The Thucydides Trap in the Digital Age: Avoiding Conflict with Rising Powers
Friends,
Navigating the intersection of domestic politics and foreign policy requires embracing a profound degree of nuance. As a progressive, it feels inherently awkward to find myself in rare agreement with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon on specific foreign policy strategy.
Nixon's domestic record, particularly his impact on communities of color, and Kissinger's controversial influence in Latin America, notably regarding the coup in Chile, present significant moral friction.
Yet, international diplomacy is rarely black and white, and we must give credit where credit is due. Their strategic foresight in effectively opening China during the Cold War, pulling it away from the Soviet orbit, was a masterstroke of realpolitik that fundamentally shifted the global balance of power.
To place this into context with our current global landscape, we can examine this through the lens of scholar Graham Allison—whom I met as an intern while I was an undergraduate student in international relations a quarter century ago at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco—and his concept of the Thucydides Trap. He argues that confrontation isn't inevitable, highlighting four historic instances where war was avoided through creative diplomacy:
In the late fifteenth century, Portugal and Spain averted conflict by establishing the Treaty of Tordesillas under papal arbitration.
Later, Britain successfully accommodated the rising United States in the early twentieth century, defusing tense boundary disputes through strategic diplomacy.
During the Cold War, the threat of mutual assured destruction kept direct military confrontation between the superpowers from happening.
Finally, after the Cold War, a unified Germany rose to economic prominence by embedding itself in institutions like the European Union and NATO.
Reflecting on these historical patterns provides vital clues for managing the complex dynamics of the modern global order, particularly as we look toward relations with a rising China. Forging a diplomatic framework for artificial intelligence between the United States and China is today's equivalent of the nuclear treaties of the Cold War. Just as the superpowers recognized the existential threat of nuclear war, both Washington and Beijing must now acknowledge that unconstrained AI development poses profound risks to global stability.
The path forward requires moving beyond zero-sum competition to establish clear guardrails and verifiable treaties. By finding shared interests in safety protocols and ethical standards, we can harness the immense potential of AI while ensuring its advancement remains a benefit to humanity rather than a driver of conflict.
In Solidarity,
Gamy Enriquez, MPA
