A feature of the classical Greek world was that long-term alliances, as we would understand the term, rarely existed.  A major power, be it Athens, Sparta, Thebes, or Macedon, would attempt to assert supremacy over its neighbours, and if successful, it would be accepted by them as Hegemon.  Typically, a Hegemon would expect its allies to follow it in war, accept garrisons of its soldiers, and colonies of its citizens, and frequently, pay them tribute. 

The Hegemon’s allies were therefore, very much, its subordinates.  To describe them as vassals would be misleading, for the relationship of overlord and vassal typically involves obligations on both sides.  A Hegemon’s allies were expected to display loyalty, but none was offered in return. After the conclusion to the Persian War, Athens’ allies were reduced to the status of dependents, obliged to fund Athens’ navy, and the construction of the Parthenon.  Macedon asserted control over the whole of Greece through the occupation of strategic territories, “the fetters of Greece”, until their defeat at the hands of Titus Flaminius, in 197 BC.  Sparta, always one to take matters to extremes, went so far as to reduce most of the population of one of its subordinates, Messenia, to slavery.   

This blunt type of power politics, unsweetened by any degree of diplomacy, was best expressed by the dialogue that Thucydides writes, between the Athenian envoys, and the leaders of island of Melos, in 416 BC.  Thucydides was not an eye-witness, but his account can be taken to represent the viewpoint of Athens’ political leaders.  Athens wished Melos, a neutral state in a strategic location, to become a subordinate ally.  When the Melians pointed out they had done no wrong to Athens, and their demands were unjust, the reply was simply: 

“The Strong do as they wish; the Weak suffer what they must.” 

Melos offered resistance, and as a result, the Athenians massacred the adult males of the island, and sold the women and children as slaves. 

Alliances between peer-states were concluded, but they were always short-term, ad hoc affairs, and today’s ally would be tomorrow’s enemy, and vice versa. 

It is unlikely that Donald Trump is well-versed in classical history, but his altogether more intelligent Vice-President, James Vance is.  Moreover, the US army, in which Vance served, strongly recommends Thucidydes to its officers, as well as novels like Stephen Pressfield’s Gates of Fire, and Tides of War, which glorify the Spartan way of military discipline and warfare. 

What has become apparent, since Trump was inaugurated, is that the US government takes a very different approach to its allies to that of US administrations, since the late 1940’s.  Plainly, they wish to take Greenland off Denmark, a NATO ally, seeing it as a key strategic location.  Neither Danish sovereignty, nor the wishes of the inhabitants of the island, would appear to feature in this proposal.  Trump has expressed his desire to use “economic pressure”, in order to annex Canada, likewise a NATO ally, and has spoken of reoccupying the Panama Canal, ceded by the United States in 1979.  Trump has spoken in addition, of redeveloping the Gaza Strip, the current inhabitants having presumably been massacred or expelled, in order to make way for this. 

On top of this, the Trump administration, in contrast to every predecessor in the post war period, views the current international economic order as working to the United States’ disadvantage.  Nations that run trade surpluses with the United States are deemed to be “stealing” from them.  As a result, such nations are now being hit with punitive tariffs.  Some, such as China (hit with a  54% tariff), are nations that Trump views as rivals, at the least, and enemies, potentially.  But, long-standing friendship with the United States will not spare any nation a high tariff, either.  Both Mexico and Canada, which joined the North America Free Trade Agreement, in 1994, have been hit with tariffs of 25%.  Japan, a United States ally since the early 1950’s, faces a tariff of 20%. 

The approach of the current Administration towards international affairs is very Greek. 

There is precedent for all of this, in the United States’ history.  The country expanded its territory hugely by conquest, at the expense of Mexico, Spain, Hawaii, and various Indian nations, during the course of the nineteenth century.  Alaska was purchased from Russia.  The US Federal government largely funded itself through tariffs up until 1913, when it cut tariffs, and introduced an income tax instead. 

Territorial annexations, and tariffs, served the United States well, in the nineteenth century, so why should they not do so in the twenty first?  There are a number of reasons: 

1. The benefits of direct annexation are much lower than they were, in the nineteenth century, and the costs much higher.  Widespread ethnic cleansing is the most effective means of taking control of a territory, and it was practised against several Indian nations.  It was viewed as statesmanship in the past, whereas it is viewed with abhorrence today.  Taking control of a territory, against the wishes of most of its inhabitants, usually results in the need to recruit an army of occupation, to deal with the inevitable insurgency. By contrast, buying the commodities and products you wish to obtain, from local elites, is usually a good deal cheaper in the long run.   

2. Public opinion in the United States has shown a marked reluctance to suffer casualties, in order to enforce its will abroad, in countries such as Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq.  It is unlikely that wars of annexation would be viewed any more kindly, once the body bags started returning.  Nor should one discount the fact that many US citizens (and perhaps even elements of the armed forces themselves) would react with hostility towards naked campaigns of aggression. 

3. The United States is powerful, but not all-powerful.  Other nations can push back, either by means of retaliatory tariffs, or by means of their consumers and businesses boycotting American products and services.  That has already happened, with sales of TESLA cars dropping sharply, in recent months.   

4. Tariffs will hurt American businesses and consumers.  Prices of imports will rise, and in a great many cases, those imports cannot be replaced by local alternatives.  Unlike their nineteenth century counterparts, US business source components from abroad, which will now be made more expensive, weakening their competitiveness. 

Allies matter, even to a country as powerful as the United States, and right now, they are alienating their allies. 

As for Athens?  Slightly more than a decade after the sack of Melos, Athens found itself starving and besieged, and begging its enemies to treat the city more leniently than they had treated the Melians.  Far from being an eternal truth of international politics, their bold statement turned out to be an example of hubris. 

Sean F