Introduction:
Amy Ziegert welcomed everyone to the book event featuring Graham Allison and Neil Ferguson to discuss their book “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape the Thucydides Trap?” The book is available for purchase outside the event, and Allison will be signing copies after the talk.

Graham Allison’s Background:
Allison is the director of Harvard’s Belfer Center, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, and founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He has had a distinguished career in academia, government, and the private sector. He served as Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense under President Reagan and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans under President Clinton. Allison has been a trusted advisor to seven Secretaries of Defense and currently serves on the advisory boards of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has received the Department of Defense’s highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal, twice.

Allison’s Publications:
Allison has written extensively about nuclear weapons, terrorism, and decision-making. His first book, “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis,” is a highly influential book in political science and required reading for many political science students. He has written other influential books, including “Lee Kuan Yew: The Grandmaster’s Insights on China, the US, and the World” and “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.” Allison’s books have been widely praised and recognized, including being selected as notable books of the year.

Allison’s Current Work:
Allison’s latest book, “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape the Thucydides Trap?” explores the potential for conflict between the United States and China. The book has received attention and is among the best-selling political science books on Amazon.com.

Amy Ziegert’s Commentary:
Ziegert jokingly mentions Allison’s one weakness, which is that he never moved from Harvard to Stanford, unlike his colleague Neil Ferguson.

Speaker Introductions:
Amy Ziegert introduces Graham Allison, a renowned economic historian and prolific author, and Neil Ferguson, a leading economic historian and political commentator.

Neil Ferguson’s Opening Remarks:
Ferguson expresses his gratitude for the warm introduction and highlights his collaboration with Allison on an article advocating for a Council of Historical Advisors for the US President. He commends Allison’s timing in publishing his book, which emphasizes the imminent danger of conflict between China and the United States. Ferguson quotes a passage from the book, emphasizing the high probability of war between the two superpowers unless both parties take proactive measures to prevent it.

Graham Allison’s Case for the Likelihood of War:
Allison is prompted to present his arguments, assuming that the audience has purchased but not yet read his book.

Introduction:
Graham Allison’s presentation focuses on convincing the audience that war between the United States and China is more likely than not.

Historical Context:
Allison highlights the misconception among younger audiences that war between great powers is obsolete due to seven decades of peace. He emphasizes that this period is historically anomalous and warns against assuming that peace is a natural condition or that human wisdom has made war obsolete.

US-China Relations:
Allison acknowledges the constant news and noise surrounding the US-China relationship, citing examples such as North Korea’s missile tests and China’s growing trade partnership with Germany.

Thucydides Trap:
Allison introduces the concept of the “Thucydides Trap,” which refers to the historical tendency for conflict to arise when a rising power challenges an established power. He explains that this phenomenon has been observed throughout history, with 16 out of 17 cases resulting in war.

Structural Factors:
Allison discusses structural factors that contribute to the likelihood of war between the US and China: Economic competition: China’s rapid economic growth and its challenge to US dominance in various sectors. Military buildup: China’s military modernization and its increasing presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Ideological differences: The US’s promotion of democracy and human rights versus China’s authoritarian political system.

Deterrence:
Allison emphasizes the importance of deterrence in preventing war, but also warns that deterrence can fail, especially when there are misperceptions or misunderstandings between the parties involved.

Conclusion:
Allison reiterates his belief that war between the US and China is more likely than not, given the historical patterns and the structural factors at play. He urges the audience to recognize the dangers of complacency and to take proactive measures to reduce tensions and avoid conflict.

Thucydides’ Insight:
Thucydides observed that the rise of a new power and the fear it instills in the ruling power often leads to conflict.

Rising Power’s Perspective:
As a rising power, a nation feels stronger and seeks more influence. It feels that the existing arrangements, established before its rise, are unfair and confining.

Ruling Power’s Perspective:
The ruling power views the rising power as a threat to its dominance. It believes that the rising power is trying to upset the status quo, which has enabled its growth.

Consequences of the Dynamic:
Trust between the two powers is exhausted. Actions of one party are misinterpreted by the other, leading to misunderstandings. Both powers become vulnerable to external actions or events.

The Dynamics of Rising Power Relationships:
Graham Allison explains the dynamic of rising power relationships, where one party may challenge the existing order and seek changes to the rules. He emphasizes that the U.S. and China are not at a point where one side wants war, but rather seeking adjustments to the current order.

U.S. Perspective on the International Order:
Allison presents the U.S. perspective on the international rule-based order, highlighting the peace and prosperity it has brought. He notes that the U.S. urges China to participate in this order, but China questions the fairness and legitimacy of these rules.

The North Korea Situation as a Vulnerability:
Allison points to the North Korea situation as an example of a potential trigger for conflict between the U.S. and China. He contrasts the U.S. view, which emphasizes its role in building and supporting South Korea, with the Chinese view, which sees the U.S. presence as the root of the problem.

U.S.-China Disagreement over Responsibility:
The U.S. and China disagree on who should resolve the North Korea issue. The U.S. believes China, as North Korea’s ally, has the responsibility to address the problem, while China argues that the U.S. should withdraw from the region.

Historical Parallels: World War I as a Cautionary Tale:
Allison draws parallels between the current U.S.-China tensions and the events leading up to World War I. He emphasizes the seemingly insignificant events that can spark a chain reaction and lead to unpredictable consequences.

The Complexity of World War I:
Allison highlights the intricate web of alliances and motivations that contributed to the outbreak of World War I. He emphasizes the difficulty in understanding and preventing such conflicts.

Summary:
Graham Allison draws parallels between the current China-US rivalry and the events leading up to World War I. Allison emphasizes that even if neither side wants war, a series of escalating events can lead to conflict. He uses the example of World War I, where each party’s pursuit of their interests led to disastrous consequences. Allison highlights the role of entangling alliances and miscalculations by leaders in fueling the conflict. He notes that Britain and Germany, the incumbent and rising powers, respectively, became entangled with other parties, making the situation more complex. Allison emphasizes the importance of avoiding entangling alliances and the need for careful diplomacy to prevent conflict. Neil Ferguson’s research suggests that in 12 out of 16 cases, an incumbent power feeling threatened by a rising power has resulted in conflict. Ferguson and Allison agree that the 1914 analogy is powerful in understanding the potential risks in the current China-US rivalry.

Analogy of Sparta and Athens:
Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War draws parallels between the US and China, with China resembling Athens and the US resembling Sparta. Athens’ rise as a naval power threatened Sparta, leading to conflicts over Athens’ wall and control of the sea. China’s emergence as a global power challenges the US-led international order, particularly in the Asian region.

Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War:
Thucydides’ work has gained attention from China’s leaders, including Xi Jinping and the Chinese ambassador to the US. Thucydides highlights the dangers of rising powers challenging established ones, leading to conflicts like the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. The analogy raises questions about who plays the role of Sparta and Athens in the contemporary context.

The US-China Resemblance to Athens and Sparta:
The US, like Sparta, has maintained a dominant position in the international order for decades. China, like Athens, is a rising power seeking to reshape the international order in its favor. The US Navy’s presence in the South China Sea and its involvement in regional disputes are seen as challenges to China’s sovereignty.

Historical Examples of Peaceful Transitions:
Despite the Thucydides Trap, there have been historical instances where rising powers have emerged without triggering conflicts. The US-Soviet Cold War ended peacefully, demonstrating the possibility of coexistence between superpowers.

Four Success Stories:
Spain vs. Portugal (15th Century) US vs. Britain (Early 20th Century) Cold War (US vs. Soviet Union) Germany’s Emergence in Post-Cold War Europe

The Rise of the US Relative to Britain:
Britain faced two rising powers: Germany and the US. Germany’s growing navy was seen as a direct threat. The US sought to remove Britain from the Western Hemisphere.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Role:
Roosevelt, as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was instrumental in the US’s rise to power. He was a vocal critic of Spain’s presence in Cuba and the British navy. Roosevelt played a key role in the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the US acquiring Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Desire for a Canal:
Roosevelt sought to construct a canal linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to enhance the mobility of the US fleet. Colombia refused to grant the US the desired canal route, prompting Roosevelt to sponsor a coup and establish the new country of Panama. Panama promptly granted the US a contract for the construction of the canal.

The Venezuela Dispute:
Roosevelt intervened in a territorial dispute between Venezuela and European powers, asserting that the US had the right to resolve disputes in its hemisphere. He threatened war with Britain and Germany, compelling them to withdraw from the conflict.

Acquiring Alaska:
Roosevelt orchestrated the acquisition of a significant portion of Alaska from Russia. John Muir, an environmentalist and friend of Roosevelt, described the region as possessing natural beauty akin to Yosemite National Park. Roosevelt’s Secretary of State initially stated that the region belonged to Canada, but Roosevelt insisted on its annexation.

The Roosevelt Corollary:
Roosevelt’s expansionist foreign policy was encapsulated in the Roosevelt Corollary, an extension of the Monroe Doctrine. It declared the Western Hemisphere as the US’s sphere of influence, warning European powers against intervention.

Interventionism in Latin America:
The Roosevelt Corollary justified US military interventions in Latin American countries deemed to be misbehaving. Over the following decade, the US sent the Marines to various Latin American countries to topple governments and install new ones.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Aggressive Assertiveness:
Graham Allison and Neil Ferguson discuss the aggressive assertion of primacy by the United States during Teddy Roosevelt’s era. Roosevelt’s actions, such as intervening in Latin American countries and flexing military muscle, are seen as extreme and outrageous.

British Accommodation and Its Lessons:
Neil Ferguson highlights the United Kingdom’s decision not to intervene in the U.S. Civil War due to cultural similarities and the prospect of a senior-partner, junior-partner relationship with the U.S. Graham Allison emphasizes the British ability to distinguish between vital interests (like empire) and non-vital interests, allowing them to tolerate unreasonable American behavior.

Vital Interests and Accommodation:
Graham Allison explains the importance of identifying vital interests and accommodating differences in non-vital areas. He cites the example of the British and Americans having strong differences but aligning during World Wars I and II due to shared vital interests.

Clash of Civilizations:
Allison discusses the clash of civilizations between the United States and China, highlighting the lack of cultural affinity between the two countries. He refers to Samuel Huntington’s proposition of a clash of civilizations and elaborates on it in his book.

Common Interests:
Nuclear Deterrence: Both countries share a common interest in avoiding a general nuclear war. They understand that even if one side attempts to disarm the other, the other side would still have the capability to retaliate, leading to mutual assured destruction. Economic Interdependence: The U.S. and China have deeply intertwined economies, with extensive supply chains and economic interdependence. A war between the two countries would severely disrupt global trade and cause economic hardship in both countries. Climate Change: Both countries recognize the urgent need to address climate change and its potential catastrophic consequences. Solving this global issue requires collaboration and cooperation between the U.S. and China, as neither country can solve it alone.

Potential Conflict:
North Korea: The ongoing situation in North Korea could potentially trigger a conflict between the U.S. and China. If North Korea continues to develop its nuclear and missile programs, the U.S. may feel compelled to take military action, which could draw China into the conflict as a supporter of North Korea.

Possible Conflict Over North Korea:
The United States and China face the potential for conflict due to North Korea’s nuclear program and the threat of nuclear warheads reaching San Francisco.

Trump’s Approach:
President Trump has taken a firm stance, stating that he will not allow North Korea to threaten the United States with nuclear weapons.

Trump’s Message to China:
At the Mar-a-Lago summit, President Trump communicated to President Xi Jinping that China has the ability to resolve the North Korea issue, but if they do not, the United States will take action.

Military Option:
The United States has the military capacity to launch an attack against North Korea to prevent further nuclear tests, but this could trigger retaliatory actions.

North Korean Response:
If the United States attacks North Korea, the North Koreans may respond by using their artillery against Seoul, South Korea, resulting in significant casualties.

South Korean and American Response:
The attack on Seoul could prompt South Korea and the United States to launch a preemptive strike to destroy North Korean rockets and missiles.

Chinese Response:
China may not tolerate a unified Korea allied with the United States, potentially leading to conflict between the United States and China.

Historical Precedent:
The Korean War serves as a reminder that the United States and China have fought each other in the past.

US-China Historical Precedent:
China’s willingness to engage in armed conflict to prevent a hostile American-related government on its border is evident in the Korean War.

The Current Situation:
New conditions and the potential for escalation to a more severe conflict complicate the situation further. The Thucydides Trap, a historical pattern of conflict between a rising power and an established power, is a relevant framework for understanding the US-China dynamic. The Chinese government’s perspective on the South China Sea as its “lake” and its territorial claims in the region create friction with the US. China’s economic strength and global influence have grown significantly, positioning it as a formidable competitor to the US.

European Response:
Europe’s economic ties with China are deepening, potentially distancing it from the US. The perception of China as a strong economic partner is driving adjustments and adaptations across Asia. China’s economic dominance has shifted the balance of power, making it the largest trading partner with countries like Germany. Chinese development banks provide substantial capital and loans, further solidifying China’s economic influence.

The Loans:
China uses loans for political purposes and contracts. This dynamic is exacerbated, leading to unique challenges in managing the rivalry.

China’s Contradictory Roles:
China’s leadership in green initiatives and free trade is surprising given its status as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and a highly protectionist economy. This raises questions about how to manage the rivalry when the contender vacates the field.

The Importance of Other Players:
Alliances and relationships with lesser powers are crucial in shaping the origins and dynamics of rivalry. Key American allies, like South Korea, are nervous about the US’s handling of North Korea, potentially straining relationships.

Japan’s Role:
Japan is a significant player with a strong defense establishment and a mutual defense treaty with the US. Japan’s involvement adds complexity to the US-China rivalry, unlike the US’s emergence, where there were fewer powerful regional actors.

India’s Role:
India’s future is uncertain, and its role in the rivalry is unclear. Lee Kuan Yew viewed India as a collection of principalities, not a cohesive nation, and doubted its ability to overtake China. Neil Ferguson believes India could potentially overtake China in growth rate and play a significant role in the rivalry.

China’s Historical Narrative of Greatness:
China perceives itself as the original primary power, dominant for 5,000 years until the Western anomaly of exploitation and imperialism. Xi Jinping’s slogan, “make China great again,” aims to restore China to its rightful place at the top of the hierarchical international order.

Hierarchical Dominance:
China’s sense of international order involves a hierarchical pyramid with China at the summit and others below. The Confucian principle of “know thy place” emphasizes China’s superior position and the adaptation of others accordingly.

China’s Rise and Restoration:
Xi Jinping views China’s current growth not as a rise but as a restoration to its rightful place. China’s large GDP in the past was attributed to its vast population, not industrialization or technological advancement.

Importation of Civilization:
China is now embracing the march of civilization, including industrialization, technology, and market economy. This progress serves the purpose of restoring China to its perceived rightful position atop the global hierarchy.

Historical Narratives and Collective Memory:
Historical narratives shape China’s collective memory and influence its foreign policy and international relations. The narrative of China’s past greatness and restoration influences its current actions and aspirations.

China and the United States:
The narrative of a century of anomaly from the 1840s to 1940s, where exceptionalism reigned, is being challenged. The American narrative still holds a sense of exceptionalism, evident in slogans like “Make America Great Again.” China’s rise as a global power is shaping a new international order.

U.S.-China Conflict and International Order:
Donald Trump’s actions in withdrawing from the international order may lead to increased tensions between the U.S. and China. Xi Jinping’s speech at Davos highlights China’s eagerness to play a leading role in global governance.

Chinese Influence in Global Institutions:
China’s growing strength may lead to a shift in the balance of power within international organizations. Chinese involvement in areas like climate change may increase as the U.S. retreats from such domains.

A Chinese-Led International Order:
The nature of a Chinese-led international order is uncertain, but it would likely differ from the U.S.-led order. China’s emphasis on sovereignty, non-interference, and economic development could shape its approach to global governance. The impact of a Chinese-led order on issues like human rights and democracy remains to be seen.

The Rise of China:
China’s rise has been relatively quiet and understated, unlike pre-1914 Germany’s stridency, which contributed to Anglo-German antagonism. Chinese leaders systematically study history and learn from it, in contrast to the United States’ lack of formal historical knowledge inculcation in senior officials.

Reading List of Chinese Leaders:
Wang Qishan, a high-ranking Chinese official, has been reading Graham Allison’s book, “Destined for War,” even before its publication in the United States. Chinese leaders have a history of reading influential books, such as Tocqueville’s “Old Regime and the Revolution” and a short history of Europe during the European financial crisis.

Time Frame for Potential Conflict:
A RAND study suggests that an earlier war between China and the United States, within the next 10 years, could be advantageous for the US, potentially setting back China’s development for 50 years. However, a naval war in the region presents challenges for the US due to China’s ability to play from the land, making it an asymmetrical game.

Thucydides’ Trap:
The thesis of Thucydides’ Trap is not that rising powers inevitably go to war with established powers. Most worrisome cases arise from structural dynamics and third-party actions, rather than deliberate decisions by either power to initiate conflict.

The North Korea-China Relationship:
The relationship between North Korea and China is stressed, with no visits between the leaders of both countries. Communication between Beijing and Pyongyang is limited, with the Chinese ambassador in Pyongyang as the primary point of contact.

China’s Involvement in the Korean War:
China’s involvement in the Korean War was influenced by Stalin’s directive to Mao Zedong. Discussions of the Korean War in China are politically sensitive, as it involves the Soviet Union’s manipulation of China’s foreign policy.

US-China Relations under Donald Trump:
The Trump administration’s initial demonization of China has shifted to a more positive tone. The consistency of this shift is uncertain, given Trump’s inconsistent behavior.

Public Perception of North Korea’s Nuclear Threat:
The US public strongly opposes North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and would likely support military action to prevent an attack.

The Risk of War:
The risk of war between the US and North Korea is influenced by the Kim Jong-un regime’s actions and China’s response. A continued escalation could lead to a credible threat or even an attack by the US.

The Cuban Missile Crisis as a Precedent:
The Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates the high stakes of nuclear brinkmanship. The US and the Soviet Union eventually found creative solutions to avoid nuclear war.

Hope for Inventive Solutions:
The US national security team, including H.R. McMaster, James Mattis, and Rex Tillerson, is capable of devising innovative strategies to address the North Korea issue. Collaborative efforts between the US and China could lead to multiple solutions to the crisis.