Two Steps from the Thucydides Trap: A Critical Warning on U.S.-China Relations

Since November 5, 2024, with President-elect Trump’s return and a hawkish Capitol Hill, a new, hardline stewardship would soon impact U.S.-China relations. Expected policies targeting China across DIMEFIL domains (diplomacy, information, military, economy, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement) hint at a turning point that could prevent or provoke conflict. With predictable tariff increases, stringent immigration policy and scrutiny against China-related entities, the most critical bilateral relations face risks of misinterpretation and strategic missteps, the “Thucydides Trap”.

Coined by political scientist Graham Allison and inspired by Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, the concept refers to the risk of conflict when a rising power threatens an established one’s dominance. Today, the U.S.-China relationship is often viewed as a modern example, with the potential for rivalry to escalate into war. Avoiding this “trap” is crucial to prevent conflict and build a future of co-existence, even the “cold peace”. This analysis offers a perspective from a Gen-Z Chinese immigrant pursuing an Indo-Pacific security career, focusing on critical dangers confronting U.S.-China relations and practical steps to mitigate them.

Understanding the Tensions

Today’s international security environment shows how intertwined domestic and foreign policies are in both Washington and Beijing. From the U.S. perspective, “Great Power Competition” is a policy incentivized by American exceptionalism, while in China, memories of the “Century of Humiliation” and a mandate-heaven philosophy underscore its aspiration to reclaim prestige on the world stage. These foundational stories are not just historical reminders; they actively shape decisions that stimulate bilateral rivalry. 

Competition is vital for international relations, even a drive of progress. But when competition skews toward hostility, healthy rivalry and constructive dialogue are overridden. In both the United States and China, the public increasingly views the other nation as an adversary, not a partner. This “othering” effect deepens divisions beyond the DIMEFIL domain and erodes educational and cultural connections. The United States, for example, has halted its Fulbright program in China and reduced university-level exchange programs; Chinese student enrollment in America has dropped by over 21% since 2019, according to the Open Doors report by the State Department. The Georgia Tech’s suspension of Georgia Tech Shenzhen Institute is emblematic of this downward trend.

For the United States, this competitive narrative risks fostering misunderstanding and even animosity toward China. The perception of China as a monolithic, antagonistic power can promote fear among the American public. Great Power Competition often looms large in national security discussions on Capitol Hill. Still, an overemphasis on “outcompeting China” (National Security Strategy 2022) overshadows the complexities of bilateral relations founded in 1979 and contributes to xenophobia. Anti-Asian sentiments, intensified during COVID-19, highlight how xenophobia and biased narratives can damage not only diplomatic ties but also destabilize the domestic cohesion of American society.

Chinese side should reflect as well. China’s emphasis on security-driven policy shapes a worldview rooted in ultra-nationalism. Xenophobia-motivated attacks in 2024, such as the stabbing of four American instructors from Cornell College and a Chinese Japanese student, underscore the risk of a policy that channels public sentiment into acts of hostility. The raids against foreign companies (e.g., Mintz Group) only discouraged further international investments in the Chinese market, a pillar critical in driving the Chinese economy. Self-isolation may provide short-term security but risks missing opportunities for global engagement and harms China’s relationship with the United States and the international community.

The Cost of Decoupling

Within the political reality where economic interconnectivity interlocked with national security, decoupling could be unrealistic and would eventually hurt both countries. U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been pivotal in China’s tech sector and job creation, while China is the third-largest U.S. trade partner and the world’s largest exporter. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, if decoupling limits access to China’s aviation market, it could cost the United States up to $51 billion annually and over 200,000 jobs in civil aviation. Such interconnectivity makes the United States and China further urge collaboration rather than confrontation for the sake of zero-sum game. Moreover, according to the 2024 Investment Climate Statements by the State Department, China remains the number four FDI destination worldwide.

The dangers here are mutual. Self-isolating policies in China stifle the communication needed for international understanding, while America’s decoupling steps restrict the exchange of ideas and perspectives essential for effective diplomacy. Focusing exclusively on past grievances for China does not equip either country to build a collaborative future. Demonstrated by the leadership of President Carter and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, only via engagement did both sides break the ice and initiate a new chapter for the collective benefit of the world.

Both sides are not each other’s enemy. On the contrary, opening and connecting with the United States and the broader world is essential for China’s future. U.S. engagement with China enabled the Chinese economic miracle and prosperity, a condition necessary for Chinese engagement in global affairs. China must actively contribute to international peace and stability to win the respect and recognition it seeks. Some steps may seem romantic, but they are achievable with genuine intention and internal reformation.

Practical Steps Forward

Today, domestic policies are foreign policies. Such a principle applies to decision-makers in both Washington and Beijing. Both sides need practical solutions for engagement rather than confrontation to serve the interests of the two peoples. The United States and China should reflect and remain engaged in dealing with each other.

First, reforming China’s security-oriented national strategy to create a more welcoming environment for foreign investors and students would go a long way in rebuilding trust. Unlocking platforms like WhatsApp and Google Maps would signal openness and facilitate international communication. China must provide the necessary access to attract U.S. scholars, entrepreneurs, and investors, fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect rather than suspicion.

Secondly, China could consider playing a more constructive role in global diplomacy, such as acting as a peace broker to end the Russo – Ukrainian War. Strategic competition has already cast China as an existential adversary in some U.S. security circles, but Beijing’s efforts to resolve pressing global issues could reshape this narrative.

Additionally, promoting cross-cultural understanding and university-based exchange would help dispel stereotypes imprinted by political confrontation. Propaganda only fuels fear-based misconception, a fatalism destructive for both. Scrutiny and investigation against foreign nationals would deter Americans from visiting China. For the United States, demonizing China could make millions of Chinese nationals in America the target of othering and alienation. Such a consequence sharply contrasts the philosophy of U.S. foreign policy and fundamental values centering on human rights.

The damage to the U.S. national security interests and the losses of top Chinese American scientists in STEM field make the China Initiative worth reflecting on. The Carter Center’s China Focus report shows that a sizable portion of Chinese students studying in the United States plan to return home after completing their education instead of engaging in espionage or state-led influence. While security concerns are legitimate, fear-driven policies risk alienating communities and jeopardizing beneficial academic and professional exchanges.

Time is Running Out

Challenges to U.S.-China relations remain numerous, and the Taiwan issue remains the most urgent and critical. Both sides have openly signaled red lines uncrossable as demonstrated by the meeting between bilateral leadership at Lima on Nov 17, yet non-peace means bringing risks of miscalculation and escalation. Peace and security in the West Pacific (Taiwan Relations Act, 1979) and the sustainability of U.S.-China Relations depend on the peace across the Strait. In the meantime, a public-will-driven solution is the only alternative to non-peaceful means. Incentivizing China to respect Taiwan’s public will remains critical for such a solution. The United States should stick to the One-China policy and discourage unilateral changes of status and quo from both sides of the Strait.

Both sides should serve as the responsible stakeholder for peace. War is the extension of politics, but there remain solutions in short of conflicts. The United States and China may be closer to war than ever, but this proximity doesn’t mean conflict is inevitable. A Cold War mentality still shapes many decisions on both sides, but this mindset is outdated and has negative consequences. Constructive competition demands mutual respect and an openness to understanding each other’s goals.

Fifty-three years ago, Ping-pong diplomacy broke the ice between the United States and China. Similarly, young people in both countries hold immense power to shape the future of U.S.-China relations. With the privilege to vote, American youth can steer the course of policy by prioritizing leaders who favor diplomacy over hostility. Though constrained by different political structures, their Chinese counterparts are equally bright and innovative. Our generation can steer the relationship away from conflict—toward a future marked by cooperation and understanding.

Creating collaborative spaces, even virtually, for young minds on both sides fosters mutual understanding and can help diffuse tensions fueled by political narratives. Initiated by Dr. Yawei Liu and Dennis Wilder respectively, the Carter Center’s China Focus Initiative and Georgetown Initiative for US-China Dialogue on Global Issues have contributed significantly to connecting like-minded individuals from the United States and China. With confrontation boiling due to the hawkish leadership in Washington and Beijing, influenced by the nationalism narrative, these initiatives have become critical platforms for connection.

Final Thoughts

A more assured future remains possible between the United States and China. Yet achieving such a consensus requires commitment and courageous leadership with the capacity to foster cooperation. Avoiding the Thucydides Trap depends on “us”—the incumbent and rising leaders willing to embrace shared responsibility and the resolve to prevent conflict. War is not imminent, but it could become an unavoidable outcome if the current trajectory remains unchecked. Time is limited, but the chance to avert disaster is still within reach.

Taking a stepping back is painstaking, but it was the realpolitik and even compromises – that served, ultimately, as demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis to the EP-3 Collision, a would-be-escalation between the United States and China.

We don’t have to be friends to collaborate, but we must find a way to coexist: 和而不同，斗則皆傷 — harmony in diversity; conflict harms all, even those with “good” governance principles. “We the People” will bear the outcomes of today’s choices.