Redirecting History in the Study of International Relations: Pt 1
This post will be a part of a new series I am writing.
Actually.
I am going to write two series on International Relations and history. I will take two paradoxical approaches to the study of history in international relations.
In this series, I will argue against looking at history, pointing out the irrelevance of this method.
In the next series, I will argue against that view and point toward reasons why an appeal to history can help explain the recent resurgence of right-wing populism in the world today.
Let me know what you think in the comments or reach out to me on social media! I’d love to hear your thoughts.
In this blog post, I will argue that in political analysis, looking to history is not the primary means of providing solutions for contemporary problems. I will look at classical realist texts from Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Niccolo Machiavelli to argue that their conclusions are helpful in an analysis of the human condition but not necessary to understand international relations today. I will then look at the themes of justice and virtue, dominion and power, and human nature respectively and point out where their analysis applies or does not apply in today’s unipolar world.
What would Thucydides say of America’s invasion of Iraq? Or Putin’s annexation of Crimea? Or the lack of UN intervention in the Second Liberian Civil War? We do not know. We can spend countless hours looking into the meaning of justice, virtue, vice, self-interest, or motion (kinesis) in the classical realist texts to help answer why self-interest still prevails in international relations today.
However, this approach is not the most efficient one available since we do not need examples of virtue to act virtuously, nor examples of Greek city-state politics to explain civil wars. Scholars look at history and try to find commonalities between the behavior of our ancestors and that of our own, thus concluding that history is cyclical. In doing that, they simplify the complexity of different governments and human development. I believe it is useful to separate the past state of human behavior from ours today.
Rather than desperately scavenging for human commonalities between our ancestors and us to explain problems in international relations we should recognize our unique differences. Because, in the end, we do not take amusement in the torturing of cats, as they did in the 17th-century, or the burning of witches, or in the killing of monarchs, let alone thieves. Sun Tzu himself points out the useless focus on history, stating that the “wise general” gains credible insight into the enemy not by analyzing past events or making calculations but by knowing the enemy, or in other words, by analyzing reality (232).
What Were Realists On About?
Realists emphasized the importance of reality, not fictitious fabrications of it, but they often considered history to best indicate what reality is (Ayoob 31).
For instance, the realists’ glorification of history can be seen in their focus on Thucydides’ depiction of war in ancient Greece, or Machiavelli’s historical analysis. To support my thesis that history is not as relevant to analyze international relations as the realists’ claim, I will start with Thucydides’ The Landmark.
Thucydides
The Peloponnesian war (431–404 BC), known as the Attic war to Ancient Greece, lasted 30 years and was fought primarily between the democratic Athenians and oligarchic Spartans. Thucydides wrote in an impartial manner which gained him the reputation for developing the inquiry of scientific history. His motives were to “know the exact truth” of events since he participated in the war as a general and subsequently lived in exile for the latter part of it, granting him the leisure needed for extensive research (316). To write in the tradition of Thucydides, a historian had to write fairly, with evidence, with an understanding of the events, and without any mention of gods or deities.
I believe that without Thucydides, myths may have dominated most of antiquity. He was not alone in his loathing of mythical prose and poetry, however. Socrates, a contemporary of Thucydides, called for censorship in Plato’s Republic. Similarly, Sun Tzu writes that “foreknowledge” of the enemy cannot be evoked from the gods or spirits, but rather by knowing the “enemy situation” (232). Thucydides, however, resembled Socrates in more ways than his aversion to false tales; he extensively contributed to our understanding of human behavior.
“Without Thucydides, myths may have dominated most of antiquity.”
Thucydides: The Landmark
Book One
I will look at the Books in The Landmark, summarize the main events in them, and explain why these events are currently less relevant. In Book One, Thucydides outlines the reasons hostilities grew toward Athens, whilst the city-state justified its expansion as an empire because it did not invoke violence (43). Their expansion was further defended because the law stated that “the weaker should be subject to the stronger” (43). The Spartan King, Archidamus, acknowledged that Athens had several advantages if the Spartans would decide to declare war on Athens; particularly, in their supply of ships, horses, hoplites, but more importantly in that the population was greater than any other in the Hellenic world (45). Later on, Sparta votes for war, which receives praise from Corinth (66).
Book Two
In Book Two, Pericles gives his notorious funeral oration. During the oration, Pericles makes mention of reasons for why Athens has the right to rule (114), why the dead died courageously and should be celebrated for their patriotism (115), and why parents of the diseased should try to conceive more children (117). Thucydides then outlines the reasons for the plague and almost succumbs to it himself (118–27). Notably, his depiction of the horrors of the plague juxtaposes the ambitious and hopeful speech of Pericles. The Athenians, therefore, “began to find fault with Pericles” (123). At the point of their despair, Athens attempts to make a truce with Sparta which ends unsuccessfully (123). Thucydides explains that at this point, “Their despair was . . . complete and all vented itself upon Pericles” (123). This provides valuable insight into how unwilling we are to engage in war when we experience the ramifications ourselves. It is not until Book Six and Seven, that the Athenians start feeling the full consequences of the war again. Although Thucydides provides a framework for understanding the unethical desires of rulers in the past, we hardly need The Landmark to comprehend that the US sent troops to Iraq rather than Liberia during the Second Liberian Civil War (1999–2003) because the strong oppress the weak. We can intuit this from current affairs.
Book Three and Four
Book Three and Four outline the Lesbian revolt (159–84) and focuses on the Sicilian conflict with the Syracuse. The most significant event was the Mytilenian rebellion against Athens. Thucydides summarizes the conflict in a debate held between two Athenian generals, Cleon and Diodotus, known as the Mytilenian Debate (176). I will discuss this debate in further detail later on in my discussion of justice. In Book Four, the Athenians continue to send ships to Sicily (223). Thucydides argues that the Athenians had an “eagerness” with which they would fight (231); despite the losses, the Athenians “kept grasping at more” (246).
Notably, the Spartan general, Brasidas, is introduced in these passages (268). Brasidas is presented as the hero and as the virtuous general and is contrasted with Cleon, who was described by Thucydides as “the most violent men [in] Athens” (176). It can be argued that international law has its genesis in some of these passages, particularly the one-year armistice between Athens and Sparta (286). However, it is hard to argue that someone who is currently studying international law must look at the words of Thucydides to understand whether Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson will be able to receive a deal for Brexit. In reading history, we appreciate the writers of the past for their originality and insight into their world — not into ours.
Book Five
Book Five contains one of the most cited passages in all of antiquity and definitely in Thucydides’ account of the war, the Melian Dialogue. Moreover, the two most vocal advocates of the war, Cleon and Brasidas, fight against one another and are slain in battle. With both Cleon and Brasidas dead, it seems there is a chance for peace. After their deaths, the newly appointed leaders, Pleistoanax son of Pausanias, the king of Sparta, and Nicias son of Niceratus, advocated for peace on both sides (310).
The Spartans, thus, ally with Athens (315). The treaty only lasted six years (316). Later on, Alcibiades is introduced and portrayed as the antagonist in the story (327). It is useful to have protagonists and antagonists in the retelling of history to conceptualize complex conflicts. Some may say that Thucydides oversimplifies the complexities of war by contrasting two figures but, arguably, his retelling of the war would be much more difficult to comprehend without it.
Book Five: The Melian Dialogue
Toward the end of the Book, the already addressed, Melian dialogue is documented between the Athenians and Melians (351). The Melians were neutral in the war, despite their lineage tracing to Sparta, and appealed to the Athenians to hold to their philosophical reputation of virtuous living and commitment to justice. The Athenians refused, uttering the infamous words, “[T]he strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must” (352). The Melians, of course, object to the “desbar[ing]” of any discussions of justice (352). Despite Melian objections, the Melian men were all put to death and the women and children were sold into slavery (357).
Book Six to Book Eight
Book Six to Book Eight highlight the Sicilian attack, the Syracuse, the fear in Athenian soldiers and citizens, some of the reasons why democracies die, and one of my favorite passages encapsulating the horrors of war when the Athenians are retreating from Sicily (471).
Athens lost the war and, with it, their dominion over the Peloponnesus because they underestimated their enemy, which can be paralleled with Sun Tzu’s claim that “your victory will never be endangered” if you know your enemy (223, 205).
This shows the difference in thinking between that of the Greeks and Sun Tzu at the time. The Athenians could have prevented calamity if they knew of Sun Tzu’s advice (229).
Therefore, it is important to look to contemporary states to provide examples for state management. In the end, we have more commonalities with states that are different from us today than we do with our state in the past. Why would we look through the pages of antiquity to manage current political crises?
Do We Need History to Solve Current Dilemmas?
Thomas Heilke (one of my Professors at UBC Okanagan, incidentally)similarly asks whether the stories of antiquity are still relevant, however, for him, they still are (7). Heilke argues in his article, Realism, Narrative and Happenstance: Thucydides’ Tale of Brasidas, that listing the virtues of Brasidas does not suffice. It is in discussing characters that fit into a narrative, that we can contextualize virtues and associate meaning with justice. It is as with Sun Tzu who argued that both “moral strength” and “intellectual faculty” were among the most important qualities for military success (Griffith 61).
Although Heilke’s analysis of Brasidas has no apparent logical shortcomings, I wonder whether listing the virtues of Brasidas is enough. For myself, virtues are worth following because of the logical appeal of them. Arguably, I do not need examples from the past to act decently in the present.
In watching Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, I gain from the deontological commitment of Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, but I do not need his example to give me reasons to follow the obligations I have made to my maxims. I can follow my maxims simply because there are good consequences in following them. Machiavelli argues the same with regards to the example of Jesus Christ for the Christians. He considers the religious “pattern of life” to have made “the world weak” which “handed [them] over as a prey to the wicked” (278). Thus, stories do not always serve their benefactors well.
Realism and Ethics
Furthermore, the realist has a nihilistic outlook on ethics. For the realist, it is “[w]hat was [that] is right” (Carr 64). The realist thinker does not prescribe any ethical conditions for ruling, they simply describe the methodology of rulers in the past that show reality as it truly is, “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 109).
For E.H. Carr, ethics are “the study of reality” (63). Theology and philosophy are intellectual fluff. He considers the practical statesmen to have influenced our understanding of politics more than the theologians (Carr 63).
In the end, historical figures are tragically ambivalent to virtuous living. Realist writers recognize this, along with Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Machiavelli, noting that justice is relative and never truly satisfied.
Thucydides: Cleon vs. Brasidas
Cleon exemplifies the lack of justice in antiquity in the Mytilenian debate with Diodotus. Cleon’s justification for slaying the Mytilenians is that it was “voluntary . . . of malice, and deliberate” (178). For Cleon, mercy can only be given to the unwilling and compassion only to those that can reciprocate the same feelings (178). Cleon, thus, cannot serve as a good example for just behavior but neither can his opponent, Diodotus. Upon making his speech in opposition to Cleon, Diodotus claims that “the question is not justice, but how to make the Mytilenians useful to Athens” (181). Diodotus is, thus, claiming that justice is not about the rightness or wrongness of the action in question but rather about whether justice is expedient. As Diodotus rightly points out, Athens already had a history of not acting justly when citizens were killed for far lighter penalties than the one at hand (181).
The Athenians spared the Mytilenians in the end, however. The Melians were not as lucky. During the 16th Year of the War, the Melians are forced to comply with Athens’ military needs, threatening enslavement if they do not (351). The Athenians further argue that if they do not “destroy” the Melians, it will make Athens look “weak” (352). Nonetheless, the Melians insist that both the gods and the Spartans are on their side (354). The primary interest of the Athenians is that of expansion. They argue that if they do not dominate, they will be dominated (354). The Melian men are put to death and women and children sold to slavery (357). Thus, stories from antiquity show how not to behave rather than how to behave.
That is not to say that Thucydides and other writers of ancient Greece did not appreciate virtuous living. I am only arguing that we need not look to antiquity to gain insight into how we ought to live or govern today.
Nonetheless, there is a lot to appreciate in the writing of Thucydides.
I will provide some examples to show how often Thucydides highlights moral characteristics, contributing to the argument that he does, indeed, respect the law and virtue.
He stresses the importance of honesty when the Mytilenians stopped trusting Athens during their revolt in Book Three, writing that there can never be a union between two parties or “friendship between individuals” unless the parties are certain of the honesty between them (163). The focus on honesty can again be seen in the 10th Year of the war after the death of Cleon and Brasidas in Book Five when the treaty between Athens and Sparta was enacted. The 9th point of the Treaty reads, “I will abide by this agreement and treaty honestly and without deceit” (313). Later, the same “honesty” was expected of the Athenians (322). It is clear, thus, that justice is required and expected of citizens and generals. Actions are meant to be done because of a “respect for the law”, as when the Spartans and their allies followed the General in the 14th Year of the War (339).
“. . . there is a lot to appreciate in the writing of Thucydides.”
However, it was not primarily for the sake of justice that the Greek city-states would go out to war, as any reader of history will know. The Mantineans fought for their country; the Argives to recapture lost land and regain strength and control over the Peloponnesus; the Athenians, for their empire’s growth, among other things (343). As for the Athenian attack on Sicily, the reason was once again one for expansion. The Athenians desired expansion because they believed that it came with power and control. Thus, history can show insights into the human condition, but not into how we ought to govern today. The only piece of warranted advice we can heed from the Athenians is to never seek expansion due to how detrimental it was to them. Yet, even this is a generalization.
Next, I will summarize Sun Tzu’s Art of War to further prove that classical realists often wrote on issues that are not entirely relevant to international relations today.
If you want to continue reading, here’s a link to Part Two:
Citations
- Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016, doi:10.1057/978–1–349–95076–8.
- Heilke, Thomas. “Realism, Narrative and Happenstance: Thucydides’ Tale of Brasidas.” American Political Science Review, vol 98, #1, 2004, pp. 121–38.
- Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes.” By Thomas Hobbes, Free PDF, Ebook | Global Grey, Global Grey Ebooks, 2019, www.globalgreyebooks.com/leviathan-ebook.html.
- Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, 1993, pp. 22–49. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20045621. Accessed 23 Feb. 2020.
- Machiavelli, Niccolo, et al. The Discourses. Penguin Books, 2003.
- Thucydides, et al. The Landmark Thucydides a Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War.
Before you go…
🗣 I love connecting with fellow thinkers. Find me on Twitter, Facebook, Goodreads, or Instagram.
I’d love if you’d share the article on Facebook/TWITTER if you want your friends to benefit from it in some way at all.
I write to keep you thinking and to keep me thankful and reflective. Cheers and until next time,
keep reflecting.
