Links Between East and West 50 Thucydides Trap 东西方的连接50 - 修昔底德陷阱

In 2012, American political scientist Graham Allison coined the term “The Thucydides Trap.” The term describes a tendency towards war when a rising power challenges the status of a dominant power. Throughout history, numerous wars were fought when two states fell into the Trap. For example, during the Classical Period in ancient Greek history, the rise of Athens challenged the dominant power back then, Sparta, which triggered the Peloponnesian War. During the Independence War in the late 18thcentury, America rose to confront the power of the British Empire. In this confrontation, the Americans and the British fought a war to eventually reach a different outcome.

The Thucydides Trap, from 2015 onwards, has grown to be a quite popular term. Many political scientists today, including Allison himself, reference this term when analyzing the escalations between the United States and China. However, the Thucydides Trap is significant for a more general reason. When thinking about the chances of controlling warfare, the Thucydides Trap is a hurdle that must be surpassed. If states cannot escape the Trap, then warfare might still be the primary approach their leaders take in resolving international issues. In the last article, the essayist argued that to control warfare, states must focus more on their inner self-vibrance and aim to continuously develop an innovative economy, a fluid society, and a flexible culture. This article will concentrate on potential pathways countries can take to escape the Thucydides Trap, thereby further decreasing the possibilities of waging a war.

To resist falling into the Thucydides Trap, states must first recognize the existence of it. The Thucydides Trap, at its heart, was historically effective in “dragging” two nations to war primarily because it involves fear – the dominant power fears the rise of the growing one. If a state fails to recognize the crucialness of fear in the Thucydides Trap, then mastering and regulating that fear would be difficult. Fear, once left unregulated, can become a strong motive for warmongering action and establish a systemic threat for international peace. When states recognize the role of fear in provoking them to enter a state of war against each other, they then simultaneously recognize the existence of this systematic threat. Countries must understand that this systematic threat does not stem from the intentions of any party but rather from structural reality itself.

Once states recognize fear and the systemic threat that it establishes, they should recognize the importance of jointly preventing crisis. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred partially due to the lack of willingness between the United States and the Soviet Union to collaborate to create mechanisms that could check potential escalations. To cooperate to forestall a rise in tension, countries today must foresee some of the areas and points of dispute that may be magnified to produce conflict. Questions such as “How might this particular region become a possible point of conflict?” and “How could events in this particular country drag other countries into war?” should be raised. In most historical cases when countries fell into the Thucydides Trap, they either failed to perceive a lurking threat that eventually was the trigger of warfare or did not attempt to discuss a perceived threat. Countries must act early, decisively, and systematically to detect a possible Thucydides Trap.

Another way to avoid stepping into the Thucydides Trap is to acknowledge that a partnership and rivalry may coexist. In the business world, the Theory of Comparative Advantage already points out that companies and countries may still receive mutual benefits from trading even though they might possess rivalries in other areas. In the highly globalized world today, it is hard to completely detach a country from the international system. States rely on each other for economic and political purposes. It is then imperative to encourage states to strike an equilibrium between a partnered and rivalrous relationship. Currently, this task is daunting as politics permeate through economic interactions and other forms of cultural dialogue. When acrimonious political rivalries impact economic and cultural interactions, the willingness to form partnerships in these areas significantly lowers. Thus, the urgent task is to make economic and cultural communication “purer.” Extreme and polarized political ideas and doctrines should not dominate economic and cultural discussions.

Finally, states must understand that the most pressing danger to their prosperity might not come from the exterior environment. Instead, history shows that a state’s internal environment could cause its demise and break-up. This realization is vital, as it helps mitigate a country’s fear towards a perceived “enemy” outside, leading them to not enter the Thucydides Trap. The Roman Empire fell largely due to an internal economic collapse and political breakdown. In modern history, the Weimar Republic collapsed due to economic chaos and political weakness; Yugoslavia broke up due to internal conflicts between different ethnic groups; And many African and Middle Eastern states today, such as Libya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Afghanistan, are floundering as they lack a strong central government. Even superpowers like the United States must tackle its growing social issues regarding race, ethnicity, and gender. These issues have the potential to tear up the current social structure and push the country to mayhem. The increasingly volatile economic outlook additionally leverages pressure onto the economic agencies of national governments. If states can refocus on their internal conditions, realizing that these conditions might be even more capable than exterior foes in causing a massive decline in power, then leaders might have a better chance at avoiding the Thucydides Trap.

Overall, by emphasizing the crucialness of self-vibrance and coming up with ways to escape the Thucydides Trap, states currently might control wars effectively. However, eliminating warfare might be a more unrealistic goal. This is not to say that warfare control is useless in the long run. Far from it, the notion that warfare might persist as a continuous element of human civilization should drive states to increasingly value the significance of building mechanisms to regulate it.

2012 年，美国政治学家格雷厄姆-艾利森创造了 "修昔底德陷阱 "一术语。该术语的意思是，当崛起的国家挑战现任霸主的地位时，战争就容易爆发。纵观历史，多组国家都陷入过修昔底德陷阱。例如，在古希腊历史的古典时期，雅典的崛起挑战了当时的霸主斯巴达，引发了伯罗奔尼撒战争。在 18 世纪末的独立战争中，美国崛起对抗大英帝国的势力。在这场对抗中，美国人和英国人进行了一场战争才最终达成了一个结果。

修昔底德陷阱从2015年开始，逐渐成为一个颇为流行的词汇。如今，包括艾利森本人在内的许多政治学家在分析中美矛盾逐渐升级时，都会提到这个词。然而，"修昔底德陷阱 "之所以意义重大，还有一个更普遍的原因。在考虑控制战争的可能时，修昔底德陷阱是一个必须跨越的障碍。如果国家无法摆脱修昔底德陷阱，那么战争可能仍然是国家解决国际问题的主要方式。在上一篇文章中，作者认为，要控制战争，国家必须更加注重内在的自我平衡与自我活力，以不断发展创新型经济、流动性社会与灵活的文化为目标。本文将集中讨论国家摆脱修昔底德陷阱的潜在途径，从而进一步降低发动战争的可能性。

要避免陷入修昔底德陷阱，国家必须首先认识到它的存在。修昔底德陷阱在历史上之所以能有效地将两个国家 "拖入 "战争，主要是因为它涉及到恐惧—霸权国家恐惧成长中的国家崛起。如果一个国家不能认识到恐惧在修昔底德陷阱中的重要性，那么领导人就很难掌握并调节这种恐惧。恐惧一旦不受控制，就会成为战争行动的强大动机，并对国际和平构成系统性威胁。当各国认识到恐惧在挑动彼此进入战争状态中所起的作用时，它们也就同时认识到了这种系统性威胁的存在。各国必须明白，这种系统性威胁可能并非源于任何一方的意图，而是源于结构性现实本身。

一旦各国认识到恐惧及其造成的系统性威胁，它们就应认识到共同预防危机的重要性。1962 年，古巴导弹危机的发生部分是由于美国和苏联缺乏合作意愿，没有建立能够遏制潜在危机升级的机制。今天，为了合作防止紧张局势升级，各国必须预见到一些可能被放大而产生冲突的领域与争端点，应提出 "这一特定地区如何成为可能的冲突点？"或 "这一特定国家发生的事件如何将其他国家拖入战争？"等问题。在大多数历史案例中，当国家陷入修昔底德陷阱时，它们要么没有察觉到潜伏的威胁，最终引发战争，要么没有试图讨论察觉到的威胁的后果。各国必须及早、果断、系统地采取行动，以发现可能出现的修昔底德陷阱。

避免陷入 "修昔底德陷阱 "的另一种方法是承认伙伴关系与竞争关系可能并存。在商业世界中，比较优势理论已经指出，即使公司与国家在其他领域存在竞争关系，它们仍然可以从贸易中获得互惠互利。在高度全球化的当今世界，一个国家很难完全脱离国际体系，各国在经济和政治上相互依赖。因此，当务之急是鼓励各国在伙伴关系与竞争关系之间达成平衡。目前，这项任务十分艰巨，因为政治渗透到经济交往和其他形式的文化对话中。当激烈的政治竞争影响到经济及文化互动时，在这些领域建立伙伴关系的意愿就会大大降低。因此，最为紧迫的便是使经济和文化交流更加 "纯粹"。极端与两极分化的政治观点、理论不应主导经济及文化讨论。

最后，各国必须明白，其繁荣面临的最紧迫危险可能并非来自外部环境。相反，历史表明，一个国家的内部环境可能导致其灭亡和解体。认识到这一点至关重要，因为这有助于减轻国家对外部 "敌人 "的恐惧，从而避免陷入修昔底德陷阱。罗马帝国的灭亡主要是由于内部经济崩溃和政治瓦解。在现代史上，德国魏玛共和国因经济混乱与政治软弱而垮台；南斯拉夫因不同族群之间的内部冲突而解体。今天的许多非洲和中东国家，如利比亚、刚果民主共和国或阿富汗，都因缺乏一个强有力的中央政府而举步维艰。即使是美国这样的超级大国，也必须解决其日益严重的种族、民族与性别等社会问题。这些问题有可能撕裂当前的社会结构，将国家推向混乱。日益动荡的经济前景也给各国政府的经济机构带来了压力。如果国家能够重新关注其内部条件，认识到这些条件可能比外部敌人更有能力导致力量的大规模衰退，那么领导人就有可能更好地避免修昔底德陷阱。

综上所述，通过强调自我活力的重要性，并想办法摆脱修昔底德陷阱，目前的国家可能会有效地控制战争。然而，消除战争可能是一个更不现实的目标。这并不是说从长远来看，控制战争毫无用处。恰恰相反，战争作为人类文明的一个持续因素而存在，这应该促使世界国家愈发重视建立战争管制机制的意义。