What is meant by the Clash of Civilisations? What criticisms can be made of Huntingtons thesis and to what extent would you regard them as valid?

Moreover, he also states that the West continued emphasis on democracy, freedom, human rights and other such “universal norms: will only further antagonize other civilizations, for example, Bush’s desire to establish “beacons of democracy: throughout the Middle-East – beginning with Iraq.

Moreover, he argued the Sinic civilization is culturally exerting itself and its values relative to the West – due to its rapid economic growth. He believes the rise of China will present a huge challenge to the West and is the most powerful and long-term threat to the west.

        Also, he emphasised the “Islamic Revolution” which took pace from the 1960 into 1970s many young Arabic intellectuals became disgusted by the way their rules were totally embracing the western way of life such as massive consumer spending and totally ignoring the conditions of their poor subjects.

As a result radicals saw their Sheikhs [originally religious leaders but in this context just a leader] as debasing Islam. This eventually resulted in the Iranian revolution of 1979 in which the Shah of Iran was forcebly deposed.

Controversially he [Samuel Huntington] argues that “Islam has bloody borders” – he was referring to the massive population explosion in the Middle East and Islamic proximity to many civilisations including Orthodox and Western, e.g. Chechnya.

        He also identifies common Chinese and Islamic interests in the areas of weapons proliferation, human rights and democracy and he feels that this areas in which these two civilisations will cooperate e.g. the very close trade links in nuclear technology between China and Iran which is led to demands in the West, especially by Tony Blair, that the West “must deal with” that rogue state – Iran.

He believes that Civilisations conflicts are “particularly relevant between Muslims and non-Muslims”. He highlights that Western universalism i.e. the view that all civilisations should adopt Western values is the key issue that infuriates Islamic Fundamentalists.

        However there are some criticisms of Huntington’s thesis given by different scholars.

        Amartya Sen, in his book argues that a root cause of violence is when people see each other as having just a singular affiliation i.e. Hindu or Muslim as opposed to multiple affiliations. Unfortunately Huntington’s views strengthen these stereotypes. He argues that there are many sources of a person’s identity such as Hindu, woman, housewife, mother, artist, daughter etc…

        Paul Berman argued that distinct cultural boundaries no longer exist, thus there is neither Islamic civilisation nor a Western one. He emphasises the close links between the US and Saudi Arabia. He also notes that many Islamic extremists spent a great deal of their time living or studying in the Western World. For him conflict stems from philosophical believes between groups regardless of cultural or religious identity.

        Edward Said argued that values are more easily transmitted and altered than Huntington proposes. In recent years states such as Turkey and South Korea and many Eastern European states and Latin-American states have become democracies. He condemns Huntington for trying to reassert differences between civilisations and sees these as very dangerous. In fact Said wrote an essay titled “The Clash of Ignorance” – the concept of fixed civilisations omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. His [Huntington’s] ideas are not based a harmony but on conflict. This idea that each world is “self-enclosed” legitimate certain politics i.e. intervention and aggression and thus the Cold War continues in a different frame work rather than promoting ideas to help us understand different cultures and work together.

Islam and Christianity continue to be manipulated for political or ideological ends: Huntington boasted that 9/11 vindicated his theory but Said argues that this was the work of “crazed fanatics” who no way represent the Muslim faith. He notes that Huntington in his efforts to demonise Islam totally ignores examples of Western fanatism in the USA itself e.g. the Oklahoma bombing in which hundreds were killed by Timothy McVeigh in his protest against “big government”. Also the religious fanatic David Koresh who set fire to his religious cult compounds killing hundreds of his followers in Waco.

In conclusion it can be said that although there are quite strong criticisms of Huntington’s theory I do agree that the “Clash” exists. Arguments such as cooperation between USA and Saudi Arabia are not valid, I believe, as most of Arabian government are pro-American and so do not represent the whole Arabic nation. For example, in recent Tunisian and Egypt protests we could see a very strong anti-American mood and it is one of the reasons of protests as citizens are not satisfied of their countries being puppet state of USA.  The “Clash” emerged after 9/11 as US intervention into Middle East and media outcry began. The constant accusation from both sides led to hostility between the “Muslim” and “Western” countries. The recent wars in Middle East and terror acts in the West shows the matter. Of course there is some truth in Said’s and other scholar’s arguments but it is simply just a theory and idealistic views. Many (not all of course) Westerns openly hate Islam and condemn all Islamic values mainly due to negative media look on Islam and constant terror acts on Western territories. Many Muslims also condemn Western values due to their religious views. Also hostility is raised by the wars in Middle East, support of Israel and criticisms made of Islam even by high profile politicians. Bush’s remark of “Islamic fascism” made millions of Muslims extremely anti-American and worsened the situation badly. The recent caricature scandal where Dutch artist draw the Muslim Prophet made many millions angry again. Summing up all of the above it could be said that although in theory the criticisms given by scholars are stronger than Huntington’s points, in real world Huntington’s theory does fit. Therefore the argument of “Clash of Civilizations” is valid and real nowadays.