The saying ‘the enemy of my enemy is my best friend’ can be used to explain the alliances of the Hellenic League and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO; both of which, were formed to counter Persian and Soviet power, respectively. However, the unity of the Hellenic League, fell soon after the defeat of their common enemy due to the differences and animosity resulted in the devastating Peloponnesian War. This historic example mirrors the present-day weakening of NATO, especially with the comments made by US President Donald Trump that is currently forming animosity between the USA and its European allies. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of a common enemy, NATO is currently experiencing an identity crisis which could threaten the integrity of the alliance; a fact which parallels the defeat of the Persians and the subsequent weakening of the Hellenic League. The great similarities between the two, especially with the path that NATO is taking that mirrors that of the Hellenic League serves as a warning for NATO should it continue in the path of tension and animosity.
While they enjoyed autonomy, the Ionian Greeks of Anatolia still resented Persian rule due to high taxes and the installment of puppet leaders in their cities.[1] This resulted in the Athenian supported Ionian revolt of 499 BC, which was quickly quelled by the Persians, but not before the burning of their regional capital.[2] A humiliation that King Darius of Persia wanted to avenge through an invasion of mainland Greece in 492 BC.[3] This invasion led to a congress held in Corinth in 484 BC, where the members of the Spartan-dominated Peloponnesian League, Athens, and numerous other city-states formed an alliance named Hellenic League.[4] With Sparta leading the army and Athens leading the navy, the two most powerful city-states worked together to eventually blow a decisive defeat at the Battle of Salamis, therefore leading to the end of the Greek invasion.[5]
With the defeat of their common enemy, the unity of the Hellenic League was quickly tested. While pursuing the retreating Persian army into Thrace and Byzantium, the Spartan commander of the united armies named Pausanias was quickly becoming unpopular as he acted in a dictatorial manner.[6] Sensing their unpopularity and with Persia no longer posing a threat to Greece, the Spartans recalled their soldiers home while the Athenians continued onto Anatolia and liberated the Ionian Greeks from Persian rule.[7] Immediately right after the expulsion of the Persians, there were already signs of the different priorities of Athens and Sparta. Differences which can also be seen in their focuses, where Sparta thought that all Greek-city states outside of the Peloponnese should remove their fortifications in order to focus on the defense of the Peloponnesian peninsula in the event of a Persian land invasion.[8] A strategy which differed with the Athenians who instead wanted to build the Long Walls that connected the city to Piraeus as they thought that the Persian threat would likely come through the sea instead.[9] Seeing as how the refusal of the other’s strategy of defense against Persia could be interpreted as hostile and suspicious behavior, it arguably led to the cooling of relations between the two city-states. These differences grew into an all-out tension between the two powers due to a conflict over the control of Megara, a member of the Peloponnesian League that defected to the Athenian Delian League.[10] From then on, there were disagreements between the spheres of influence of Sparta and Athens, a conflict that continued until arbitration and dialogue between the two powers could no longer settle the differences between one another, therefore leading to the destructive Peloponnesian War in 479 BC.[11] A war that not only killed many soldiers, but also led to the destruction of Greek economy due to the disruption in trade and commerce and the damage to the Greek countryside that affected its agriculture.[12] The Peloponnesian War and the subsequent wars between the Greek city-states greatly weakened them as well, paving the way for the Macedonian invasion of King Philip, effectively reducing them as vassals and junior allies to the Macedonians.[13] Seeing as how over time, their differences eventually evolved into hostility and conflicts, it shows how the loss of a common enemy for the Greek people led to a conflict that eventually ruined them from the inside out. A conflict amongst themselves due to a lack of a common goal and understanding, which not only devastated Greece, but led to their eventual subjugation.
While the Peloponnesian War led damaged trade and agriculture during the Classical Greek period, the consequences of a war in the present day would be far deadlier and destructive due to the advances in weaponry, presence of nuclear weapons, and globalization that connects the world economy, Such a war could possibly happen should NATO fall into the same pattern of mistrust and aggression that the Hellenic League had after Persian defeat. NATO, similar to the Hellenic League’s role in the Greco-Persian War, is an alliance that was founded in 1949, with the USA leading its European allies to counter the Soviet Union’s encroachment of power in Eastern Europe.[14] With history repeating itself, NATO also experiences rifts between its members ever since its inception. This occurred during the America’s loss in the Vietnam War, which signaled to its European NATO allies of America’s shift in focus away from European politics, but also the allotment of military resources away from Europe into Asia.[15] Seeing America preoccupied with other concerns over decades, it cooled the relations between Washington and its NATO allies. This was further exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks, where American foreign policy was focused on counter-terrorism and Middle Eastern politics, continuing the distance between Washington and from European affairs.[16] In addition to the change in focus in American foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was also without the unanimous support from the UN Security Council, therefore damaging America’s prestige as well as aggravating their European allies.[17] This culminated with Trump’s comments in the present day of NATO’s obsolescence.[18] This also came with Trump’s condition that his support for the NATO allies only comes with the condition that they share the financial burden that America had been carrying for decades, with the demand that all other allies increase their military spending to 2% of the GDP.[19] The discontent within the NATO allies can be seen in the comments made by European politicians that Trump’s policy of ‘America first’ can destabilize the world order and that Trump’s actions are reckless.[20] In analyzing the history of NATO, the increasing divide between America and its European allies can be explained due to America’s history of sidelining European politics. Trump’s comment in the present day and his demand for an increase in financial contribution from its NATO allies, in addition to the questionable military support that the Trump administration is willing to provide explains the new heightened tension within the NATO alliance. Tensions that mirror the conflicts within the Hellenic Alliance that led to their infighting through the Peloponnesian War; something that could lead to the eventual breakdown of NATO and the wars.
The resulting Peloponnesian War that devastated the Classical Greek world which stemmed from the breakdown of the Hellenic League is a warning for NATO and its worsening relations between America and their European allies. Seeing as how the small differences and priorities between Sparta and Athens easily escalated into conflicts between the spheres of influence between the two powers and therefore the Peloponnesian War, this is a worrying parallel with NATO. Decades of shifted focus from European politics, which NATO was established for, in favor of Asian threats and counter-terrorism, this led to tensions as Europe is questioning the significance of staying with NATO. Therefore, with the escalation into full-scale war in Classical Greece, this shows how the current situation in NATO is a cause for concern as it could lead to the destabilization of the current world order.
[1] Sarah B. Pomeroy et al., A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 147. [2] Pomeroy, 148. [3] Pomeroy, 149. [4] Pomeroy, 155. [5] Pomeroy, 156. [6] Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.95. [7] Thucydides, 1.95. [8] Thucydides, 1.90. [9] Thucydides, 1.90. [10] Pomeroy, 167. [11] Pomeroy, 229. [12] Pomeroy, 261. [13] Pomeroy, 312. [14] Fabrice Pothier and Alexander Vershbow, NATO and Trump: The Case for a New Transatlantic Bargain (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 2017), 3. [15] Joyce P. Kaufman, “The US perspective on NATO under Trump: lessons of the past and prospects for the future,” International Affairs (London) 93, no. 2 (2017): 254. [16] Kaufman, 258. [17] Kaufman, 260. [18] Kaufman, 251. [19] Pothier and Vershbow, 4. [20] James Sperling and Mark Webber, “Trump’s foreign policy and NATO: Exit and Voice,” Review of International Studies 45, no. 3 (2019): 512.
References
Kaufman, Joyce P. “The US perspective on NATO under Trump: lessons of the past and prospects for the future.” International Affairs (London) 93, no. 2 (2017): 251-266.
Pomeroy, Sarah B., Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, and David Tandy. A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Pothier, Fabrice, and Alexander Vershbow. NATO and Trump: The Case for a New Transatlantic Bargain. Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 2017.
Sperling, James, and Mark Webber. “Trump’s foreign policy and NATO: Exit and Voice.” Review of International Studies 45, no. 3 (2019): 511-526.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by P.J. Rhodes. New York: Oxford World’s Classics, 2009.