Last year, in the very first class of contemporary International Relations theory in Tsinghua university - one of China’s most elite universities – the Ivy league educated instructor spent the lecture examining Thucydides not only as the father of the Realist school of international relations but as one of the most important theorists on war and peace and on human’s political behavior.

Thucydides has indeed inspired some of the world’s brightest intellectuals who have spent years and years interpreting his classical work, the history of the Peloponnesian War. Jacqueline de Romilly, the first woman elected to the prestigious College de France, studied him for all of her life and wrote numerous articles and books about the great Athenian historian. As she said in one of her last interviews, her mother gave her a volume of Thucydides when she was a young girl. From the very moment she read it she fell in love with the rationality and intelligence of Thucydides. Donald Kagan, the leading historian and one of the most renowned American intellectuals has spent more 40 years writing about the Athenian historian. "Fear and interest, Kagan writes, move states to war (…) if we take honor to mean fame, glory, renown, or splendor, it may appear applicable only to an earlier time. If, on the other hand we understand its significance as deference, esteem, just due, regard, respect, or prestige we will find it an important motive of nations in the modern world as well". Nietzsche the most eminent German philosopher of the 19th century saw in Thucydides's realism the sole and most effective antidote to the Platonic love of the ideal.

Although Thucydides is widely cited today for his “rising power and the fear that this will inspire to a status quo power” statement concerning China and the United States, there are many more insights that are relevant with a wide range of contemporary events. Looking to the recent atrocities committed by all sides in Syria, I remembered a section from book 3 of the history of the Peloponnesian war where Thucydides describes the atrocities committed in the civil war of Corcyra. In the following passage taken from Thucydides, I have substituted the names of the Greek city-states to Syria, Russia and the United States. This along with some other minor changes (in italics) is sufficient to make us rethink the advice of classical realism and the constant struggle of human nature for power or to quote Thucydides: “the lust for power arising from greed and ambition”.

“the Syrians were engaged in butchering those of their fellow citizens whom they regarded as their enemies: and although the crime imputed was that of attempting to put down the democracy, some were slain also for private hatred, others by their debtors because of the moneys owed to them. Death thus raged in every shape; and, as usually happens at such times, there was no length to which violence did not go; sons were killed by their fathers, and suppliants dragged from the altar or slain upon it; while some were even walled up in the Church and died there. So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Arabic world was convulsed; struggles being every, where made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Americans, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Russians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties. 

The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes. Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals. Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention.

The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape. Thus every form of iniquity took root in the Arab countries by reason of the troubles. The ancient simplicity into which honour so largely entered was laughed down and disappeared; and society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow. To put an end to this, there was neither promise to be depended upon, nor oath that could command respect; but all parties dwelling rather in their calculation upon the hopelessness of a permanent state of things, were more intent upon self-defense than capable of confidence. In this contest the blunter wits were most successful. Apprehensive of their own deficiencies and of the cleverness of their antagonists, they feared to be worsted in debate and to be surprised by the combinations of their more versatile opponents, and so at once boldly had recourse to action: while their adversaries, arrogantly thinking that they should know in time, and that it was unnecessary to secure by action what policy afforded, often fell victims to their want of precaution.

Meanwhile Syria gave the first example of most of the crimes alluded to; of the reprisals exacted by the governed who had never experienced equitable treatment or indeed aught but insolence from their rulers- when their hour came; of the iniquitous resolves of those who desired to get rid of their accustomed poverty, and ardently coveted their neighbours' goods; and lastly, of the savage and pitiless excesses into which men who had begun the struggle, not in a class but in a party spirit, were hurried by their ungovernable passions. In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority; since revenge would not have been set above religion, and gain above justice, had it not been for the fatal power of envy. Indeed men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required”.

Views: 755


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Comment by Vasilis Trigkas on September 19, 2013 at 1:57pm

Thank you for your long and dense comment Oyedipe!  Please keep in mind that Thucydides observed with terror the injustice that the weak suffer by most powerful actors. In the Melian dialogue, it is indeed dramatic to see the violence exercised  by democratic Athens against a small Aegean island that fought for its independence. Also Thucydides acknowledged the importance of international treaties and international norms but only when these are applied among states of comparable power. In all other cases the weak "suffer what they must".  

Comment by Valentine Olushola Oyedipe on September 19, 2013 at 12:00pm

This satirical piece brought again to the fore the classical realism -the insatiable quest for power as postulated by Thucydides. I strongly believe that this theory will ever be relevant in every historical epoch. Any attempt to comment on this article cannot but require a critical evaluation of some ideals regarding the nature of politics from time immemorial and contextualizing it within the purview of today’s politics that has indeed informed a dose of political theory in my comment. However, rethinking of classical realism that underpins the idea that: the lust for power usually arises from greed and ambition. This ideal indeed has found expression in the struggles between states to secure and protect their ‘national interests’ as evident in the world stage today. I like to quote Kautilya here who was a minister to the first Maurya emperor of India “The possession of power in a greater degree makes a king superior to another; in a lesser degree, inferior; and in an equal degree, equal. Hence a king shall always augment his own power”. Perhaps the national interest we are alluding to in our contemporary world today may revolve around whatever promotes or preserves a state’s security, its economic power, its global influence and of course its military power. Consequently, any condition that threatens a state’s national interest may occasion war between and among states. As postulated by Kagan in  Vasilis Trigkas article that ”Fear and interest move states to war”  and perhaps quoting Donald Kagan more elaborately “If we take honor to mean fame, glory, renown, or splendor, it may appear applicable only to an earlier time. If on the other hand, we understand it’s significant as deference, esteem, just due, regard, respect or prestige we will find it an important motive of nations in the modern world as well”. The poser is who nursing fears and who is having interests and who is motivated by both between and among the power blocs who are at the center stage of the war in Syria and may be by extension the Arab nations in general?  In the world of today, I guess humanity by now should have outgrown primordial sentiments or instincts a clog in the wheel of social progress and social development in this era of social contract and globalization with openness. To support this stance, Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his book ‘Social Contract’ commented thus “… humans had joined together in civil societies because they reach the point at which the obstacles to bettering their existence were greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual”. The moral implication of this in the language of Rousseau is that the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence given the primitive condition that would no longer subsist. Today we cannot deny fact that many a state and political leader have held tenaciously to the Maxim that surviving and prospering in a highly political world demands that morality be measured or calculated cleverly and wisely against national interest or simply put do good to humanity if the price is assumed to be low. Contrastingly however, a polar theory of liberalism is at variance with the tenets of realism that has grossly put power (its acquisition, preservation and application) at the epicenter of world politics. Thus, liberalism suggests cooperation among nations and uphold of uncompromised ethical standards in regards to foreign policies in international relations. Therefore, rethinking the advice of classical realism as put forward by Vasilis Trigkas in his satirical piece is timely and long overdue for humanity. Humanity should take peace and its attendant social value prosperity as national interest, the idea of divide and rule, religious bigotry, unbridled passion for “crude” strength such as stockpiling of WMD should be face out. However, it is axiomatic that conflict is as old as humanity, thus the use of force to restore rights when necessary to put an end to untold hardship, aggression and oppression from fellow humans or nations through concerted efforts should be a moral imperative. It is sad enough to see the unending cycle of conflict culminating in war and misery that have dehumanized humanity since the beginning of the 20th century and more recently the entire Arab world. Many a nation presents a posture of liberalism but the posture is a façade.

Carnegie Council

The Ethics of Trade with China and Authoritarian Upgrading

Increased foreign investment and engagement is producing, not democratization, but "authoritarian upgrading," where selected reforms are designed to legitimize a softer authoritarianism. This presents an ethical dilemma for international trade. What direction will China, Uzbekistan, Russia, and other "upgraded authoritarian" states evolve towards in the coming decade?

The 2020 Election & the View from Overseas, with Nikolas Gvosdev

As the 2020 election begins to come into focus, Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev details the foreign policy cleavages in the Democratic Party. Plus, referencing Nahal Toosi's recent article in "Politico," he discusses the worries that many in Europe have about a Trump reelection or a progressive candidate who also questions the status quo. What's the view from abroad on this turbulent time in American politics?

Ethics & the U.S.-China Trade War, with Nikolas Gvosdev

What role should ethics play in the U.S.-China trade war? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev looks at these economic tensions in the context of the Uyghur detention and the Hong Kong protests, different theories on integrating China into the world economy, and what it could mean to "lose" in this conflict. Is there a breaking point in terms of China's human rights policies? What's the view in Africa and Europe?





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.