There is a saying that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend". Although this may hold some political truth, is it always the case in other areas?
Hi again, David! Hope you enjoyed the spring-time cherry blossoms in Bonn! To answer your question, I guess you'd need to say what the "other areas" are. I think it is certainly not always true as a blanket statement. In a situation of war or direct competition for survival, forming alliances against the more threatening common enemy may indeed be a wise policy, but in less extreme circumstances it is a shortsighted one.
The Cold War led the US and USSR to team up with and support a whole host of unsavory dictators, for example. The results of this are still felt today. The impulse was understandable and may have been "correct" at least some of the time. I do not wish to get into an impossible discussion of whether this was necessary. Instead, I want to highlight that it was logical if the US and USSR saw as highly threatening shifts in their alliances in key regions leading to support for an enemy they thought wished to wipe them out. It had lots of downsides, like the human cost to people in countries living under dictatorships supported by the US government, the damage to the US's reputation, within the country and without, and thus an erosion of the moral authority the US enjoyed at the end of WWII. This is just one (admittedly US-centric) example, but there are loads out there.
Incidentally, not sticking to this principle can make people angry, too. The US failed to support Hosni Mubarak, an enemy of terrorist groups and Muslim extremists because he was also an enemy of human rights and democracy, for which the US also stands (and more fundamentally, I would argue). This led to accusations that it was fickle, problems with the Saudis and other alliance partners, etc. In short, I think "enemy of my enemy" thinking should be avoided whenever possible, but in our world, it is very often not possible, unfortunately. It is at times unwise not to be Machiavellian.
Doesn't have to be true.
Depends on the relationship that you have with that person.
Nothing in this world is for certain.
No, not at all. While it may not have the memorability of the proverb, it is more realistic to say that the enemy of your enemy may sometimes be useful temporarily in coordinated actions against your mutual enemy in certain situations, with the emphasis on "temporarily".
It also depends on your role in the play. This is well illustrated by the history of Poland.
For example, in the 18th century, Russia was the enemy of Prussia, and Prussia was the enemy of Poland, but Russia was not the friend of Poland, just another enemy. But to look at it another way, Prussia was the enemy of Poland, and Russia was the enemy of Poland. These enemies put their knives to Poland for a time, so from that perspective, the enemies of Poland, Prussia and Russia, decided to be friends when dividing Poland.
You may also insert the Austrian Empire into the concert of enemies who collaborated to gobble up Poland.
Move to the first half of the 20th century and you will find a replay of the enemy (Germany) of Poland's enemy (Russia) not being Poland's friend. Russia and Germany decided to split Poland between them. Which meant that the enemy (Russia) of Germany's enemy (Poland) was Germany's friend, temporarily.
When you are weak, the enemy of your enemy may decide to become friends for the purpose of disposing of you, then return to being enemies.
Or the enemy of your enemy might just sit back and let the two of you bash each other senseless, and come in to finish off the weakened winner of the first conflict.
My experience tells that it is not true. Because the enemy of my enemy may be an other enemy for myself , too.
Thanks a lot. Your respective responses are well noted and very much appreciated
Thanks a lot. Your respective responses are well noted and very much appreciated
Being enemy is a relative concept. It depends on the culture of a person.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science