The Geography of War and Peace - Assignment Example

2) Evaluate Samuel Huntington’s idea of the ‘clash of civilizations,’ and Edward Said’s concept of ‘Orientalism.’ Samuel Huntington in his article onclash of civilizations purports that ‘world politics is entering a new phase’; for him, the source of conflict in the new world is neither primarily ideological nor primarily economic. He believes that new pattern of conflicts of global politics in the new era will be based on the difference in various civilizations among the world nations and that “the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics” (Huntington 159). Huntington argues how the conflict among princes and nations gave way to the conflict of ideologies during and after the world wars. For him, the various civilizations differ each other in terms of their history, language, culture, tradition and religion plays a dominant role in the clash of civilizations. These differences are most likely to cause conflicts among various civilizations and have generated “the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts” the world has ever seen (Huntington 160). Said (2001), on the other hand, repudiates Huntington’s views on the clash of civilizations; he purports that Huntington failed to see the ‘internal dynamics and plurality of every civilization’ and that Huntington’s views on civilization and the west-Islam conflict stem from ‘downright ignorance’. Said is of the opinion that Huntington, in his efforts to highlight the history of wars of religion and imperial conquests and attributing their causes to the clash of civilizations, was neglecting the rich history mankind’s ‘exchange, cross-fertilization and sharing’ (Said 2). Similarly, he feels that Huntington has not dealt with the basic paradigm of West versus the rest and that his views on Islam are prejudiced and is based on unreliable samples. Said is of the opinion that “there are closer ties between apparently warring civilizations” (Said 3) and states that Huntington’s alleged opposition between Islam and the West and his theory of the clash of civilizations is mere gimmick. It is quite unjust to blame the Islam civilization based on terrible instances such as the September 11 attacks and for Said Huntington was coming to ‘labels, generalizations and cultural assertions’ that were quite inadequate (Said 3). Thus, Edward Said is strongly against the orientalism of the Europeans who divided the world into two parts; the east and the west and defined themselves as a superior civilized group. Huntington’s effort to portray the Western civilization as a dominant civilization is nothing but an attempt to attribute artificial characteristics to other civilizations and to glorify the western civilization. a) Explain and discuss at least three strengths of each author’s position (In other words, discuss at least three characteristics of each of these terms.) Huntington argument that globalization and the increased interaction between peoples of different civilization have contributed to “civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations” and has resulted in animosities among them (Huntington 161) form the basis of his ideas on the clash of civilizations. He states that in many civilizations the nation states fail to act as the sources of identity and this role is played by movements in religions such as the Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Besides, there is an obvious conflict between the Western and non-Western civilizations and “de-Westernization and indigenization of elites is occurring in many non-Western countries” (Huntington 161). Huntington is of the opinion that “cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones” (Huntington 161). Differences in culture and religion also create differences over policy issues and it is a fact that the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values and to impose its domination and economic interests over other civilizations are effectively countered by other civilizations. For Huntington, the clash between civilizations occur at the micro and macro levels; at the micro level “adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and each other” whereas at the macro level states from different civilizations compete for dominance and try to propagate their own political and religious values ( Huntington 162). The conflict among the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been the most prominent among the macro level clash between civilizations and Huntington argues that the conflict between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. For him, there persists a clear cut clash between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states in terms of amassing “nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and other sophisticated means for delivering them, and the guidance, intelligence and other electronic capabilities for achieving that goal” (Huntington 167). Non-proliferation treaties among these two civilizations very often do not succeed as there exists a basic mistrust and gap between these two civilizations. Said’s concept of ‘Orientalism’ has its roots oriental approach undertaken by the western writers, media and the political powers to divide the world into East and West in an effort to keep the Western culture and civilization superior. Said believes that closer ties between apparently warring civilizations is possible and strongly oppose the concept that there exists a clash of civilizations which will lead to conflicts between the West and the rest of the world. Said’s view that the habit of attributing labels, generalizations and cultural assertions to various civilizations, religions and groups is a conscious effort to create constructed and stereotyped images on them has wide applications in the modern era. b) After evaluating each author’s positions, discuss which author, in your opinion, makes the strongest arguments (argue in favor of Huntington or Said). Make sure your conclusions are grounded in a thorough discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the two authors, as you see them. It does not matter to me which author you choose to defend; the important thing is that you back up your conclusions with concrete references to the author’s own arguments, that you weigh both the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, and that you make your judgment accordingly. An evaluation of the views of both the authors show that Huntington’s arguments have wide applications in the modern period as one can clearly experience the clash of civilizations today. There still exist tensions and conflicts between various civilizations and very often such conflicts turn out to be violent. Huntington’s observations on the torn countries that are divided over more than one civilization as they do not possess sufficient cultural homogeneity deserve attention. Turkey and Mexico are classical examples for the torn nations as they are torn between the Western and Islamic cultures. For Huntington, civilization rallying or kin-country syndrome (nations and groups supporting other nations belonging to the same civilization in times of conflicts and war) is another major characteristic in the clash between civilizations and one could very well see how civilization rallying occurred in the Iraq-US war. In the same way, just as Huntington purports the dominance of the Western civilization over others in terms of their superior military power, international dominion and economic stability have made it an enviable power for the rest of the world. The author argues that the Western nations such as United States, Britain, France and Germany have developed better close international relations as they are united by the same Western civilizations and this cannot be seen among the non-Western civilizations. As a result, just as Huntington pointed out, the civilization conflict in the future is most likely to be the west versus the rest where the Islam civilization will prove to be another competent rival to the Western civilization. Works Cited Huntington, Samuel P. “The Clash of Civilizations”. Foreign Affairs. 1993 Said, Edward W. “The Clash of Ignorance”. The Nation. 2001. 1. Colin Flint (p. 121, reading from week on “gender, militarism and nationalism) writes: “the practice of geopolitics requires geopolitical agency in many different settings, including the home.” a) Evaluate this statement giving concrete examples of the relationship between gender politics and national politics during the Cold War. Colin Flint’s interest in the concept of geopolitics has taken him into specific geographical and social areas especially the relationship between terrorism and the Arab World. Geopolitics is primarily concerned with the use of power by countries to exert influence or pressure on other regions for political and economic gains and benefits. It can be a one sided exchange or a symbiotic relationship. Flint has come to the conclusion that the new geopolitics of the twenty first century will be through terrorism. His observation is that this form of influence or pressure is essentially a shock and awe tactic. The general trend of this terrorism based geopolitics is more political than economic. The rise of the United States of America as the world’s only superpower had caused an imbalance in political ideology. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the prevalence of capitalist ideology over communism. While this has not resulted directly in the increase of terrorist activities, the unopposed way in which the United States now stands has created discomfort in many other governments. The United States is also perceived as a bullying Big Brother by many nations, by intruding into the policies and governance of nations that it perceives as a threat to its security. Over the years, it can be seen that the Arab world has been growing more and more hostile towards the United States and many of the countries in Europe that follow a capitalistic and materialistic ideology. Flint feels that US policy has led to a feeling of insecurity among other nations with regard to erosion of cultural and social values and traditions. Terrorism is now joined by another phrase namely, counter-terrorism. So terrorism is seen to be unjust and cruel while counter-terrorism is seen as just. The Bush administration had used the words ‘just war’ in order to justify US actions on Iraq and Afghanistan. While this may be correct in order to protect the security of a nation, it was also seen an act of aggression and bullying by many countries. The politics that prompted the attack on Iraq has come in for severe criticism even within the United States. Flint goes on to say that terrorism has been a regular feature in the history of mankind. Even within the United States, the Klu Klux Clan activities against blacks have been seen as just by its members and unjust by others. The rise of Nazism and Fascism are other examples of terrorist activities. But this form of terrorism has now taken on new dimensions according to Flint. The political and social causes that justify terrorism are no longer related to these factors, but have taken a geographical dimension as well (Flint 199). In other words, those people who indulge in terrorism are now interested in capturing geographical territories as well. Lashkar E Toiba, the infamous organization that is indulging in terrorism is based in Pakistan. They had their own individual agendas like liberation of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. But its leaders now state that their current aim is to take over Pakistan as well. This is another example of the link between terrorism and geopolitics. They will then continue their other agendas once this is achieved. Geopolitics can also be gender based. For example, gays were considered a security risk by the Federal Government during the Cold War era. The aftermath of this policy was that the gay movement in the country started in earnest. What could be seen from the above factors is that geopolitics can also be influences by suppression as well as aggression. The reason why this stand was taken by the Federal Government is based primarily on one single incident. A communist spy, Whittaker Chambers was convicted of anti-national activities. It was also discovered that he was gay. A simple connection between treason and gays was made. What is relevant here is that politics and its policies can be based on many factors. What it requires is a geopolitical agency to manage. But in many cases, things have gone out of hand as in the case of the Iraq War. America’s commitment to national security has now resulted in the country being seen as an aggressor pursuing an unjust war. According to Dodds and Atkinson, managing geopolitics is complex. They state that governments and policy makers need to understand the “wider cultural context of geopolitical models” (Dodds & Atkinson, 333). This statement again indicates the complexity that exists in today’s politics. There are many factors like religion, social preferences, individual values and beliefs that come into play here. On the other extreme political greed can also manifest itself as a just cause for geopolitical actions. It was once believed that poverty induced many common men to join terrorist forces. But many of such activists are now educated and even employed in good positions. This shows how complex the whole situation has become. Geopolitics is no longer about managing territories or geographical boundaries. It takes a group of people with vision, knowledge and clarity to manage it. Unless this happens the strife will continue. It will also take collective action and meaningful diplomacy to manage today’s main threat namely terrorism. The new government in the United States is now playing a new geopolitical game. It appears that it has made a difference in terms of world opinion. President Obama is now reaching out to the Arab World. The policy is based more on diplomacy and relationship rather than on aggression in the name of a just war. On the other hand terrorism activities in countries like Iraq and Pakistan is moving towards a civil war status. It could ultimately be self-destructive in the sense that more and more countries will join the geopolitical activity against terrorism. b) Drawing on both the Flint statement, and part A of your answer above, discuss the relevancy of the theories of either Foucault or Gramsci. Make sure to define and discuss one of these terms: hegemony, biopolitics, governmentality. Give specific examples that link the ideas of Foucault or Gramsci to the theme of gender, militarism and nationalism during the Cold War. In the context of the Cold war, Gramsci theory of hegemony deserves one’s attention. Gramsci wanted to destroy the power of hegemony, and create a workers revolution so that he could establish a socialistic community where the working class will rise to power. For Gramsci political struggle “necessarily involves a struggle for hegemony, a classs struggle to become a State and take up the role of State as educator” (Mastroianni). Gramsci condemned both the political and cultural hegemony of the ruling class and believed that communism could be introduced only through revolution. One can see similar thread of thoughts in Flint and Gramsci. Flint purports that after the cold war America became a super power and he feels that US policy has led to a feeling of insecurity among other nations with regard to erosion of cultural and social values and traditions. Just as Gramsci predicted any hegemonies or dominations of any sort will invite revolutions by which the superstructures will pave way for the base structures and by which the existing order will be replaced by a new order. Just as Soviet Union fell, no nation can dictate terms on others through militarism. Works Cited Dodds, Klaus & Atkinson, David. Geopolitical traditions: a century of geopolitical thought Volume 7 of Critical geographies. Routledge, 2000. Flint, Colin Robert. The geography of war and peace: from death camps to diplomats. Illustrated Edition: Oxford University Press US, 2005. Mastroianni, Dominic. Hegemony in Antonio Gramsci, 2002. 24 October 2009. < http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/hegemony.html> Read More