A Review of “The Clash of Civilizations”


By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

In 1996 scholar Samuel P. Huntington wrote a famous book titled “The Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington postulated that after the Cold War:

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. In this new world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples belonging to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within civilizations.

I recently had the pleasure of reading through much of Huntington’s book. Huntington posits that the West will be challenged by two civilizations: the “Islamic civilization” and the “Sinic civilization.”

The book was written more than a decade ago (and the Foreign Affairs article which led to the book almost two decades ago). Despite this, the book has withstood extremely well the test of time. Much of Huntington said in 1996 could be duplicated without changing a single word today.

This is especially true with regards to what Huntington writes with regards to the “Islamic civilization”. Huntington wrote his book before the September 11 attacks. His thoughts about the Islamic-Western conflict are thus very prophetic. Many have criticized the “Islamic civilization” in similar ways that Huntington does in his book. However, most of these criticisms were written after 9/11. Huntington wrote that the West would clash with Islam before 9/11. He got it absolutely right.

(One minor critique: the West does work with Islamists. See: Libya, Syria.)

Huntington’s words with regards to the “Sinic civilization” have also withstood the test of time. Indeed, one could make the exact same analysis today as Huntington did more than a decade ago with regards to relations between the West and the “Sinic civilization.” It’s amazing how the East Asian situation today is exactly the same as the East Asian situation circa 1996.

There is one thing which Huntington gets badly wrong, however. And he gets it wrong in two distinct ways. This is Japan.

Firstly, Huntington classifies Japan as a separate civilization from the rest of East Asia. But there is just as much difference between China and South Korea as there is between China and Japan. Why, then, isn’t there a “Korean civilization” according to Huntington’s scheme? Or why not a “Vietnamese civilization” or “Xinjiang civilization”? There really is no good reason for this. The only difference, in fact, between Japan and the other parts of the “Sinic civilization” is that Japan successfully adapted to the West a century before the rest of East Asia the world.

In reality Japan is part of the “Sinic civilization.” See this graphic if you don’t believe me.

Of course, putting Japan and the rest of East Asia in one civilization really screws up Huntington’s analysis.

Secondly, Huntington spends a lot of time describing the economic tensions between Japan and the United States during the early 1990s. He does this because it fits well with his theory of clashing civilizations. Japan and the United States are doomed to clash because they belong to different civilizations.

Unfortunately, this is one part of the book that failed to withstand the test of time. Today relations between Japan and the United States are better than ever. After the collapse of the Japanese bubble, economic conflict (indeed, any conflict at all) between the two “civilizations” has essentially disappeared.

All in all, reading Huntington definitely makes you think. While I’m not particularly a fan of Huntington’s tone, he definitely is an articulate and intelligent writer.



Spreading Freedom (From The U.S.)

Australian newspapers reported on Wednesday that United States is to build a new military base in Geraldton, Western Australia. The facility will join existing major U.S. spy bases in Australia at Pine Gap and North West Cape. The decision was announced formally after three years of secret negotiations by Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, who went on to state that several more of these "ground stations" may be built at other locations across Australia. The purpose of the new base is to `provide a crucial link for a new network of military satellites that will help America's ability to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia.' Great.

There's more...

Al Yamamah: Another Government Capitulation To Big Business

I haven't written about the government's decision to drop a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) corruption investigation into a huge arms contract between BAE and Saudi Arabia yet because I've been too awe-struck for words. Of course, that the government is in bed with the military-industrial complex is no surprise, but to display such flagrant subservience to the arms industry so openly is truly staggering.

There's more...

The Iran Crisis: Rhetoric vs. Reality

Reading about the Iranian nuclear "crisis", one gets the impression of two entirely separate and completely different "Iran crises" being described as if they were one and the same thing.

The first "Iran crisis" exists (only) in the rhetoric of political leaders. You've got President Bush declaring that "Iran's nuclear ambitions are not in the world's interests", describing an Iranian nuclear weapon as "unacceptable" and warning that, in the event of continued Iranian enrichment of uranium, "all options are on the table".

There's more...

First Strike - Nuclear Weapons - Persian New Year

There's been a lot of discussion about the US response to Iran's nuclear weapons development program.  President Ahmadinejad is one crazy dude, and Dick Cheney would love to invite him on a quail-hunting trip.  As I understand it, when folks in the administration discuss using "military options" against Iran, they basically mean nukes.  This is primarily because the majority of the suspected nuclear enrichment facilities are deep underground and can't be destroyed with conventional military weapons, thus the need for a nuclear bomb to ensure these strategic targets have been decimated.

I'm still not sure how I feel about this.  I would like to say that it is a bad idea partially because it is  loosely based on an antiquated "first-strike" policy of the Cold War military strategy, the assumptions of which (threats from communist Soviet Union) are no longer valid.  And  perhaps more importantly, the policy is inconsistent with the Nonproliferation Treaty.  But how else do you ameliorate a situation in which a very angry man who would like to blow up your country, is developing the capability to do so?

There's more...


Advertise Blogads