Last year Graham Allison of Harvard wrote an article for the Atlantic entitled “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?”  Allison noted that

in 12 of 16 cases over the last 500 years in which there was a rapid shift in the relative power of a rising nation that threatened to displace a ruling state, the result was war.

He goes on to examine the probability of a US-China clash, and points out that

And yet in four of the 16 cases that the Belfer Center team analyzed, similar rivalries did not end in war. If leaders in the United States and China let structural factors drive these two great nations to war, they will not be able to hide behind a cloak of inevitability. Those who don’t learn from past successes and failures to find a better way forward will have no one to blame but themselves.

It’s a great article, and well-worth reading.

Few Americans paid attention last week as Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak traveled to China to witness the signing of a host of business agreements between Chinese and Malaysian companies. They should have, because Razak’s pilgrimage to Beijing is likely to be repeated by other Asian Pacific leaders if Washington lets President Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership die.

In addition to more than 20 agreements covering a range of activities including e-commerce, solar panel manufacturing, agriculture and education, Malaysia wants to buy 10 littoral warships from China for $300 million. Just last month, Malaysia announced it was scraping joint development of an amphibious force with the help of the U.S. Marine Corps as part of a big defense budget cut.

This would be the first major defense contract between China and Malaysia, despite continuing tensions in the South China Sea. And it’s not an isolated incident. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte recently rankled Washington by calling for a “separation” between the long-time allies. He called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Philippines within two years, despite his country’s contentious dispute with China over its actions in the South China see. In July of this year an international tribunal declared China’s military development of a Philippine island illegal.

Both of these developments suggest America’s standing in the region is waning, leaving Pacific Rim countries to be sucked into Beijing’s orbit. But as U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter has said, the United States does have a potent “soft power” option to counter China’s flexing of its economic and military muscles. It’s the TPP agreement, which he has called the commercial equivalent of having another U.S. carrier in the region. Other Asia leaders have echoed this assessment.

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said economic investments are inseparable from defensive commitments. In March, he told the Wall Street Journal “if you are not prepared to deal when it comes to cars and services and agriculture, can we depend on you when it comes to security and military arrangements?” New Zealand Prime Minister John Key agreed, warning that if the United States “abdicates leadership in the region” by failing to sign the TPP regional governments will have to pursue other options. China is already prepared to offer a replacement called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that includes all Asian TPP signatories in its ongoing negotiations.

Our friends and allies in Southeast Asia are actively seeking increased economic opportunities in the form long term commitments. Through the TPP they have signaled our government, businesses, and ideals as their first choice. If the U.S. does not follow through with this commitment that enforces open competition, higher labor standards, and better environmental protections, these governments have demonstrated clear evidence they will be forced to pursue options with a power that respects none of these ideals while it actively infringes upon their sovereignty. The TPP opens up not just fair economic opportunities, but demonstrates the U.S.’s commitment to the welfare of the region.

An international court ruled today on a challenge to China’s controversial bid to extend its sovereignty over vast swaths of the South China Sea. The Philippines brought the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in June 2013, but multi-national disputes over the island chains and surrounding waters date back centuries. In recent years, China has been building islands within an area it’s defined as the “nine-dash line,” and has been claiming control over a 12-mile radius surrounding each of the new landmasses.

The much anticipated ruling, however, may be moot, since China already has declared that it will not adhere to any ruling by the tribunal. Beijing’s truculence underscores the necessity of President Obama’s attempts to “rebalance” U.S. foreign and security policy toward the Asia Pacific. Moreover, the United States is obligated through defense pacts with both the Philippines and Japan to provide military assistance in the region. To vindicate the right of all nations to navigate these waters, the United States sent a missile destroyer last October within the 12-nautical mile zone China has claimed as sovereign waters. The U.S. Navy has continued to sail within the disputed waters, and it recently concluded a major exercise consisting of two carrier strike groups near the Philippines.

The islands themselves appear to be heavily militarized with ports capable of servicing naval vessels and runways long enough to support advanced military aircraft. This militarization has encouraged several countries to seek strategic partnerships with the U.S. This includes Vietnam, which has allowed U.S. naval forces increased access to its deep water ports. The Philippines has invited the U.S. forces back into several military bases for the first time since giving them the boot in the early 1990s. In addition to joint military aid, Washington is seeking to organize a vast free trade bloc that pointedly excludes China. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would lower trade barriers while raising labor and environmental standards throughout the region.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has strongly supported TPP as a vital soft power complement to America’s military presence in the Pacific. “In fact, you may not expect to hear this from a Secretary of Defense, but in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier,” Carter said. With China already refusing to adhere to any ruling made by the tribunal, the TPP is a potent tool Washington can use to assemble a regional coalition of nations to balance China’s economic and military clout.

While all the TPP countries have a common interest in unfettered access to the South China Sea’s shipping lanes, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, in particular, have competing claims on islands in the region. Additionally, the Philippines has expressed strong interest in joining the trade agreement. If Congress fails to approve the TPP, it would undermine America’s influence in the Asia Pacific and ability to act as a counterweight to China.

With more than half the world’s merchant ships passing through the disputed area, the United States and its Asian allies must not acquiesce in China’s aggressive bid to control the South China Sea. But our security strategy also needs a strong economic component. President Obama rightly envisions the TPP as a way to forge closer commercial and trade relationships with key regional partners and emerging markets like Vietnam. Not only will that make China’s anxious neighbors less susceptible to economic reprisals from Beijing, it will also give Americans access to the world’s fastest growing markets.