The Clash of Civilizations Critique - Book Report/Review Example

Book review: The clash of civilizations 08 November Introduction Clash of civilization is one of the mostmodern political theories put forward by prominent political scientist Samuel Huntington. According to Huntington, peoples cultural and religious identities are the major source of conflict for all the conflicts happened in this world after the intense cold war between America and Soviet Union. Huntington put forward this theory in 1992 when he was taking a lecture at American Enterprise Institute. Later in 1993, he polished this theory further and published as an article in the name of "The Clash of Civilizations?. Later, in 1996, he published a book titled “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” also. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Christian dominated America is clashing with the Muslims whereas in Palestine, Jews dominated Israel is clashing with Muslims. In India, or in Kashmir, the Hindus are clashing with Muslims. In Africa, people of different cultures are engaged in civil wars within the boundaries of their country itself. In short, clashes between cultures for domination are common thing at present and Huntington’s theory is relevant. Anyone who is studying international studies should care about this particular article because of this relevance it provides to global political issues. Core Argument It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future1. According to Huntington, the major reason for the current conflicts in this world is cultural. Political and economic factors are contributing nothing to it. When we analyse the current major conflicts in this world, we can conclude that Huntington is arguably right. For example, consider the case of war on terror (Iraq war and Afghan war). America attacked Iraq, accusing Iraq for the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, America blames Saddam for the controversial nexus he created with Osama for conducting terrorist activities in America. However, even after the death of Saddam and Osama, the threats of terrorism have not been disappeared. Moreover, America failed to seize not even single weapon of mass destruction from Iraqi soil. These things clearly shows that America attacked Iraq and Afghanistan; not for the publicly declared reasons, but for reasons other than that. Now consider the on-going conflicts between America and Iran. In Middle East, Iran is the only country which is challenging America’s dominance. Libya once tried to do so, but later changed their tactics and became a supporter of America. Even then, the fate suffered by Gaddafi and Saddam clearly indicates that those who challenged the dominance of America once forced to suffer death from the hands of American forces. It should be noted that America is currently targeting their guns more towards Iran. Iran is currently trying to develop nuclear weapons and in America’s opinion, it is a threat for international peace. At the same time, it should be noted that Israel is possessing a huge stock of nuclear arsenal and America do not see any dangers in it. In other words, America is adopting a double standard towards two culturally different countries over the same issue. If Iran’s nuclear weapons are causing threat to international peace, same thing is applicable to Israel also. However, America protects Israel from any external threats even though Israel is committing massacres at Palestine. In short, America’s stands in favour Israel and against Arab world in particular clearly support the thesis of Samuel Huntington. Now consider the conflicts between India and Pakistan. Pakistan is claiming that Kashmir belongs to their territory and it is part of Pakistan. In their opinion, the Muslim dominated state Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan at the time of partition of India and Pakistan as two different countries in 1947. Moreover, recently a Muslim mosque was destroyed in India by the Hindu extremists. Pakistan do believe that the Hindu dominated Indian community is fighting against the interests of the Muslim community. So Pakistan is constantly trying to create problems in India. The recent Mumbai terrorist attacks, Indian parliament attack were organized by Pak sponsored terrorists as per the evidences gathered by India. In short, Huntington’s arguments seem to be correct when we consider the recent conflicts developed in global politics. Strengths The major strength of this article is the way of presentation. The author succeeded in putting forward his arguments logically. At the time of reading this article, nobody will develop any doubt about the arguments of the author. Even though Huntington used some provocative languages in this article, he took extreme care to raise this article to extremely higher standards. In fact he succeeded in incorporating many of the political, economic, historical, and cultural theories under a common theory called Clash of civilization. In fact no comprehensive political theories have been put forward by any of the other political scientists after the cold war era. In fact, nobody has shown enough courage to deal such sensitive issues in global politics. Because of the absence of other theories, Huntington’s theory seems to be extremely important. Irrespective of whether one would accept or reject his theory, one thing is for sure; nobody can deny the intellectual boldness, wisdom and courage displayed by Huntington through this theory. Another major strength of this article is the fact that many of the theoretical aspects discussed in this article can be proved with the help of practical examples relevant to the current world. It should be noted that this theory has succeeded in developing more awareness among the public about the necessities of solving cultural conflicts in this extremely globalized world. In his opinion, the world is becoming a smaller place because of the increasing interactions between civilizations2. He is totally correct when we analyse the current political and economic situation in this world. Weaknesses Huntington is trying to divide the entire world into different segments through this article; Muslim civilization, Christian civilization and swing civilization. He has included India, Japan, Russia etc in the swing civilization whereas he included Israel in the Christian civilization. He has narrowed his argument again by dividing the entire global culture into two; Muslim culture and non-Muslim culture. In other words, he is trying to divide the world into two based on culture or religion which is a dangerous act. The assembling of all the cultures except Muslim culture under one label is highly questionable. “The crescent shaped Islamic bloc from the bulge of Africa to central Asia has bloody blocs”3. The above statement seems to be extremely aggressive and provocative. The author not only tries to blame the beliefs of Islam (It should be noted that crescent is a sacred sign for Muslims), but also tries to label all the Muslim people as the lovers of wars and conflicts. Such generalizations and extremely provocative languages can be seen throughout this article. The author could have avoided such aggressive languages in this article in order to make it more acceptable to the Muslim community also. It should be noted that Muslims will normally reject many of the arguments put forward by Huntington because of many of the one sided analysis in this article. In other words, the author’s argument may penetrate deep into the non-Muslim world whereas it is difficult may fail to do so in the Muslim world. Perspectives Huntington’s arguments are relevant in contemporary politics. He has succeeded in educating the public about the necessities of avoiding cultural conflicts in order to reap the profits of globalization more effectively. Diversification of the culture is necessary according to the views of many of the prominent scholars such as Amartya Sen, Paulo Berman, etc. However, Huntington seems to believe in a single global culture. In my opinion, Huntington did succeed in stimulating a discussion in international political arena about the basic reasons of conflicts happening across different countries and regions. International community is discussing the necessities of avoiding conflicts hotly at present. At the time of writing this paper, television news says that Israel is trying to attack Iran and Russia already issued a strong warning against it. Many political analysts are of the view that a war between Iran and Israel or America is inevitable. War of words already started between Iran and Israel or America. Amidst these growing tensions in the Middle East, Huntington’s arguments seem to be extremely relevant. Bibliography Hutington, Samuel P . 1993. The clash of civilizations?. Foreign affairs. Vol. 72, Number 3, http://www.jstor.org/pss/2004562, pp.22-49. Accessed on 08 November 2011. Read More