Too many observers have lost sight of one of the key lessons of World War
I. The Great War was triggered by the assassination of Austrian Archduke
Franz Ferdinand in June 1914, which occurred against the backdrop of a
long-simmering conflict between Europe’s major powers. This interplay
between conflict escalation and a political spark has special resonance
today. With war raging in Ukraine and a cold-war mentality gripping the
United States and China, there can be no mistaking the historical
parallels. The world is simmering with conflict and resentment. All that
is missing is a triggering event. With tensions in Taiwan, the South China
Sea, and Ukraine, there are plenty of possible sparks to worry about.

Taiwan is a leading candidate. Even if, like me, you do not accept the US
view that president Xi Jinping has consciously shortened the timeline for
reunification, recent actions by the US government may end up forcing his
hand. Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Taipei last August,
and her successor, Kevin McCarthy, seems intent on doing the same. The
newly established House Select Committee on China appears likely to send
its own mission shortly, especially following the unannounced recent visit
of its chairman, Mike Gallagher.

Meanwhile, a just-completed visit to Taipei by a senior official from the
Pentagon, in the aftermath of the December enactment of the $10 billion
Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act, leaves little doubt about US military
support for China’s so-called renegade province. While the US squirms to
defend the One China principle enshrined in the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué,
there can no longer be any doubt about US political support for preserving
Taiwan’s independent status. That is a red line for China—and a
geopolitical flashpoint for everyone else. I worry just as much about a
spark in Ukraine. One year into this horrific and once-unthinkable
conflict, there is a new and ominous twist to Russian president Vladimir
Putin’s spring offensive. The US is warning of an escalation of Chinese
support for Russia from non-lethal assistance (like purchasing Russian
energy products) to lethal aid (weapons, ammunition, or logistical
arms-supply capabilities).

The Biden administration’s vague threat of serious consequences for China
if it offers lethal aid to Russia’s war effort is reminiscent of similar
US warnings that preceded the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on
Russia. In the eyes of US politicians, China would be guilty by
association and forced to pay a very steep price. Just as Taiwan is
China’s red line, Washington believes the same can be said of Chinese
military support for Russia’s war campaign. There are plenty of other
potential sparks, not least from ongoing tensions in the South China Sea..
The recent expansion of US access to Philippine military bases located
midway between Taiwan and China’s militarised islands in the Scarborough
Shoal and the Spratly (Nansha) Archipelago is a case in point. As the US
continues to enforce freedom of navigation in the international waters of
the South China Sea by sailing naval vessels through it, the possibility
of an accident or unintended confrontation can hardly be ruled out. A
near-miss between a US reconnaissance flight and a Chinese warplane in
late December is indicative of these risks, which are all the more serious
given the breakdown in military-to-military communications between the two
superpowers—glaringly evident during the great balloon fiasco earlier this
month.

Context is key in assessing the likelihood of any spark. Under the
political cover of what it bills as a battle between autocracy and
democracy, the US has clearly been the aggressor in turning up the heat on
Taiwan over the past six months. Similarly, the Chinese surveillance
balloon incident brought the cold-war threat much closer to home for the
US public. And senior diplomats on both sides—US secretary of state Antony
Blinken and his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi—have taken on the role of
classic cold warriors. Their belligerent rhetoric at the recent Munich
Security Conference mirrored that of their first meeting in Anchorage
nearly two years ago. As was the case before World War I, it is tempting
to minimise the risk of a major conflict. After all, today’s globalised,
interconnected world has too much at stake to risk a seismic unravelling..
That argument is painfully familiar. It is the same one made in the early
twentieth century, when the first wave of globalisation was at its peak.
It seemed compelling to many right up to June 28, 1914.

The historical comparison with 2023 must be updated to reflect the grand
strategy of cold war conflict. A decisive turning point in the Cold War
with the Soviet Union came in 1972, when US president Richard Nixon went
to China and ultimately joined with Mao Zedong in executing a successful
triangulation strategy against the USSR. Today, the US is on the receiving
end of a new cold-war triangulation, with China having joined Russia in a
partnership “without limits” that takes dead aim at US hegemonic power.
This pivotal shift brings the lessons of 1914 into increasingly sharper
focus.

Having just published a book about accidental conflict as an outgrowth of
duelling false narratives between the US and China, I am particularly
worried about “narrative segmentation.” Each side is convinced that it
holds the moral high ground as conflict lurches from one incident to
another. For the US, China’s surveillance balloon was a threat to national
sovereignty. For China, US support for Taiwan is a similar threat. Each
point of tension then triggers a cascading stream of retaliatory responses
without recognition of collateral implications for a deeply conflicted
relationship.

Three great powers—America, China, and Russia—all seem to be afflicted by
a profound sense of historical amnesia. They are collectively sleepwalking
down a path of conflict escalation, carrying high-octane fuel that could
be ignited all too easily. Just like 1914.

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/sleepwalking-towards-conflict/3001383/

***

### - the 'main' risk being that of us all waking up one morning to find
that it's already far too late to back out of having a real war now... coz
it's already started??

'sleepwalking' is thus spot on!

(the world thus NEEDS to wake the fuck up!!!

but will it collectively do so in-time?)