The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order - Coursework Example

Running Head: The Clash…. Topic: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order Order#: 303278 Topic: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order Introduction: The pages of human history daubed in bloodshed due to conflicts, battles and major wars in the name of religion, culture, race, ethnicity, color and language, ask the crying question. How to make this Planet Earth heaven-like? The answer is simple and straightforward from the moral spiritual points of view. Eyes full of understanding, hearts full of love and the life that refuses conflicts—enough, these alone are enough! But there are strong issues that prevent the goal of universal peace, according to Samuel P. Huntington. He aptly titles his hunt, as the Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. He avers that the secular ideologies are facing a new, serious threat of violence. The origin of this hidden volcano is between countries and cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. These limited numbers of cultures have taken the center stage to influence and dominate the important events that have serious bearings. They are Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu and African. Huntington argues, policymakers should take notice of this development, while trying to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Rebuking U.S. in this regard Huntington says, “In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous . . . Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism.”(Huntington, 1998, p.310) What is the latent psychology of these cultural civilization groups that are part of a Nation? Is this civilization identity conflict-oriented or friendship-oriented? Are they wiling to live in mutual co-operation or with hidden grudges? Is living together as democratic citizens of one country are an act of compulsion? “For the first time in history global politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational; modernization is distinct from Westernization and is producing neither a universal civilization in any meaningful sense nor the Westernization of non-Western societies.” (p.20) The valley of these civilizations as perceived by Huntington is not all green! His forthright views merit serious consideration, in the light of what actually is happening all over the world, especially in Muslim countries, and the countries suffering from Muslim factor. According to him modernization does not mean westernization. Economic progress clubbed with revival of religion is a dangerous combination. The doomed-ideologies of the post Cold-war era, have given birth to ethnic nationalism. Huntington’s remarks on Islam appear severe, but they are not without substance. According to him the root causes of Islam fundamentalism are Islam itself. He has intense fear about the multiculturalism of America, which he terms as a source of the weakness of the country. According to him China is the greatest challenge to America. To preserve its internal geographic unity, amidst the pressure of various ethnic and cultural groups, it may enter into reckless adventures against USA, with its known nuclear capability. The author criticizes U.S. policies that would tend to "Balkanize" the country into a bunch of squabbling nationalities. His thesis that China is the main player in future world politics seems quite correct. How long USA can keep China in good humor? In the prevailing political atmosphere, misunderstanding between the countries may happen at any time. Next, he mentions about the grave threat from the resurgent Islamic identity. The prospect of Sino-Islamic grouping could be the double tragedy for US. “In this new world, 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.” (p.22) Huntington calls for stronger European-North American alliance as a deterrent to the Sino-Islamic threat. At the beginning of the book itself he gives an example to strengthen his thesis. “On April 18, 1994, two thousand people rallied in Sarajevo waving the flags of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. By flying those banners, instead of U.N., NATO, or American flags, these Sarajevo’s identified themselves with their fellow Muslims and told the world who were their real and not-so-real friends.”(p.19) He is not afraid to present before the USA administration, the challenging framework for evaluating the harsh realities of global politics in the next century. The intricacies of global politics are becoming more and more complex. The enemies of USA are growing like the octopus, in all directions, and USA should know from where to start its operation and how-to finish it. How the thinking of the would-be leaders of the cultural groups takes shape. Huntington rakes the issue that should set the churning process in the minds of the political thinkers, particularly in US. “One grim Weltanschauung for this new era was well expressed by the Venetian nationalist demagogue in Michael Dibdins novel, Dead Lagoon: "There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are. These are the old truths we are painfully rediscovering after a century and more of sentimental cant. Those who deny them deny their family, their heritage, their culture, their birthright, and their very selves! They will not lightly be forgiven."(p.20) The long-interval after the World War II has provided an opportunity to the politicians, intellectuals and the common people to do recollection of the past. The distinction between various people, is now accepted, are not ideological, political, or economic. People have begun to introspect. This introspection is neither spiritual nor totally secular. It refers to the specifics like ancestry, language, history, values, customs, institutions and above all religion. “They identify with cultural groups: tribes, ethnic groups, religious communities, nations, and, at the broadest level, civilizations. People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know who we are against (p.21) Said’s article: It is crafted with a non-bias perspective. He does not write with the pursuit of shock value and goes to the roots of the problem to explain what happened in the past and what is going on now. This method seems simple and straightforward. While presenting his views Said holds the scale of justice in his hand, his approach and reasoning allows the people to see the different sides of the situation. According to him, Huntington’s reasoning seems to be flawed. He pictures an unbridgeable gap between the “West” and “Islam.” What about the grassroots level reality? Do the internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization have no meaning? How can one pass comments and arrive at judgment about the religion concerning all its followers? Huntington paints a wrong picture of Muslims who are considered backward on all counts including technological. At the same time, a small number of Muslim fanatics have mastered all the details needed to inflict seriously damaging acts like the one they did on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon with the aircraft they had commandeered. How to distinguish the dividing line between western technology and Islam’s capacity to be modern? Who is to decide it, questions Said. According to him, it would be a fallacy of the gravest order to talk about a clash of civilization between the West and the Muslim world. Good or bad judgment can not be passed about the whole community. What is their culture, what is their method, what they will do in future is nobody’s business. Any ideas that divide the people are most unwelcome. The time demands that we learn about people from the historical perspective. Learn from the past mistakes, instead of fostering biases in their minds. We teach them to differentiate. Communities belonging to any culture need to stand united under the US flag. If the leaders of U.S. fail in his endeavor, U.S. will perish in the not too distant future. Huntington does not glorify the Western Civilization on all counts and gives it the clean certificate. He writes, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do” (p.51.) At times, he is ruthless on U.S. for its double dealings and bifacial strategies. He opines, “Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalistic pretensions. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq, but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth, but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China, but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed, but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle.”(p.184) Huntington wrote the book after the collapse of the Soviet Union, eight years before 9/11. It is not an instant post-event book. The canvas of the book is very large. No learned critic can say that Huntington’s ideas are original. Those are the refined reiteration of intercivilizational approach to world history by Toynbee and Spengler. It is neither ethnocentric not does it promote the necessity of war. Huntington summarizes the point of THE CLASH thus: “Western universalism is dangerous to the world because it could lead to a major intercivilizational war between core states and it is dangerous to the West because it could lead to the defeat of the West (p. 311)." Nowhere Huntington advocates U.S engaging into clashes with other civilizations including Islam and China. He has been accused thus by his critics. Huntington wants U.S. to avoid global crusading on any pretext, nation-building or democracy. U.S. need not own the responsibility of remaking the world in the light of its ideals and convictions. But he emphasizes the importance of international institutions. Huntington had opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He had no hesitation about airing his view on the negative results that were completely predictable, according to him. The contents of the book stimulate useful debate, and even on those points that you disagree with Huntington, you can not brush aside his views with ease. How valid are his observations about the clash in the former Yugoslavia. He writes, “The peace process was also helped by the ethnic cleansing which occurred"(p.298). Ethnic cleansing does not indicate the sincerity of the party responsible for it, and it leaves festering wounds and never actually “helps’. Huntington states, “The logic of civilizations dictates a similar outcome concerning the expansion of NATO [referring initially to how preference for EU membership is given to nations who are traditionally western in culture]. As the Wests security organization NATO is appropriately open to membership by Western countries which wish to join and which meet basic requirements in terms of military competence [...] NATO expansion limited to countries historically part of Western Christendom, however, also guarantees to Russia.”(p.298) Yes, Islam has bloody borders, Huntington did say that! “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.”(The clash of….) Islam has always had trouble with the rest of the world. Co-existence is a difficult concept for Muslims to accept and practice. They are known as the problem children of this planet. And the spanking given to them by U.S appears judicious. Groups from all religions have resorted to violence, but Muslims are the leaders in this area. Look at the Muslim world of the 1990s. 23 of the 32 conflicts were initiated and precipitated by the Muslims. They were fighting non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria etc. Goldberg reports that Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations “was deeply, and often willfully, misunderstood and mischaracterized by those who didnt want it to be true. But after 9/11, it largely set the terms for how we look at the world. In it, he argued that culture, religion and tradition are not background noise, as materialists of the left and the right often argue. Rather, they constitute the drumbeat to which whole civilizations march. This view ran counter to important constituencies…. Most of the globes intractable conflicts are more clearly viewed through the prisms of culture and history than that of the green eyeshade. Tensions between India and Pakistan or Israel and the Arab world have little to do with GDP."(Goldberg….) The Israli-Hizzbullah Lebanon War-2006 shows the renewed determination by the Hizzbullah Muslim forces, and how they have modernized their approach to the war. This war has been seen as a disaster for the Israeli military. “U.S. military experts were stunned by the destruction that Hezbollah forces, using sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles, were able to wreak on Israeli armor columns. Unlike the guerrilla forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, who employed mostly hit-and-run tactics, the Hezbollah fighters held their ground against Israeli forces in battles that stretched as long as 12 hours. They were able to eavesdrop on Israeli communications and even struck an Israeli ship with a cruise missile.”(Jaffe….) Muslim countries all over the world will be quick to adopt such tactics. These extremely well-trained, especially in the uses of antitank weapons and rockets will be a new threat and the US military think-tank has to take serious note of. Huntington’s predictions as for the attitude of the violence-prone Muslim world are coming true. From the point of view of Hezbollah, the war is infinite, which Israel and the Western World need to take note of. The narrowing difference between the assertions of Huntington and Said can be seen in this statement. Said says, “One cannot easily do so, of course. How finally inadequate are the labels, generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level, for instance, primitive passions and sophisticated know-how converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between "West" and "Islam" but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate.” (The clash of ….) Said further goes to give his opinion on the Muslim world and the Muslim attitude, as if they have already agreed that the world is one family and they humbly salute at the ideal of brotherhood. It will be a futile exercise to expect it from the Muslim world. But Said goes on with his sermon. “But we are all swimming in those waters, Westerners and Muslims and others alike. And since the waters are part of the ocean of history, trying to plow or divide them with barriers is futile. These are tense times, but it is better to think in terms of powerful and powerless communities, the secular politics of reason and ignorance, and universal principles of justice and injustice, than to wander off in search of vast abstractions that may give momentary satisfaction but little self-knowledge or informed analysis.” (The Clash….)He calls The Clash of Civilization thesis as a gimmick. Everyone understands the merits of interdependence, but how to achieve it is the problem. But Huntington has given the wake-up call to the world against the dangers of Muslim fundamentalism. If four determined persons can change the course of human history, the four determined fundamentalists can lead the world towards total destruction, in this age of nuclear-proliferation. The basic thesis of the book is that it is impossible to impose Western political, religious and cultural values on non-Western countries. You have the proof for this in the first Gulf War of 1990, waged by US against Iraq. After the initial murmurs, The Middle East countries condemned it, and said that it was a war of the West against all Arabs and all Muslims. Arab world hated US, though it protected Kuwait, a Muslim country that faced aggression. =========== References: Goldberg, Samuel Huntingtons true vision LA Times, December 30, 2008 Huntington, Samuel, P: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order Paperback: 368 pages Publisher: Simon & Schuster; 1 edition (January 28, 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 0684844419 ISBN-13: 978-0684844411 Jaffe, Greg: Short 06 Lebanon War Stokes Pentagon Debate Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, April 6, 2009; Page A01 Said, Edward, W: The Clash of Ignorance Labels like "Islam" and "the West" only serve to confuse us. www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said - 41k - Cached – Retrieved on May 30, 2009 The Clash of Civilizations?” original 1993 "Foreign Affairs" magazine article. Read More