Lessons from History for the Future of NATO
Lessons from History for the Future of NATO
Exploring Parallels Between the Delian League and NATO to Understand Alliance Dynamics
Today, many are questioning the purpose of NATO, so it is good to consult the records of history to understand where such an alliance is heading. There are strong parallels between two pivotal alliances in ancient and modern history: the Delian League of ancient Greece and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of the contemporary world. Both alliances were formed to counter external threats and safeguard the interests of their member states.
However, they also highlight the potential challenges and pitfalls inherent in such alliances, including the risk of one dominant member exerting undue influence and the erosion of collective unity over time. In this post, I will shortly analyze these alliances to understand NATO’s trajectory better.
The Rise and Fall of the Delian League
Ancient Greece is renowned as the cradle of democracy and the cornerstone of Western civilization. It also stands as a testament to early alliances formed in the face of external aggression.
The year 478 BC saw the establishment of the "Delian League" on the island of Delos, a collective response to the looming threat posed by the Persian Empire under Darius the Great and later his son, Xerxes. The league's formation stemmed from the revolt of Greek cities along the eastern Aegean Sea against Persian dominance in the sixth century BC, fueled by the emergence of democratic governance in these cities, with the support of Athens and Eretria.
Despite Darius's suppression of the revolt, he sought retribution by launching an invasion of mainland Greece in the 490s. Despite initial victories, such as the conquest of Macedon and Thrace, Persia suffered a significant defeat in the Battle of Marathon. Following Xerxes's second invasion in 480, which saw vast swathes of Greece overrun, the decisive naval battle of Salamis turned the tide against the Persian forces.
The alliance formed to confront the Persian invasion and safeguard the autonomy of Greek city-states evolved into the Delian League. Despite Persia's defeat, the league endured, reflecting the persistent threat of Persian imperialism and the memory of successive invasions. Annual meetings convened on Delos, with each member state afforded equal representation, and the league's treasury housed in the temple of Apollo.
In subsequent years, the league aimed to diminish Persia's presence in the region, achieving notable successes such as the expulsion of garrisons from Thrace and victories along the Anatolian coast. Although it was formed as a defensive alliance against the Persian threat, the league quickly became a vehicle for Athenian hegemony. Athens, the leading member of the league, gradually exploited its position to assert dominance over other member states.
One of the primary methods Athens employed to solidify its control was through the imposition of taxes and tributes on other league members. Originally intended for mutual defense and collective security, these financial contributions soon became a means for Athens to amass wealth and resources for its benefit. The league's treasury, once housed on the neutral ground of Delos, was eventually relocated to Athens, consolidating the city-state's economic power and enabling it to fund ambitious projects such as the construction of the Parthenon.
Moreover, Athens interfered in the internal affairs of other league members, dictating their laws and policies to align with Athenian interests. This imposition of Athenian influence eroded the autonomy of other member states, transforming the Delian League from a coalition of equals into a vehicle for Athenian imperialism.
Athens's interference in member states' affairs and misuse of the league's resources ultimately led to its dissolution following its defeat by Sparta in 405. The parallels between Athens' exploitation of the Delian League and modern-day instances of dominant powers within alliances are striking. Just as Athens used the league to further its agenda, contemporary powers may seek to wield influence within alliances for their strategic advantage.
Examining the Parallels Between NATO and the Delian League
Following World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 as a collective defense alliance among Western nations, primarily in response to the perceived threat of Soviet expansionism and the spread of communism. The United States played a significant role in the establishment of NATO, viewing it as a crucial bulwark against the Soviet Union and its communist ideology.
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States emerged as the world's sole superpower. In the aftermath, there were concerns about the United States adopting an imperialistic stance, akin to Athens' behavior following the defeat of the Persians. Similar to Athens' transformation of the Delian League into an Athenian empire, the United States has been criticized for its unilateral actions and attempts to exert hegemonic influence over global affairs.
Today, the United States is often perceived as behaving like an empire, employing its economic, military, and diplomatic power to advance its interests and shape international relations. This parallels Athens' dominance of the Delian League and its interference in the affairs of other member states.
The parallels between the fate of the Delian League and the potential future of NATO are striking. Like the Delian League, NATO was initially formed as a defensive alliance against a common threat. However, there are concerns that NATO, under the leadership of the United States, could evolve into a vehicle for American hegemony, similar to Athens' transformation of the Delian League into an instrument of its imperial ambitions.
Just as Athens' actions ultimately led to the dissolution of the Delian League, there are fears that NATO's cohesion could be undermined if member states perceived it as serving the interests of one dominant power rather than collective security.
In light of Donald Trump's reiterated stance on NATO defense assistance, the intricacies of alliance dynamics come sharply into focus. His insistence on increased defense spending from European members underscores ongoing debates over the equitable distribution of responsibilities within NATO. Trump's strong remarks expressed during a campaign rally
The discrepancy in defense expenditure among NATO members, with only a fraction meeting the agreed-upon target, followed by Trump's strong remarks expressed during a campaign rally where he called on Russia to attack any NATO member that does not meet the agreed-upon targets, underscores the challenges facing the alliance in maintaining unity and effectiveness. Failure to address internal issues could potentially lead NATO down the path of the Delian League.
Thank you for this interesting article.
I view NATO as primarily an instrument of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire to keep mainland Europe subservient, weakened, and under its control as a base to complete its planned conquest of the Eurasian landmass that has been ongoing since around 1900 when the Triple Entente of Britain, France, and Russia was being planned in order to annihilate Germany. Though Israel is not a NATO member, it is the southern terminus of the empire's attack with the target there now being Iran. NATO is also being drawn into potential warfare on the Pacific rim via the overall project to subdue China. All of this feeds into planning for the next world war which is well advanced. A key will be whether the countries of the EU will remain subservient to NATO or will NATO break apart under the pressure. I hope that you will continue to cover these developments.