FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
There is a phrase that sums up the theory: the Thucydides trap, which refers to the violent clash that occurs when a rising power challenges the ruling hegemon.
Washington has endured the longest government shutdown ever. But the corridors of power believe: the world order, built and led by the United States, is under threat from China, which aims to usurp America's rightful place at the helm.
There is a phrase that sums up the theory: the Thucydides trap , which refers to the violent clash that occurs when a rising power challenges the ruling hegemon.
In Thucydides' time, it was Athens that threatened and then claimed Sparta's supremacy. But it is a pattern that has played out repeatedly throughout history, with the ambition and aggression of the challenger almost always ending in bloodshed.
President Trump's second term has overturned this theory. His administration has single-handedly pursued a radical destruction of the global order that America created, threatening invasions, imposing punitive tariffs indiscriminately, and almost abandoning old alliances.
China, on the other hand, has responded largely with a strong insistence on the status quo. In a surprising reversal, it is America, not China, that seems determined to reject Thucydides' trap. On the world stage, America is overthrowing America.
The bipartisan consensus, now showing signs of strain, was built on a misinterpretation of China’s intentions. That, at least, is the argument of a provocative recent paper published in the journal MIT International Security by three East Asia scholars. “ China is a status quo power concerned about regime stability and remains more inwardly focused than outwardly oriented ,” the authors write.
This clear analysis was based on a review of a vast corpus of Chinese documents and publications, from official speeches to school curricula.
The conclusions were striking. The authors found that China's stated territorial concerns do not extend beyond its long-standing claim to Taiwan and relatively small border areas. "China's intentions are unclear; China's intentions are consistent; and China's intentions are limited," they wrote.
Much of China's foreign policy, rather than exporting its ideology abroad, is aimed at bolstering the Communist Party's power at home. What outside observers see as aggressive moves are often aimed at solving domestic problems.
Take its “One Belt, One Road” initiative , which some see as a quasi-imperial attempt to win the loyalty of developing countries. One of the paper’s authors, Zenobia Chan, an international relations scholar who teaches at Georgetown University, said the initiative was driven more by domestic considerations than global ambition.
“ A lot of it is driven by domestic needs, industrial overcapacity after the global financial crisis ,” she told me.
China, for the most part, has not sought to use these investments as leverage for its global ambitions, she added, beyond its long-standing demand that its partners adhere to a “One China” policy and avoid recognizing Taiwan’s independence. It certainly has not asked developing countries to choose between itself and the United States.
Of course, China is hardly a virtuous or even benevolent actor on the global stage. Its aggression in the South China Sea, its brutal repression in Xinjiang, its crackdown on Hong Kong, and its relentless desire to claim Taiwan pose serious challenges to peace and order in Asia and defy fundamental human rights principles.
The escalation of the diplomatic conflict with Japan, suspending seafood imports and advising citizens to avoid travel there, demonstrates China's ability to threaten.
But these actions, brutal as they are, fall short of a fundamental reorganization of the world. China appears to be asserting what it sees as historical claims within the existing system, bending the rules in ways that the United States, especially under Trump, is hardly in a position to protest.
The distinction matters: A power that defends the status quo, even aggressively, poses different challenges than a power that seeks to remake the world in its own image.
However, it may be outdated to think of a single power overseeing the world.
“ It is not simply that the United States is in relative decline, or even that China is rising, but rather, compared with previous decades, power is held more widely and by a range of powers in different regions ,” writes Emma Ashford in her lively new book.
Trump, it can be said, is not responding well to this reality. Of his wild threats, most recently suggesting military action against Nigeria, it is perhaps most symptomatic of his frustration.
The United States, of course, has always played by its own rules. But Trump has abandoned even a fig leaf of loyalty to principles.
"It's one thing to say: There are some rules of international law that don't apply to us, and it's another thing to say: I don't really care what international law is," said political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
Trump apo jo, aventurizmi ushtarak i dy dekadave të fundit është bërë një shenjë e qartë e rënies.
“Nëse na duhet të ruajmë supremacinë duke pushtuar këtë vend që nuk përbën kërcënim për ne dhe duke nisur një fushatë globale antiterror, është e qartë se jemi në rënie”, më tha Van Jackson.
Historia është e mbushur me shembuj të rreziqeve të agresionit për fuqitë në rënie, marrëzia ushtarake kryqëzuese e Spanjës në shekullin e 16-të, përqafimi i nacionalizmit etnik nga Perandoria Osmane në fund të saj, përpjekja e kotë e Britanisë për t'u kapur pas pozicionit të saj të paqëndrueshëm perandorak midis luftërave botërore. Secila prej tyre ka të njëjtën fund: një humbje çuditërisht e shpejtë e pushtetit dhe prestigjit në skenën globale.
Kjo mund të mos jetë pikërisht ajo që po ndodh. Pavarësisht të gjitha kërcënimeve të Trump për veprime ushtarake jashtë vendit, me përjashtim të sulmeve të shkurtra ajrore në lokacionet bërthamore të Iranit dhe bombardimit të anijeve të vogla në Karaibe, ai duket më i interesuar në vendosjen e ushtrisë për të kontrolluar qytetarët amerikanë.
Po kështu, lufta agresive tarifore e Trump ka më pak të bëjë me botën sesa duket. Breshëria e zjarrit supozohej se kishte të bënte me barazimin e kushteve të lojës me vendet që po e “mashtrojnë”.
Argumentet e fundit të Gjykatës së Lartë mbi përdorimin e tarifave nga Trump e bënë të qartë se këto taksa mbledhin para kryesisht nga amerikanët, duke anashkaluar fuqinë kushtetuese të buxhetit që i është dhënë Kongresit. Tarifat, shkurt, dukeshin globale, por goditën lokalisht.
Kjo çon në një ironi të papërmbajtshme. Larg nga mposhtja e Kinës, Amerika nën Trump mund të fillojë t’i ngjajë asaj. Vendi është në rrugën e duhur: i fiksuar pas stabilitetit të regjimit dhe i gatshëm të përdorë pothuajse çdo mjet për të mbajtur nën kontroll popullin e tij.
Trump, pavarësisht retorikës së tij ofenduese gjatë fushatës, nuk ka qenë kurrë një kundërshtar i Kinë.
Në fakt, ai shpesh e ka lëvduar Xi Jinping, një njeri që ka llojin e pushtetit praktikisht të pakufizuar që Trump dëshiron qartë.
"Presidenti Xi është një udhëheqës i madh i një vendi të madh", tha Trump me zë të ulët në takimin e tyre në Korenë e Jugut muajin e kaluar.
Ky lëvdatë vjen në një kohë kur Shtetet e Bashkuara po tërhiqen nga organet shumëpalëshe që vetë ndihmuan në krijimin e tyre, Kombet e Bashkuara, Organizata Botërore e Shëndetësisë dhe të tjera.
Kina po luan një lojë shumë më të gjatë dhe më të sofistikuar.
Ndërsa supremacia e saj po zbehet, Shtetet e Bashkuara tani përballen me një zgjedhje: të takohen me kombet në ngritje si partnerë të respektuar në ndërtimin e një bote të re, më të barabartë shumëpolare, ose të kërkojnë fuqinë e kushtueshme dhe të brishtë që vjen nga dominimi.
Trump has chosen the latter; China, it seems, seeks the former. History shows us which path leads to peace and prosperity and which is the path to destruction./ Adapted from “Pamphlet”
Lini një Përgjigje