The clash of civilizations is an interesting article that attempts to change the conventional way of interpreting and discussing issues in International Relations. The author, Samuel Huntington, is of the opinion that the traditional approach to international relations no longer holds water and has been proved wrong and inadequate by the test of time.
Samuel Huntington has divided the article in nine main parts beginning from the introduction to what he considers as implications of this clash of civilizations to the west and maybe, specifically the United States of America (Huntington 02).
Huntington divides the world civilization in several ways and includes religion, culture and traditions, ideology and system of government as parameters of his classification. A single parameter could include several countries that have the same interest, ideology, religion and culture. These countries can rally against perceived and real enemies and can mobilize themselves to counter a perceived enemy. In absence of powerful military and economic capability, such countries can rally their citizens at rebelling against the perceived enemies. Huntington goes a head to clarify that some countries which are very large like Russia and China have several of these civilizations within their nation-state. Such countries are more likely to experience internal conflicts which could lead to pressure from smaller groups to disintegrate. The west on the other hand is more likely to support governments of western sympathizers across the world by helping them establish institutions similar to those of America. The West is also likely to check acquisition of modern weapons of rebels while holding a good relationship with Non Western countries like Japan, as a way of balancing power.
In particular, Samuel Huntington gives the following nine steps as analysis of world civilization as a source of conflict.
Firstly, he says that hostilities will emerge within countries on the basis of civilization and not ideological or economic. Unlike in the past when princes conflicted on the basis of ideology and economic power, modern conflicts will be on the basis of the politics of civilization which will make many governments to adopt western institutions, systems and institutions. He defines a civilization as a cultural identity. It can also be the largest assembly of a people who derive identity from the grouping (Huntington 6).
At the second level, Huntington, observes that a civilization grouping could include a large grouping of people like in china or a small grouping the Anglophone Caribbean. The boundaries of civilization are not sharp but they can blend as well as overlap like between Europe and North America or those of Arabs between turkey and subdivisions of Malaysia.
At the third level, he is trying to explain when and how a clash in civilization will occur. He observes that a clash will take place because civilization will be very important in identifying people of different groups. The rivaling civilizations include Japanese, Confucian, Islamic, Slavic orthodox, western, Latin America or maybe African. Conflicts will arise when the cultural fault lines which separate these civilizations become intolerable. The reason for the intolerance will originate from a difference in perspective towards God because religious movements are being led by young educated leaders from the elite class. Intolerance could also result from increased awareness and interactions among people of different experiences, experiences and civilizations that are bold enough to challenge influence of the West. He also offers a difficult in mutability of cultural qualities in comparison to economic and political qualities as a possible source of hostility among different civilizations. He further observes that the increasing regional integration in the world especially in Europe, north America and Asia which will make regional blocks to view themselves as rivalries of the other block. The clash will then take place at a micro or macro levels.
Fourth level involve the replacement of political and economic fault lines with religious, ideological or cultural fault lines. He gives an example of Saddam Hussein, who made enemies with the West but also admirers and sympathizers when he attacked Israel and the desire among powerful Islamic economies desire to democratize. Presence of racism in France, Germany and Italy is also an example of a fault line. He explains that cultural differences between the United States and Japan and not political or economic difference could exacerbate the relationship of these two countries. Also mentioned are Arabs versus Christian conflicts in Sudan and Southern Sudan, Chad, Algeria and the horn of Africa as examples of fault lines in Africa.
At a fifth level, states are mobilizing support for a common ideology. For example, the Soviet Union supported Christians in Armenia while turkey supported the Azerbaijanis Muslims in the 1992 conflict. This mobilization on a religious fault line is what could lead to a conflict according to Huntington (Huntington 12).
At a sixth level, the Western Block composed of the United States, France Britain and Germany who dominate the UN Security Council are using the instruments of power in the UN to support their interests in the world creating an environment where the west is seen as the main challenger to balance of power by other nation-states.
At level seven, we have torn countries. Here, there exist large countries like Yugoslavia and Soviet Union who are likely to lose their members because of differences in civilizations which exist within them. Disintegrating groups will chose to Westernize or Rassify and the direction taken will base on elite support, willingness by the public to acquire the new identity and willingness of the dominant group to accept the new convert.
Huntington puts Confucian – Islamic connection at level eight. He explains that non Muslim countries will show their desire to join the western civilization wile breaking away from Islam, Buddhism or Confucian. Western rebels will try to develop their own military, economic and political strength. They will try to acquire nuclear weapons and challenge Western domination in international affairs. The current example is India which has the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, china and Japan who already have nuclear weapons.
The final stage is the implications of a clash of civilization on the West. He explains that a desire to respond to clashing civilization will arise and the west will want to check the challenge posed by non west civilizations. The reaction will be short term and long term. On short term, the West will try to promote greater cooperation and unity within itself. This is a way of guaranteeing the strength of the block against perceived threats to its civilization. On long term, the west will continue to welcome non western civilizations who are willing to be part of the West. In newly converted civilizations, the West will try to support them in creating institutions and structures which up hold western values and traditions. They will monitor their civilizations closely to ensure that they are not polluted by those of opponents.
In my opinion, Samuel Huntington’s article represents a well thought of analysis of current way of evolution of International Relations. The article takes a different perspective from the traditional perspective to events where the subject of international relations was only interpreted by analyzing the role of the perceived main players, nation-state. The traditional perspective failed to emphasize the role of internal interests and dissatisfaction within the nation state. For example the traditional perspective failed to put into considerations the influence of an extremely aware and empowered elite in matters of governance and international relations. The consequence of these was a biased interpretation which could not stand the test of time. The recent Arab uprising in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria is a clear demonstration that the middle class is continually getting dissatisfied with the status quo and is capable of bringing the desired change not only through the ballot but also through the power of people through an uprising (Huntinton 28).
I agree with him that presence of civilization in the nation state is the overriding influence of international relations as people seek to identify with members of a common religion, tradition and ideology. This is going to weaken many states across the world, the latest example being the separation of Sudan into Sudan (largely Islamic) and southern Sudan (predominantly Christian). Even after integration, southern Sudan has shown interest in wanting to join the East African community which is made up of countries like Kenya which is predominantly Christian.
Work Cited
Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations, Bint Jbeil, (3): 1-29.1993, Online.
