Athens and America: Parallels in the Modern World

INTRODUCTION

Following the conclusion of the Persian War, the common effort put forth by Athens and Sparta gave way to two separate factions, with some states choosing to side with Athens and other states choosing to side with Sparta. This world division is similar to the divide following the Second World War, when the United States and the Soviet Union, former allies in the struggle to defeat the Axis powers, essentially split the world into two camps. One camp, led by the United States, promoted democracy, freedom, and capitalism. The second camp, led by the Soviet Union, promoted communist ideology and the advancement of the working class.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union built empires following the Second World War, with most nations in the world falling into one of the two ideological camps represented by the superpowers. Following the Persian War, the Athenians immediately began to build their empire, and continued to expand their dominance until their aggressiveness threatened Sparta and her allies and confrontation was inevitable. The Athenian sense of empire as destiny and the resultant foreign policy following the Persian War are similar to efforts by the United States to promote democratic values worldwide and of an American foreign policy that has become increasingly confrontational in the years since the end of the Second World War.

THE COLD WAR

By 1948, most of the nations of the world had aligned themselves with either the communist ideology championed by the Soviet Union or the capitalist ideology promoted by the United States. Each superpower protected its sphere of influence and the Cold War manifested itself in proxy battles such as the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam War from 1948 until the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1999.

A balance of power in which the two world leaders fought each other off and on is reminiscent of the struggles between Athens and Sparta in the years between the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War. As Thucydides tells us, “âÂ?¦from the end of the Persian War till the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, though there were some intervals of peace, on the whole these two powers were either fighting with each other or putting down revolts among their allies. They were consequently in a high state of military preparedness and had gained their military experience in the hard school of danger” (Thucydides, p.46).

During much of the Cold War, the United States focused on the containment of communism as part of a foreign policy designed to protect nations against domination by the Soviet Union (Alexander, 1995, p.22). Just as weaker allies looked to Athens for protection and leadership in the wake of the Persian War, so too did weaker nations look to the United States for protection and leadership in the face of forced Soviet domination in Eastern Europe following the Second World War. The bipolar world that existed following the Allied victory in 1945 eventually came to an end as the poor economic conditions in Eastern European countries dragged down the Soviet economy, forcing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to release his communist empire in an effort to save his government at home.

THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, the world was left with one superpower-the United States. The nations that looked to the United States for protection and leadership during the Cold War no longer felt as threatened as they previously had and began to distance themselves from American influence and American policy. In an effort to maintain its dominance, the United States continued to stress the promotion of democracy as a primary focus of American foreign policy.

The promotion of democracy through social and cultural globalization generated much resentment toward the United States as American corporations seeking to advance their economic interests exposed the rest of the world to the good and the bad aspects of American culture, American values, and American democracy. These aspects of American life were often in contrast to the values and traditions of many nations in the world who were not receptive to American influence and American power. Unfortunately, there is no way to promote American interests abroad without promoting the American way of life. As Benjamin Barber, quoted by Paul Pillar, says in Jihad vs. McWorld, “Selling American products means selling America: its popular culture, its putative prosperity, its ubiquitous imagery and software, and thus its very soul. Merchandising is as much about symbols as about goods and sells not life’s necessities but life’s styles” (Pillar, 2001, p.63).

Just as Athens had become powerful following the Persian War, the United States built its empire in the face of a world-wide Soviet threat that forced smaller, weaker nations to ally themselves with America in order to ensure their survival. The United States assumed the role of world leader and, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, found itself increasingly alone as nations that it once protected became increasingly antagonistic toward American policies and American influence. The predicament of the United States in the years since the end of the Cold War is similar to that expressed by Athenian businessmen speaking in Sparta in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, “It was the actual course of events which first compelled us to increase our power to its present extent: fear of Persia was our chief motive, though afterwards we thought, too, of our own honour and our own interest. Finally, there came a time when we were surrounded by enemiesâÂ?¦” (Thucydides, p.80).

In its efforts to maintain the dominance established over other nations in the wake of the Second World War, the United States increasingly antagonized former allies to the point where much of the world expressed negative views about America and its role as world leader. When President George W. Bush assumed the presidency of the United States in January 2001, he initially favored a unilateralist approach to American foreign policy and disengagement from efforts to “police” the world.

However, the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City on September 11, 2001 fundamentally altered President Bush’s plans and caused the United States to launch the Global War on Terrorism, beginning in Afghanistan in October 2001. As Caleb Carr states, “The first year of the twenty-first century produced images that will likely identify the decade, if not the generation, to come: commercial aircraft, hijacked by agents of extremism, slamming into crowded, unprotected office buildings, bringing about the collapse of those structures and the deaths of thousands of people” (Carr, 2002, p.3).

With the launching of the Global War on Terrorism, the United States found itself militarily engaged with an enemy that harbored a deep hatred of all things American. The Islamic extremists who hijacked airliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center buildings in New York were opposed to the United States and all that it stood for. America was seen as a threat to Islam and to the values and traditions of Muslims in general. Just as Thucydides claimed that, “What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this causedâÂ?¦” (Thucydides, p.49), the fear of American influence and power led to the terrorist attacks on the United States and to the American response in the form of global war on terrorists everywhere.

WHAT’S NEXT?

As the Global War on Terrorism is being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States continues its efforts to be the dominant force in the world. President Bush outlined in the national security strategy of the United States a policy of preemption that put the other nations in the world on notice: the United States would protect itself and its interests, with or without support from other nations, and without being attacked first. Thucydides would probably agree, as expressed in his history when he stated about the Athenians, “And when tremendous dangers are involved no one can be blamed for looking to his own interest” (Thucydides, p.80).

The policy of preemption made its debut in the form of the United States’ invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Citing the threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein, the American government removed him from power and occupied Iraq. The United States acted preemptively to protect what it believed was its vital interests. With the war in Iraq now over a year old, the United States finds itself facing an Iraqi people who, while grateful to be rid of Hussein, are increasingly resentful of the American occupation. The Athenians expressed a similar predicament when they said, “Certainly they put up with much worse sufferings than these when they were under the Persians, but now they think our government is oppressive” (Thucydides, p.81).

In addition to a policy of preemption being exercised as part of the Global War on Terrorism, the United continues to intervene militarily in regions of the world where it feels its promotion of peace or human rights is more important than national sovereignty. Some nations in the world want the United States to expand its role as the world’s “policeman,” while other nations want the United States to stop meddling in affairs that do not directly affect America’s security. The United States cannot solve all of the world’s problems and while some nations want the United States to be globally involved, many others are joining together in an effort to curb American influence and ultimately American power.

Increasingly, nations are forming alliances that allow them to act as a counter balance to the dominance of the United States on the world stage. Previously, in a bipolar world dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, many countries looked to the United States for security and guidance. In today’s world, dominated by an American superpower, the United States is naturally thought of as an immediate threat to all other major nation-states. American leaders can expect to see more alliances or coalitions of the type represented by the European Union as nations try to reduce American dominance and counter the power and influence of the United States. As Samuel Huntington states, “The United States would clearly prefer a unipolar system in which it would be the hegemon and often acts as if such a system existed. The major powers, on the other hand, would prefer a multipolar system in which they could pursue their interests, unilaterally and collectively, without being subject to constraints, coercion, and pressure by the stronger superpower” (Huntington, 1999).

CONCLUSION

Caleb Carr asserts that, “Epochal moments belong rightly to history, and it is history that holds the only hope of providing an understanding of the twisted road that has brought us to this frightening pass” (Carr, p.5). It is fitting, therefore, that we examine the past, in this case in the form of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, in an attempt to understand what is happening now and what may happen in the future.

Athens, in the wake of their victory over the Persians, immediately set out to build for themselves an empire that would assure them a dominant role in the world. The people of Athens believed it was their destiny to hold on to their empire and pushed their foreign policy to the limits in an effort to maintain their dominance. Similarly, the United States built an empire in the wake of their victory in the Second World War, assumed the role as leader of the free world during the Cold War, and ultimately became leader of the entire world when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Much like Athens, the United States has pursued policies designed to maintain its position in the world. Some of these policies, such as a disregard for national sovereignty or a policy of military preemption, cause resentment and fear among other nations and sometimes lead to conflict.

There is currently no real alternative to global US leadership and the vast majority of challenges facing the world in the near future will be borne by the United States. Because the United States is the world’s only superpower and frequently acts like it, Americans are commonly thought of by other nations as arrogant and self-interested, much like the Athenians of Thucydides’ time. President Bush has certainly lived up to these views, but he represents most Americans in his belief that, like Thucydides’ Athenians, “âÂ?¦we consider that we are worthy of our power” (Thucydides, p.80). What remains to be seen is whether the United States will be able to continue in its role as the most dominant power in the world, or if smaller, weaker nations will be able to join together to limit the power, influence, and global reach of the American empire they relied on for their survival just two decades ago.

WORKS CITED

Alexander, B. (1995). The Future of Warfare. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Carr, C. (2002). The Lessons of Terror. New York: Random House.
Huntington, S. (1999). The Lonely Superpower. In G.P. Hastedt (Ed.), American Foreign Policy 02/03 (pp. 33-37). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill / Dushkin.
Pillar, P. (2001). Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Rex Warner. New York: Penguin Books (1972).