Content provided in partnership with
Government Industry
Melos or Pylos?
Naval War College Review, Summer, 2005 by James R. Holmes, Toshi Yoshihara
Third, military failure can endanger the survival of a regime as easily as can allowing the defiance of a wayward province to go unpunished. Sparta had to fear the possibility of a helot-led revolution after the debacle at Pylos. So too might China's social, economic, and political fissures widen if Beijing tried--and failed--to reunify the motherland by force of arms.
Fourth, the repercussions of failure for China's international standing could be dire, as they were for Sparta. "After the victory at Pylos," observes the prominent historian Donald Kagan, "no island could think of defying the Athenians." (58) Likewise, an American victory in a Taiwan contingency could bind not only Taiwan but Asia's other island nations to the United States, setting back China's quest to resume its "central position" in Asian politics. (59) Like Taiwan, China should take note of Thucydides' enduring wisdom.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
A MELIAN FATE?
If taken to heart, lessons of the Peloponnesian War could help clarify thinking--and dispel dangerous illusions--in Taipei, Beijing, and Washington. Does Taiwan's predicament resemble that of Melos? Will China heed the lessons of Pylos and take a cautious stance in the Strait, or will it plunge ahead and risk suffering Sparta's fate? Will the United States clarify its cross-Strait diplomacy and ready its military strategy and forces in case diplomacy fails?
While historical comparisons of this kind are always inexact, four factors will determine which model applies. First is the matter of the military balance. As has been seen, China is poised to seize its advantage over Taiwan. Beijing is developing military means commensurate with its expansive political ends and will, by many measures, soon hold a commanding position in the Strait. Yet a Chinese victory is far from foreordained. The Chinese navy's feeble amphibious fleet, for instance, appears unequal to the missions likely to be assigned it. If China chooses to act against Taiwan without substantially strengthening its military capabilities in such areas, Beijing could well meet the fate of the Spartans on Pylos. In fact, Chinese weakness at present suggests that Beijing will continue to demonstrate a measure of restraint for the rest of this decade, biding its time while marshaling the capacity to subdue Taiwan. If Beijing remedies such weaknesses, gaining true military dominance not only over Taiwan but over any American force likely to be sent against it, it could skew cross-Strait relations in a Melian direction.
Second, the decisions taken by China's political leadership are another obvious factor shaping events in the Strait. In keeping with the Melian precedent, Beijing may well opt to pursue an even more assertive, no-nonsense diplomacy as its strategic posture improves. Beijing's calculations, however, could and should be different from those of the Athenians. Athens could justly scoff at Spartan seapower, which at the time was no match for their own. It was foolish, consequently, for the Melians to wager their survival on Peloponnesian reinforcements. China cannot so lightly discount U.S. military power. Nor will Chinese leaders be eager to earn the enmity of the world superpower at a time when they covet international commerce and the economic development that comes with it. These considerations warrant caution on Beijing's part.
