Evaluate Samuel Huntington's proposition that 'world politics is entering a new phase' which he terms 'the clash of civilisations'.

Division of cultures?

Huntington's thesis outlines a future where the "local politics is the politics of ethnicity; global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the clash of civilizations”. He divides the world's cultures into seven current civilizations, Western, Latin American, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu and Slavic-Orthodox. Africa on the other hand is a continent of sub-civilizations. Meaning it is not considered a single civilization per se. The only Scholar Huntington names that disagree with this definition is Braudel.  Religion is the uniting factor of civilizations and as Christopher Dawson said ‘the great religions are the foundations on which great civilizations rest’. There are five world religions, four of which are associated with major civilizations Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Confucianism, the fifth which is Buddhism is not.

So the world is quite well laid out then? Strictly defined borders and cultures! The answer is no. If anyone has ever travelled to a major American or British city you can see a large ‘interaction’ of different cultures. Most Western States particularly the more powerful nations are multi or bi-cultural. There was also the development, which Huntington missed in his thesis, of the mass migration of Muslims to the West in the past couple decades. I'm not talking about a couple thousand immigrants; I'm talking about millions of Muslims actually living, interacting with and becoming citizens of the West. Akbar Ahmed makes the point…’ For example, the United States has several million Muslims. It has included American and Muslim icons, such as Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X. Rumi, the 13th century mystic poet, born in Afghanistan, is the number-one, best-selling poet of the United States. Americans love his mystic poetry of compassion and acceptance. Another historic fact: The first country in the world to recognize the United States of America was Morocco, a Muslim country. So it isn't quite a clash of civilizations that has been going on. While there may be an element of clash, there is a larger element of synthesis, understanding and sporadic dialogue’.Can there be such a division of civilizations when there are 5,259,000 million Muslims in North America and 33,303,000 million in Europe. If anything this shows the breakdown of borders.

Hard to define culture

‘The difficulty with Huntington's approach begins with his system of unique categorization, well before the issue of a clash—or not—is even raised. Indeed, the thesis of a civilization clash is conceptually parasitic on the commanding power of a unique categorization along so-called civilization lines, which closely follow religious divisions to which singular attention is paid. Huntington contrasts Western civilization with "Islamic civilization," "Hindu civilization," "Buddhist civilization," and so on. The alleged confrontations of religious differences are incorporated into a sharply carpentered vision of hardened divisiveness’. People are not just defined by their religion there are a number of factors which represent their lives. These variations exist in every culture nationalities, locations, classes, occupations, social status, languages, politics, and many others. Yes I know that Islam has received a lot of bad publicity during the Bush administration. But, Bush has grouped all Islam into a single category. This is quite derogatory to people of Islam. Europeans could easily class all Americans as Christian fundamentalist hicks, who believe the world was created only a couple of thousand years. But, generally we don’t make broad sweeping generalizations. This is one of Huntington’s major faults.

Huntington claims that in the future, nations will form alliances on the basis of similar "civilizational interests." This however is not accurate. It is more often than not the culture of each country, its history, and its geopolitical interests rather than religion that dictate its foreign policy. Turkey, a Muslim country, has signed a military treaty with Israel; it is also a member NATO and is actively trying to get into the EU, while the Islamic republic of Iran remains at odds with Iraq after one of the worst conflicts of the 20th century, another Muslim country. In its 1972 war of independence, Bangladesh sought Hindu India's military assistance against Muslim Pakistan. During the Gulf War, several Arab and Muslim states, out of regional interests, and economic ties to the West, allied themselves with the United States. While Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid 90 percent of the war efforts, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, and Senegal provided ground troops to help the American assault. 

Relations between the East/West

Let’s look closer to relations between the West and the East. This is an actual quote taken from  ‘’ as a response to the theory of Clash of Civilizations and became notable after the  adopted a resolution to name the year 2001 as the year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.

‘A close reading of human history would indicate that, notwithstanding formidable obstacles to constructive interaction among nations imposed by episodes and manifestations of intolerance and war, civilizations have always managed to benefit and thrive through communication and mutual enrichment, while preserving their individual identities. . . . Given the fundamental role of culture in shaping political and economic structures, the promotion of dialogue among different cultures, on the basis of tolerance and respect for diversity, would result in the reduction of tensions and contribute to international peace and security.

While dialogue by itself would not guarantee the eradication of evils of war and bigotry, it does provide a reasonable and sound paradigm to approach the global problems likely to confront us in the 21st century’ (United Nations 1998). Khatami is the president of Iran a member of the infamous axis of evil. This talk does not sound like warmongering to me. Yet many feel that Iran is a threat to America.Not to over simply the situation the only problem that Iran has with America is its continuous support of Israel. It is not the American civilisation that has made the Middle East so unstable but the creation of the state of Israel.

In his best-selling book Terror and Liberalism (2004), Paul Berman wonders “in what degree America’s policies and actions over the last few decades bear out the idea of clashing civilizations”. Berman observes that many of the foreign interventions of the United States—from the aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s to the military actions in Bosnia and Somalia—were undertaken in defence of Muslim populations. Equally, Ronald Inglehart (2003) argues that Huntington fails to recognise the level to which Muslim public opinion favours democracy, one of Huntington’s “distinguishing characteristics” of Western society. He uses evidence from the World Values Survey, conducted in 70 countries in 1995–96 and 2000–2002, to show that the West is not set apart from the Muslim world by its support for democratic government. With the exception of Pakistan, the publics of most of the Muslim countries surveyed approve of democracy: In Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, and Turkey, 92 to 99 percent of the population had a positive attitude toward democratic government (the proportion in the U.S. is 89 percent). This would further endorse Fukayamas ‘The end of history’ theory.

Violent borders

The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.’

I would like to think the expansion of the EU and NATO has already discredited this remise and with the eventual addition of Turkey, Ukraine and Romania along with Bulgaria  already joining these institutions it should put a shadow over the idea of ‘Islam’s bloody borders’.

But let’s look at other Islamic conflicts in the world at the moment. How many are culture conflicts and how many could be described as nationalist or territorial disputes. These following conflicts are on the so called ‘fault lines’. Cultural conflict could argue only plays a secondary role in these conflicts.

• Yugoslavia. This was a fight for multi-ethnic democracies. Bosnia allied with Catholic dominated Croatia. This was an internal power struggle. Not ‘a clash of civilizations’
• Kashmir, India and Pakistan. This is a conflict over territory
• Israel Palestine. Territorial dispute
• Chechnya Nationalist territorial dispute
• Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Internal power struggle#

When you actually look through the conflicts in the world at the moment, religion is not the key factor. It is nationalism or territorial disputes that cause conflict. But why so did Islamic world attack America on September 11th? What people forget is that September 11th wasn’t planned by any particularly country. It was planned by a fringe fundamentalist group led by Osama Bin Laden. With whom Edward Said makes an interesting contrast to ‘But why not instead see parallels, admittedly less spectacular in their destructiveness, for Osama bin Laden and his followers in cults like the Branch Davidians or the disciples of the Rev. Jim Jones at Guyana or the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo?’ Unfortunately, America played straight into the hands of terrorism by going to war with Iraq. This to be fair can seem like ‘a clash of civilizations’ of sorts. But really it’s not. It was just a massive blunder on behalf of the Bush administration.

Is there a Islamic-Confucian alliance

A Confucian-Islamic military connection has thus come into being, designed to promote acquisition by its members of the weapons and weapons technologies needed to counter the military powers of the West.

If China does collude against the West I doubt that it will be with an Islamic nation, it may come to some concord with Russia like the one in July 24, 2001.China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. It is just a mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. I honestly feel this to be nothing more than a buffer to deter Americas from the creation of an international missile shield in central Europe.

Perhaps the biggest reason why I can’t see a clash of civilizations with China is it economy. Chinese exports in 2007 were $1216 billion the largest importer of Chinese goods was the US. China will not damage this relationship. China has also brokered economic ties with countries in Africa and Latin America. These economic agreements are largely due to Chinas need for oil. Some 30% of China's oil imports now come from Africa, with Angola their largest supplier. The Chinese are the largest foreign investors in Sudan's oil sector and are active in petroleum projects in a number of West and Central African countries. As the largest consumer of copper in the world, China has actively sought access to minerals in copper-rich Zambia. It has also gained access to platinum mines in increasingly isolated Zimbabwe.

 It is also in negotiations with WTO to gain entry. More and more Western companies are trying to set up companies there. This would surely argue against Huntington and favour Fukuyamas argument that the historical progression has led towards    and not a ‘clash of civilizations’.

The Beijing games also opened up the country to half a million visitors and thousands of journalists were welcomed. This sent out a message of openness from the Chinese government that they are not the enemy. Perhaps the strangest thing to come out of China in the last decade is Western consumerism. Even the diets of the Chinese is changing with more beef and dairy products been introduced to their diets.  Wine imports have also risen dramatically. Chinas economy is built on imports and exports. The need for stability is essential if China is to achieve its Superpower status.

The most ironic reason that I can find to dismiss an Islamic-Confucian civilization is that China has a problem with Islamic terrorists. There are  in the  and other locations with large  population. Although this conflict like the conflicts I mentioned previously doesn’t really have much to do with Islam. Political challenges in Xinjiang take many forms: some Uighurs want greater autonomy, others are fighting for greater political freedom or democracy, and still others seek secession from China.

Economic development generates changed attitudes in virtually any society. China has grasped this more readily than any other country in the world. To continue this development it will need stability.

Conclusion

The world has changed a lot since Huntington’s article was published in 1993 which was later expanded in 1996 in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”. Huntington has nearly single-handedly created a new paradigm in the study of International relations which might be appropriately be termed ‘cultural realism’. Huntington has produced a powerful attack on liberalism in IR and on rosy predictions of a post-cold war order where increasing economic interdependence and the spread of democratic values work to create a more unified and peaceful community.  But as I have shown above he has gotten it wrong on a number of issues none more so than China who depends on the west for its growing economy.

Perhaps America has to take a step back in its foreign policy. Bush has constantly created a division between the west and east since September 11th. His language creates them or us barrier. He has said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam". "The use of the term casts a shadow upon Islam and bolsters the argument that there is a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West,"  Yes fundamentalist clerics are on the rise in Pakistan, Iraq and African states.  America however, has helped out Muslim countries in the past. A stable world is a beneficial world for everyone.

Huntington’s viewpoint is just one way of seen the future of the world. A lot of what he says automatically strikes a chord with people. Especially in times of hurt i.e. Sept11th. Islamic civilization is not a threat to the West. It is the terrorist groups that orbit their world that are. The theory of ‘Clash of civilization’ can be very dangerous if taken literally by nations and only plays into the hands of terrorism.

---