- By: Mustajab Bhatti
According to realist theory in international relations, states are rational actors, but violence is rooted in the pessimistic nature of humans. As Thomas Hobbes argued, in the absence of an overarching sovereign, life tends to fall into conflict because of self-interest and mistrust. Whether it takes a prolonged period or not, war is considered inevitable. History demonstrates that there are always chances of war because of anarchy above the state, there is no higher sovereign authority. In the absence of central authority, disorder is highly probable, though not always chaotic. Yet, wars are often initiated. Realists argue that internationally, conflicts are rarely solved by compromise because states, being sovereign, prioritize survival and interests above all else. Therefore, war becomes not just possible, but inevitable.
Both China and the United States are rivals and have been competing for a very long time. Even a small initiative action from either state could trigger great trouble. The possibility of a war between China and the United States of America has become one of the most debated issues in international politics. Rising tensions over Taiwan, disputes in the South China Sea, and competition for global influence have led many to fear that even a small conflict could spiral into something much larger. Since both countries are nuclear powers and central to the global economy, a direct clash would not remain limited to them alone. It could draw in allies, disrupt international trade, and potentially set the stage for World War III.
At the core of U.S.–China tensions lie a fight for global hegemony. America has long been the world’s dominant power, but China’s fast growth, military strength, and global projects challenge that position. This dynamic closely resembles what scholars call the Thucydides Trap, a concept by Graham Allison, which explains that when a rising power threatens to displace an existing hegemon, war often follows. This struggle for leadership fuels mistrust, raising the risk that competition could one day turn into open conflict.
China plays a vital role in Asia, and here one big question arises: Is China the factor which brought change in Asia? Bengal and Nepal are current examples. Many people believe that there is China’s hand behind the revolutions in Nepal and Bangladesh, largely because China has expanded its influence through loans, trade, and infrastructure projects such as roads and ports. This mirrors aspects of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which has allowed China to strengthen its regional presence. While Beijing may not directly lead revolutions, its growing influence undeniably shapes politics and fuels suspicions of its role in regional shifts.
If a U.S-China war erupted in Asia, everyday life across the region would be shaken. Vital trade routes in the South China Sea could be blocked, raising fuel and food prices for millions. Countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and India would struggle with shortages, job losses, and declining exports. People could be forced to leave their homes, investments would dry up, and political tensions would escalate. Such a war would not be limited to two powers; rather, it would disrupt the lives of ordinary people all across Asia, potentially altering the geopolitical map of the region.
In conclusion, a U.S-China war has the potential to drag the entire region into chaos, disrupting trade, economies, and the lives of millions. Yet such a future is not inevitable. The chances of war can be reduced through diplomatic engagement, respect for international law, and multilateral cooperation. As realism warns us of the dangers of anarchy and conflict, liberal institutionalism reminds us that dialogue, institutions, and cooperation can help prevent the worst outcomes. The past of Europe does not necessarily have to be the future of Asia. If lessons are learned and diplomacy prevails.