Two decades ago, there was 'The Clash of Civilizations', American political scientist Samuel P Huntington's big thesis about the next global conflict arising out of a difference in cultures, rather than political ideology or economic vision. "Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations… The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future," his famous essay in Foreign Affairs read. Huntington's hypothesis was oft-repeated when the United States initiated unilateral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars that have delivered few results apart from furthering the conflict in West Asia.
In his latest book The Costliest Pearl: China's Struggle for India's Ocean, journalist Bertil Lintner borrows another such hypothesis – the Thucydides' Trap – to argue that China's ambitions in the Indian Ocean will put it on a collision course with several powers in the region, not least India, which, he says, has always considered the Ocean its own 'lake'. The Thucydides' Trap, put forth by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, posits that "when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling one, the most likely outcome is war." According to Allison, this has been true in 12 out of 16 such instances in the last 500 years.
While this neat formulation lends credence to the threat of an armed conflict, as strategic contests between China and countries such as the US and India intensifies, it also betrays a temptation to connect the dots after the fact. Despite China's global ambitions (which are, to be fair, no longer a secret) and the US pushback via tariff wars and a crackdown on Chinese companies and state media, conventional warfare between the two will not be to either's advantage and is not likely. "China is not the Soviet Union. For one thing, Soviet ideology was inherently opposed to any long-term coexistence with the United States… The CCP [Communist Party of China] does not share such beliefs. It is nationalist rather than internationalist in outlook", wrote historian Odd Arne Westad to the question, 'Are Washington and Beijing fighting a New Cold War?' He added, "The party sees Washington as an obstacle to its goals of preserving its own rule and gaining regional dominance, but it does not believe that the United States or its system of government has to be defeated in order to achieve these aims."
At the same time, the COVID-19 crisis has animated hawks on both sides even as both countries have faltered in their quest for global leadership. Although China has aggressively fought back against accusations of mishandling and underreporting the COVID-19 pandemic in its early stages, the faults in its 'medical diplomacy' are showing, vis-à-vis Taiwan and the World Health Organization. Across the Atlantic, the US also finds itself in hot water with the administration's weak and slow response to the disease, even as the clamour to reopen the economy at the expense of lives seems to be gathering currency with the White House. The Trump administration has also been accused of 'modern piracy' because of its questionable acquisition of medical supplies, and has threatened allies like India with 'retaliation' if pharmaceuticals are not supplied.