Clash of Fundamentalism: International Relations - Essay Example

Is there a clash of civilization or a Clash of fundamentalism in contemporary International Relations? The current global political scenario provides an interesting opportunity to explore the genesis and mechanism of clashes that erupt randomly or are part of ongoing conflicts. It is crucial to find out answers to questions like what causes these clashes, even in the 21st century when the world as a whole has realized that there are greater and more worthwhile challenges like environmental sustainability, combating diseases, water and food crisis, population control, education and sanitation. It is relevant to discuss why the clashes and conflicts continue to exist, not only in the backward and developing regions of the world but also at times among the most developed nations of the world. While each conflict may have a unique cause, and very specific and exclusive factors that lead to the build-up and escalation, thinkers and scholars have spent considerable time and efforts in exploring and establishing any common underlying factors that may be leading to the present day conflicts. A well known proposition about the causes of conflict and clash in the current international relations is that different civilizations cannot co-exists and hence conflict is inevitable. ‘The clash of civilization’ theory was proposed by Huntington, (1993) and attributes the basic cause of all international conflict to the assumption that different civilizations are unable to interact with each other in a peaceful manner as inherently their culture, religion, values and beliefs may be contradictory. This theory had postulates that clashes between civilizations would continue to rise after the end of the Cold War. An other proposition explains the conflicts as a result of fundamentalist thinking in political and international relations. The cause of conflict therefore is not the inherent nature of the different civilizations, but the adoption of a fundamentalist outlook in dealing with other countries and people. The following paper aims to analyze the current International conflicts and political developments in order to arrive at the answer to the question: “Is there a clash of civilization or a Clash of fundamentalism in contemporary International Relations?” The paper will first elaborate on the meanings of the two clashes by highlighting the works of other researchers who have contributed in the development of the concepts. Secondly, a literature survey will be conducted to gather material in support or against of both the propositions. The literature thus collated will be analyzed to arrive at the final answer. The Clash of Civilization The Clash of Civilization Theory, as proposed by Huntington, rests on the premise that there are basically several different kinds if civilizations, namely, the Western Civilization, The Islamic Civilization, The Sinic Civilization, The African Civilization, and The Latin American Civilization. Conflicts may arise within the nation’s boundaries where there is a majority of one civilization and a minority of another. Similarly, a conflict may also result between two regions or states which have different civilizations. The basic cause of the conflict is not territorial claims, or economic benefits, but a cultural difference based on the difference in religions and beliefs that different civilizations follow. (Huntington, 1993). There has been much debate on the above theory, with scholars like Amartya Sen postulating that conflict may arise only if people perceive themselves as having a single identity – Muslim, Westerner or African etc. (Sen, 2006) According to Sen, such single identities rarely exist in the modern world as people view themselves in a more holistic light and define themselves on the basis of their region, education, gender, and political ideology along with their civilization or ethnic ideology. Similarly, other authors have criticized the applicability of the clash of civilization concept in the modern international relations scenario. It is provided as a counter-evidence that cultural exchange and tolerance exists largely among different civilizations and conflicts are not the result of cultural or religious differences. (Said, 1998). The Clash of Fundamentalism The Clash of Fundamentalism is a concept that has been gaining supporters as a cause of all international conflict in the modern world. Basically, it follows that regional and global economic and political ambitions lead to fundamentalism and rigidity in dealing with outsiders. In this case, religion, may or may not be a delineating factor for choosing the outsiders. Conflicts resulting from clash of fundamentalism may arise between the same ethnic groups, same civilizations, or between different countries and regions irrespective of the cultural or religious affiliations followed by the warring parties. Fundamentalism is introduced in the conflicts to gain economic or political gains, and provide a thrust to the fighting instincts of the combatants on either side. This means that conflict is not the cause of cultural or religious differences (as proposed by the Clash of Civilization Theory), but culture and religious differences can be exploited to add vigor and madness to the conflict. The ultimate cause of conflict remains the same, economic or political gain. According to scholars like Fotopoulos, Clash of Fundamentalism is the conflict between the extremists of the West and those of the East. In the West, it is the political fundamentalism and global hegemonistic ambitions, while in the East it is the fervor of the Islamic religion. (Fotopoulos, 2004). This way of looking at the world’s conflicts makes it easier to designate enemies as either the Islamic religion or its fundamentalist followers, or the United States and its political ambitions. The Clash of Civilizations Vs The Clash of Fundamentalism An interesting point that has been highlighted in the debate over cause of conflict in international relations is that several scholars have been using the terms ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and ‘Clash of Fundamentalism’. This synonism has been made extensive use of in explaining the violent engagement of the United States with Islamic states and Islamic powers. The September 11 attack on the United States, the subsequent Afghan War, the Iraqi invasion and the recent deterioration in relations with Iran are explained in terms of ‘clash of civilizations’ but assuming that the clash of civilizations in the same as the clash of fundamentalism. Even from Huntington’s point of view, the Clash of civilization theory had predicted an increase in the clashes between the western world and the Islamic Fundamentalists at the end of the Cold War. (Fox, 2001). These hypothesis was taken up by recent scholars who wanted to make sense of the increasing Islamic assertion of identity, especially the perpetration of violence by the Islamic groups. It is however important to understand the two as separate reasons that should be analysed in arriving at the cause of conflict as well as in finding a way to prevent and alleviate the conflicts in the international relations. It is important to understand that the Clash of Civilization means that conflict is inherent and unavoidable between two different civilizations as then it becomes a conflict of existence. One civilizations ideals, lifestyle, values, cultures etc, will conflict with those of the other civilizations’ thus leading to conflict and war. It will b more so, as globalization, increasing means of travel and communication, and trade and industry factors will lead to a greater interaction between the people from different civilizations. Thus, the Clash of Civilization is not only inevitable but it will also aggravate with as more progress is made. On the other hand, Clash of Fundamentalism is more logical and easy to comprehend. It means that our beliefs, values and cultures that may be contradictory to those of other civilizations, will not cause conflict on large scale. It is only the dogmatic and aggressive stance that people may take, in order to assert their supremacy as in the case of the United States political ambitions, or to assert their identity, as in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, that the clashes may become inevitable. Studies Exploring The Clash of Civilization Theory Several scholars have already undertaken rigorous studies to explore if indeed the numerous violent clashes all around the world have been a result of the Clash of Civilization. There have been studies that have nullified the hypothesis that the Clash between the West and Islam has been the result of a clash of civilization. (Fox, 2001). Instead, several researchers have analyzed international conflict and found that the clashes within the civilizations have been more numerous than clashes between any two different civilizations. (Rosecrance, 1998). A similar study was carried out by researchers who wanted to assess if civilization membership and interstate war were related. (Henderson and Tucker). The relationship was studied for pre-cold war period (1816-1945), during the Cold War (1946-1988) and post Cold War (1989-1992). The results were noteworthy, as it was revealed that prior to Cold War, clashes within the civilizations were more frequent, while during the Cold War, there was no significant relationship between interstate conflict and civilization membership. What was the major finding of the study was that post Cold War again there was no significant relation between the two. (Henderson and Tucker) Others have argued that the clash of civilization is not due to the clash of cultural ideals between the two civilizations, but because of the traits of barbarism that all civilizations inherently posses. In terms of crisis, it is the barbarians on either side that take over. This is the case of Islamic fundamentalism (though Islam as such is benign), and US administration using barbaric means in its conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq (though Western Civilization has nothing to do with these acts). (Achcar, 2006) The above studies and numerous others undertaken on the same lines have found that the theory Clash of Civilization does not hold ground in the face of empirical evidence. Similarly, it is believed that conflict as witnessed in the present day clash between the West and Islam, is not a result of a clash of civilization. Instead, it is the outcome of fundamentalist aspects and issues present in the political policies of both Islam and the Western Civilization. (Gray, 1998). Going further away from the theory of Clash of Civilizations, it is believed by scholar like Chpmpsky that the clashes that can be seem all across the world are due to the fundamentalist stand taken by the Western World, especially the United States. (Chompsky, 2001). It has never been an issue about clashing civilizations as the Western Countries have forged strategic alliances with some of the most rigid Islamic nations of the world for political and economic gains with great success. A clash of civilization, if true, would have rendered the making of such alliances impossible. (Chompsky, 2001). Analyzing International Conflicts An analysis of the recent conflicts as well as political alliances and alignments in the international relations shows that the neither international relations are guided by the concept of civilizational similarity, nor conflicts arise due to non-similarity of cultures. Wherever there is a conflict, a large number of contributory factors can be found. Prominent among these are economic, political and hegemonistic aspirations of the warring parties. These objectives can be interwoven with the fundamentalist issue like identity, space and sense of superiority. Looking at the Western World, especially the United States and its international relations during the past half a century, it can be seen that there has hardly been a clash of civilization. As interpreted by some scholars, the Clash of Civilization would mean that the West, with its democratic ideals and the east, with its dogmatic and repressive rule, should ideally be at a warring ends (Fukuyama, 2006). However, a review of the history shows that the West and the United States have had successful and lucrative alliances with some of the most fundamentalist nations of the world. These very same alliances turned sour only when the regimes in those fundamentalists states did not conform and bow to the fundamentalist and hagemonistic aspirations of the United states. (Chompsky, 2001). For example, the United States had a peaceful relationship with Iraq and Afghan even during the times these regimes there were masaccaring their own people and creating a human rights disaster. Similarly, it has successful alliance with non-demogratic and repressive regimes like the Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Pakistan, even when these states were being condemned by the world as repressive and cruel. (Chompsky, 2001) Similarly, the United States had had a long history of actively supporting and upholding dictatorial regimes and corrupt regime in the Latin American countries. (Black, 1988; Bradford, 1986) There did not appear to be any clash between the Western ideals of democracy and just rule with the repression and non-democratic rule of the people in these nations. Clash and conflict are seen to have arisen as and when the United States’ own ambitions and/or political gains have been perceived by it to have been threatened. It is under a perceived threat to its economic gains or regional political supremacy, that the US has been involved in clashes in various parts of the world. This fundamentalist stance of the US policy in its international relations has fuelled fundamentalist reactions from its opponents. It may be the religious fundamentalism (as seen in the September 11 attacks and the raging aftermath of the Iraq War) that raises its head to combat the United States, or it may be the retaliatory mass movements as seen across Latin America and other parts of Muslim World where people view the United States as a hagemonistic perpetrator. The fact that the clashes in the recent times have increased in the Middle Eastern region again have nothing to do with the Islamic civilization clashing with the Western civilization. In fact, it is the political and economic ambitions of the parties involved that have led to the growth of what is called Islamic fundamentalism. The major clashes that have been seen in the region are the Arab-Israel Conflict, the Iraq War and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons program. In all the above clashes, a civiliztional element is blatantly missing. The Arab-Israeli conflict started due to territorial disputes – the Jews settlement was created out of the Palestinian land and since then there have been repeated clashes between Israel, Egypt, Jordon and Lebanon. The escalation of violence in the area has been unprecedented, with extremists and suicidal attacks from the Palestinian side becoming the norm of the day. (Bard, 1999). However, an analysis of the situation again does not turn up any clash of civilization. The US involvement in the conflict is owing to its internal Jewish political lobby as well as the United States perceived necessity of having a powerful ally like Israel in the region. (Lesch and Tschirgi, 1998). The Iraq War, started to upturn the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein who was also labeled as a hoarder if weapons of mass destruction, was again motivated by politico economic rather than a result of a clash of civilization. As asserted by several studies and scholars, the reason behind the war was control of Iraqi Oil and protection for Israel, and safeguarding the Saudi Arabia from the growing power of Iraq. (Wurmer, 1999) September 11 attacks and the proceeding Afghan War were again attributed by several scholars and especially by the United States administration as a clash of civilization – the Western ideals against the barbaric and rustic people of Afghanistan. The reason behind the September 11 attacks, without undermining the terror and destruction that the American public suffered, was again not a clash of civilization, but a clash of fundamentalism – attributed to US involvement in the Israel- Palestine conflict, with the Taliban and for supporting corrupt Islamic regimes at the cost of the people. (Abrahamian, 2003). Much of the International conflict can therefore be explained in terms of Clash of Fundamentalism, the fundamentalism that is espoused by the United States foreign affairs policy and the religious fundamentalism that has taken over much of the retaliatory action. Another peculiar aspect of the present day clash and conflict is that both sides benefit from espousing the theory of the Clash of Civilization. The United States finds port ardent takers of the theory, both internally among its citizens and externally among his European allies. It is easier for the United States to sell war and gain support for its political ambitions by declaring war on people who are barbaric and hate the Western way of life and culture. Similarly, it is beneficial for the other side to stir up religious fervor against the Western civilization that is corrupt and against the Islamic ideals. As such, even when the genesis of the present day clashes is not a clash of the Western and Islamic Civilization but the fundamentalist stance taken by the people involved, clash of civilization is promoted as a reason as it facilitates the interests of the warring parties. References Huntington, S. P. 1993.The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993. Sen A. 2006. Identity and Violence: The illusion of destiny. W.W. Nortan and Company Inc. : NY. Said, E. 1998. The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations, Lecture at the University of Massachusetts. Available online at http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=24864 Fotopoulos, T. 2004. The Myth of the Clash of Fundamentalism. Fox, J. 2001. ‘Two Civilizations and Ethnic Conflict: Islam and the West.” Journal of Peace Research, Volume 38. No. 4. Rosecrance, R. 1998. “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order” . American Political Science Review. Volume 92. No. 4. Henderson, E. A. and R. Tucker. 2001. “Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and International Conflict”. International Studies Quarterly Volume 45 No: 2 , 317–338. Achcar, G. 2006. The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder. Paradigm Publishers: CO Gray, J. 1998. “Global Utopias and Clashing Civilizations: Misunderstanding the Present” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 149-163 Chompsky, 2001. ‘Militarism, Democracy and People’s Right to Information’ lecture at National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information. available online at http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509%20noam%20chomsky.htmhttp://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509%20noam%20chomsky.htm Fukuyama, F. 2006, “The Clash of Cultures and American Hagemony’, American Political Science Association. Black, G. 1988. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books: New York Bradford, B. E. 1986. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Bard, M (1999). Middle East Conflict. Indianapolis: Alpha Books. Lesch, A. M. and D. 1998. Tschirgi. Origins and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Greenwood Press: West Port, Connecticut. (1998). Wurmser, D. 1999. Tyrannys Ally: Americas Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein. AEI Press Abrahamian, E. 2003. The US Media, Huntington and September 11. Third World Quaterly, Volume 24. No: 3, pp 594-544. Bibliography Bassam, T. 1998. The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Order. University of California Press: Berkely, CA Goldstone, J. A. 2002. “States, Terrorists, and the Clash of Civilizations”. From Understanding September 11, edited by Craig Calhoun, Paul Price, and Ashley Timmer New York: The New Press, for the Social Science Research Council (2002) Dunn, M. The Clash of Civilization and the War on Terror. 49th Parallel, Vol 20. (Winter 2006-2007) Karabell, Z. 1996. Fundamental Misconceptions : Islamic Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, No. 105. (Winter, 1996-1997), pp. 76-90. Qadir, S. 1998. Review: Civilisational Clashes: Surveying the Fault-Lines (Review of The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington) Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 149-152. Huntington, S. P. Try Again: A Reply to Russett, Oneal & Cox Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 5. (Sep., 2000), pp. 609-610. . Read More