 or later. Unless we start it. The US is the problem here, not China (or Russia).

    By 2040, the ongoing rot in America’s society, economy, and military may be so extensive that China (and Russia) can safely ignore us. All the essays projecting China’s fall are just whistling past the cemetery, which is our own.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    Another thing is Chairman Xi’s advancing age and unwillingness to delegate or share authority.
    He may feel an urgent need to cement his legacy.
    I’d play ropeadope with them but I know there are always generals and policy makers on our side eager to actually try out the new military tech.

Leave a Comment