The Embassy to Sisi
How the American envoy tried to persuade General Sisi with lessons from The Iliad.
The Americans have over the past few weeks attempted to find a diplomatic solution to the situation in Egypt, with very few results, demonstrating the limits to American influence in the region. Only in the past week have they begun to use economic incentives as persuasive power (also with seemingly little effect).
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham recently visited Cairo, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called General Sisi many times—each attempted to get Sisi to stop the violent crackdown, and take a different route. What is interesting is the methods that each of these ambassadors used to try to persuade Sisi to end the violence.
Drawing on points made in a recent lecture series given at Yale by Professors John Gaddis and Charles Hill to Yale-NUS College, I want to show here how this envoy—I will call it the Embassy to Sisi—is a perfect modern day example of the diplomacy used in The Iliad.
Odysseus and Reason
In book nine of the Iliad—The Embassy to Achilles—Odysseus, Phoenix and Ajax are each sent as ambassadors to persuade Achilles to return to fight against the Trojans. During a meeting at night at Achilles’ camp, they try very different means of persuasion.
Odysseus begins:
“Up with you now—late as it is, if you want to pull our Argives, our hard-hit armies, clear of the Trojan onslaught. Fail us now? What a grief it will be to you through all the years to come. No remedy, no way to cure the damage once it’s done.
Odysseus’ entire speech is an argument of, in Greek, logos, or an appeal to reason. He explains that “Your Achaean comrades, young and old, will exalt you all the more”, and “The king will give you gifts to match his insults”. It is a series of explanations to show why it is logical, in every way, for Achilles to return to fight with the Achaeans against the Trojans. Achilles will gain nothing by not fighting, but everything by fighting. Why would Achilles refuse to fight?
Now look at Lindsey Graham’s recent attempts to persuade General Sisi to end the violence against Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt (with quotes taken from a recent IHT article, and bold my own):
Mr. Graham recalled arguing with General Sisi. “If Morsi had to stand for re-election anytime soon, he’d lose badly,” the senator remembered saying. “Do you agree?”
“Oh, absolutely,” the general answered.
“Then what you’re doing now is making him a martyr,” Mr. Graham said. “It’s no longer about how badly they ruled the country and how they marginalized the democratic institutions. It’s now about you.”
Graham is using precisely the same tactic as Odysseus. He tried to force Sisi to see reason—to see why his course of action would only harm himself and benefit others. He, like Odysseus, doesn’t leave a middle ground. His points are presented as black and white: either you do what you’re doing and you hurt yourself, or you do what I suggest and you’ll be better off.
Phoenix and the Appeal to Emotion
After Achilles brushes off Odysseus’ attempts to persuade him, Phoenix then speaks:
“I made you what you are—strong as the Gods, Achilles—I loved you from the heart….
So you, Achilles—great godlike Achilles—I made you my son, I tried, so someday you might fight disaster off my back. But now, Achilles, beat down your mounting fury! It’s wrong to have such an iron, ruthless heart.”
It needs to be noted that Phoenix helped to raise Achilles when he was much younger, and they have had an extremely close relationship for a long time. Achilles has even offered to let Phoenix stay in his camp and then leave with him, so that he does not have to fight the Trojans.
Phoenix’s plea here conjures up many references to their closeness, and tries to force Achilles to reflect on how he might be betraying the people who have helped him throughout his life. Phoenix is using pathos—an appeal to emotion—and this is also shown most clearly by his crying during part of his speech.
Look now at the Americans’ use of pathos in negotiating with Sisi (taken from the same IHT article as above):
As images of Egyptian security forces opening fire flickered across television screens in Washington, Mr. Hagel called General Sisi again and warned him that the violence had put “important elements of our longstanding defense cooperation at risk,” as he put it in a statement afterward.
Hagel appeals to aspects of the American-Egyptian relationship, which for a long time has been “special”, as the Americans have also kept emphasising. Also remember that General Sisi studied at the US Army War College as recently as 2006, where he wrote a paper titled “Democracy in the Middle East.” He met many American leaders during his time studying there, and has personal relationships with them.
Forcing Sisi to think about his betrayal of people who have previously helped him is a different tack of diplomacy, one that puts emotions over reason, and tries to impose a sense of guilt.
Ajax and the Credibility of the Speaker
Ajax is known in The Iliad as the “Bulwark of the Achaeans.” He is depicted as being immensely strong and intelligent, and he’s someone respected by all. So when he begins to speak, it is expected that Achilles too holds him in high regard and respects what he says.
“Achilles, put some human kindness in your heart. Show respect for your own house. Here we are, under your roof, sent from the whole Achaean force! Past all other men, all other Achaean comrades, we long to be your closest, dearest friends.”
Ajax here uses his standing within the Achaean army, and his upholding of Greek values, to flatter Achilles as well as embarrass him. This is a use of ethos—a person with high standing using the ideals of his nation to persuade. Telling Achilles to put some human kindness in his heart implies he is hard and cruel—and is nothing like an Achaean should be. Yet at the same time, telling him that they wish to be his closest friends seems a form of flattery that is expected to make Achilles want to re-think, and to know that his loyalties lie with his friends.
The Americans have many people who could play the role of Ajax, and indeed a few have done so, in different and perhaps less direct ways than Ajax does in The Iliad.
Although President Obama has not visited Cairo, he has essentially been speaking to General Sisi and the Egyptians through a series of highly-crafted statements. For example:
President Obama has said the new government is on a “dangerous path” marked by “arbitrary arrests, a broad crackdown on Mr. Morsi’s associations and supporters” and “violence that’s taken the lives of hundreds of people and wounded thousands more.”
Of everyone who could influence Sisi, Obama must be one of the few who wields such power. His statements, as president, will hold weight around the world, and furthermore his statements are backed up with the ability to cut off military deliveries and aid, as he has recently done. (The Achaean ambassadors were backed up by Agamemnon’s gifts to Achilles, conditional upon his accepting their pleas). The above statement demonstrates the United States’ implied values—it is for peaceful governance, and opposes any form of violence on the part of a government.
The President has also stressed “humanitarian values” in many of his statements, again using his standing and the values of America to try to persuade Sisi against his course of action.
Secretary of State John Kerry has backed up the President’s statements, continually pressing the Military to restore the country to civilian government .
Whether these ambassadors have studied The Iliad and consciously chosen to put its lessons into practice is impossible to determine. What is perhaps more likely is that these forms of rhetoric, and here diplomacy—logos, pathos and ethos—are timeless. They are means of persuasion that have been used throughout human history, and will continue to be used. They cut to the heart of a human’s decision making process, and leave them with little room to think for themselves.
On a daily basis our decisions are guided by reason, emotion, and the credibility of things we read and hear. How what we read and hear fits into our pre-existing notions of right and wrong also plays a crucial role. International diplomacy is in many ways an extension of the ways we decide and persuade in our daily lives—albeit with much larger consequences.
Did the embassy to Achilles achieve its desired outcome? No—the embassy went back to Agamemnon’s camp to report the bad news, and then prepare to fight the Trojans alone.
Did the embassy to Sisi fare any better? Unfortunately not—the ambassadors all admitted the failure of their efforts, marking the end of an American diplomatic effort to end the violence.
Perhaps these means of persuasion are not effective in practice. Or perhaps there is just something deep inside these leaders—Achilles and General Sisi—that allows them to refuse all advice and all persuasion.
Regardless, the point we must leave with is that the classics are inescapable. Their relevance in areas like international diplomacy—and any field that involves human minds—can be seen almost on a daily basis.
