INTRODUCTION

Harvard political scientist Huntington has developed a grand overview of war in recent history with projections for its future which pivot on conflict between civilizations instead of over ideologies or economics:

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be--the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

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 be the battle lines of the future. (22)

DEFINITION OF CIVILIZATION

Huntington defines a civilization as "the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined by both common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people" (24). He also realizes that the compositions and boundaries of civilizations may change as people redefine their identities, and that civilizations may blend and overlap as well as include subcivilizations, thus the lines between civilizations are seldom sharp. Nevertheless, civilizations are meaningful entities (24). The differences between civilizations are not only real, they are basic, and religion is the most important difference (25

MAJOR CIVILIZATIONS

He includes as the major civilizations Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African. He asserts that the "cultural fault lines" separating these civilizations will be the locus of the most important conflicts in the future (25). Huntington asserts that "Islam has bloody borders" (35). The major fault line is between Western and Islamic civilizations over the last 1,300 years, including Europe (Balkans) and the Middle East (30-31), but others include the historic clash between Hindu and Muslim in the India (33). He notes that Saddam Hussein and his supporters tried to define the Gulf War as a clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations (35). He also notes that in 1993 up to 4,000 Muslims from over two dozen Islamic countries were reported to be fighting in Bosnia (37). If there is a next world war, it will be between civilizations (39). However, another fracture zone is the Confucian [Chinese]-Islamic civilizations against the West, as currently being played out with India and Pakistan (45-48).

MICRO- AND MACRO-LEVELS

Huntington asserts that:

The clash of civilizations thus occurs at two levels. At the micro-level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and each other. At the macro-level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power, struggle over the control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their particular political and religious values (29).

REASONS FOR CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

Huntington identifies reasons why conflicts between civilizations will be the most important wars in the future:

(1) The differences between civilizations are basic, more fundamental than other groupings, the product of centuries, and will not soon disappear.

(2) Because the world is becoming smaller, people from different civilizations are interacting more, and this will generate more conflict.

(3) While modernization and social change is diminishing other identities, there is a religious revival in response.

(4) While part of modernization involves Westernization, there is also a reaction against the West which includes the de-Westernization and indigenization of local elites [i.e., social, economic, and political leaders].

(5) Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and thus less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. "Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people"(27).

(6) Economic regionalization is increasing and will succeed only when it is rooted in common civilization. [These are discussed on pages 25-29].

TORN COUNTRIES

Huntington also defines "torn countries" as those whose leaders wish to make their countries members of the West, but the history and culture of their country is not Western, such as Mexico, Turkey, and Russia (42). For such a torn country to redefine its civilization and align with the West, three parties must be favorable--- its leadership, its populace, and the dominant groups in the recipient civilizations. He notes that all three are favorable in the case of Mexico, the first two for Turkey, and none of the three appear to hold for Russia (44).

HYPOTHESES

Huntington concludes his essay by listing several hypotheses:

This article does not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other. This paper does set forth the hypotheses that:

(1) differences between civilizations are real and important, civilization-consciousness is increasing;

(2) conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict at the dominant global form of conflict;

(3) international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects;

(4) successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations;

(5) conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization;

(6) violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars;

(7) the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest";

(8) the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this;

(9) a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states (48).
[Sentences separated and numbered for clarity].

WESTERN POLICY

Huntington identifies several policy implications for the governments of the West:

(1) promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, especially between North America and Europe, but also incorporating East Europe and Latin America;

(2) promote and maintain cooperative relations with Japan and Russia;

(3) prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars;

(4) limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states;

(5) moderate the reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia;

(6) exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states;

(7) support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests;

(8) strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions (49). [Statements separated and numbered for clarity, but given otherwise almost word for word].

Thus, Huntington interprets history as a sequence of different foci of conflict between princes, then nations, next ideologies, and in the future civilizations (23). In the future the main focus of conflicts will be the contact, fault, or fracture zones between Western and non-Western civilizations, and in particular, Christianity and Islam.

CONCLUSIONS

Finally, Huntington concludes that:

(1) Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West.

(2) This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations.

(3) It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests.

(4) It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations.

(5) For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others" (49). [Sentences separated and numbered for clarity].

For criticisms and rebuttals see "Responses to Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" in Foreign Affairs 1993 (Sept/Oct) 72(4):2-27.

Link : http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/sponsel/Courses/345.html/Notes/ClashCivilizations.html