Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Clash of Civilizations. By Samuel P. Huntington ^ | 1994? | Samuel P. Huntington

Posted on 04/11/2002 5:51:39 PM PDT by dennisw


Written about 1994 is my guess. An excerpt from:



The Clash of Civilizations?
by Samuel P. Huntington

SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests."

Almost without exception, Western countries are reducing their military power; under Yeltsin's leadership so also is Russia. China, North Korea and several Middle Eastern states, however, are significantly expanding their military capabilities. They are doing this by the import of arms from Western and non-Western sources and by the development of indigenous arms industries. One result is the emergence of what Charles Krauthammer has called "Weapon States," and the Weapon States are not Western states. Another result is the redefinition of arms control, which is a Western concept and a Western goal. During the Cold War the primary purpose of arms control was to establish a stable military balance between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. In the post-Cold War world the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that could threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies.



West and Islam

Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the eleventh to the thirteenth century the Crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their swayover the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at Ottoman power declined Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.

After World War II, the West, in turn, began to retreat; the colonial empiresdisappeared; first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifested themselves; the West became heavily dependent on the Persian Gulf countries for its energy; the oil-rich Muslim countries became money-rich and, when they wished to, weapons-rich. Several wars occurred between Arabs and Israel (created by the West). France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages. This warfare between Arabs and the West culminated in 1990, when the United States sent a massive army to the Persian Gulf to defend some Arab countries against aggression by another. In its aftermath NATO planning is increasingly directed to potential threats and instability along its "southern tier."

This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabs feeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. It also left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West's militarypresence in the Persian Gulf, the West's overwhelming military dominance, and their apparent inability to shape their own destiny. Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab politicalsystems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of these openings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces. This may be a passing phenomenon, but it surely complicates relations between Islamic countries and the West.

Those relations are also complicated by demography. The spectacular population growth in Arab countries, particularly in North Africa, has led to increased migration to Western Europe. The movement within Western Europe toward minimizing internal boundaries has sharpened political sensitivities withrespect to this development. In Italy, France and Germany, racism is increasingly open, and political reactions and violence against Arab and Turkishmigrants have become more intense and more widespread since 1990.

On both sides the interaction between Islam and the West is seen as a clash of civilizations. The West's "next confrontation," observes M. J. Akbar, an Indian Muslim author, "is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It isin the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Meghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin." Bernard Lewis comes to a regular conclusion:

"We are facing a meed and a movement far transcending the level of issues andpolicies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations -- the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and theworldwide expansion of both. n2

n2 Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 266,September 1990, p. 60; Time, June 15k 1992, pp. 24-28.

Historically, the other great antagonistic interaction of Arab Islamic civilization has been with the pagan, animist, and now increasingly Christian black peoples to the south. In the past, this antagonism was epitomized in the image of Arab slave dealers and black slaves. It has been reflected in the on-going civil war in the Sudan between Arabs and blacks, the fighting in Chad between Libyan-supported insurgents and the government, the tensions between Orthodox Christians and Muslims in the Horn of Africa, and the political conflicts, recurring riots and communal violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity are likely to enhance the probability of violence along this fault line. Symptomatic of the intensification of this conflict was the Pope John Paul II's speech in Khartoum in February 1993 attacking the actions of the Sudan's Islamist government against the Christian minority there.

On the northern border of Islam, conflict has increasingly erupted between Orthodox and Muslim peoples, including the carnage of Bosnia and Sarajevo, the simmering violence between Serb and Albanian, the tenuous relation between Bulgarians and their Turkish minority, the violence between Ossetians and Ingush, the unremitting slaughter of each other by Armenians and Azeris, the tense relations between Russians and Muslims in Central Asia, and the deploymentof Russian troops to protect Russian interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia.Religion reinforces the revival of ethnic identities and restimulates Russian fears about the security of their southern borders. This concern is well captured by Archie Roosevelt:

Much of Russian history concerns the struggle between Slavs and the Turkish peoples on their borders, which dates back to the foundation of the Russian state more than a thousand years ago. In the Slavs' millennium-long confrontation with their eastern neighbors lies the key to an understanding not only of Russian history, but Russian character. To under Russian realities today one has to have a concept of the great Turkic ethnic group that has preoccupied Russians through the centuries. n3

n3 Archie Roosevelt, For Lust of Knowing, Boston: Little, Brown, 1988, pp. 332-333.

The conflict of civilizations is deeply rooted elsewhere in Asia. The historic clash between Muslim and Hindu in the subcontinent manifests itself nownot only is the rivalry between Pakistan and India but also in intensifying religious strife within India between increasingly militant Hindu groups and India's substantial Muslim minority. The destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in December 1992 brought to the fore the issue of whether India will remain a secular democratic state or become a Hindu one. In East Asia, China has outstanding territorial disputes with most of its neighbors. It has pursued a ruthless policy toward the Buddhist people of Tibet, and it is pursuing an increasingly ruthless policy toward its Turkic-Muslim minority. With the Cold War over, the underlying differences between China and the United States have reasserted themselves in areas such as human rights, trade and weapons proliferation. These differences are unlikely to moderate. A "new cold war," Deng Xaioping reportedly asserted in 1991, is under way between China and America.

The same phrase has been applied to the increasingly difficult relations between Japan and the United States. Here cultural difference exacerbates economic conflict. People on each side allege racism on the other, but at leaston the American side the antipathies are not racial but cultural. The basic values, attitudes, behavioral patterns of the two societies could hardly be moredifferent. The economic issues between the United States and Europe are no lessserious than those between the United States and Japan, but they do not have thesame political salience and emotional intensity because the differences between American culture and European culture are so much less than those between American civilization and Japanese civilization.

The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam hasbloody borders.

CIVILIZATION RALLYING: THE KIN-COUNTRY SYNDROME GROUPS OR STATES belonging to one civilization that become involved in war with people from a different civilization naturally try to rally support from other members of their own civilization. As the post-Cold War world evolves, civilization commonality, what H. D. S. Greenway has termed the "kin-country" syndrome, is replacing political ideology and traditional balance of power considerations as the principal basis for cooperation and coalitions. It can beseen gradually emerging in the post-Cold War conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia. None of these was a full-scale war between civilizations, but each involved some elements of civilization rallying, which seemed to become more important as the conflict continued and which may provide a foretaste of the future.

First, in the Gulf War one Arab state invaded another and then fought a coalition of Arab, Western and other states. While only a few Muslim governments overtly supported Saddam Hussein, many Arab elites privately cheeredhim on, and he was highly popular among large sections of the Arab publics. Islamic fundamentalist movements universally supported Iraq rather than the Western-backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Forswearing Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein explicitly invoked an Islamic appeal. He and his supporters attempted to define the was as a war between civilizations. "It is not the world against Iraq," as Safar Al-Hawali, dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, put it in a widely circulated tape. "It is theWest against Islam." Ignoring the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, the chief Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a holy war against the West: "The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies will be counted as a jahad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.""This is a war," King Hussein of Jordan argued, "against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone."

The rallying of substantial sections of Arab elites and publics behind SaddamHussein called those Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and temper their public statements. Arab governments opposed or distanced themselves from subsequent Western efforts to apply pressure on Iraq, including enforcement of a no-fly zone in the summer of 1992 and the bombing of Iraq in January 1993. The Western-Soviet-Turkish-Arab anti-Iraq coalition of 1990 had by 1993 become a coalition of almost only the West and Kuwait against Iraq.

Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West's failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.

Second, the kin-country syndrome also appeared in conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Armenian military successes in 1992 and 1993 stimulated Turkey tobecome increasingly supportive of its religious, ethnic and linguistic brethren in Azerbaijan. "We have a Turkish nation feeling the same sentiments as the Azerbaijanis," said one Turkish official in 1992. "We are under pressure. Our newspapers are full of the photos of atrocities and are asking us if we are still serious about pursuing our neutral policy. Maybe we should show Armenia that there's a big Turkey in the region." President Turgut Ozal agreed, remarking that Turkey should at least "scare the Armenians a little bit." Turkey, Ozal threatened again in 1993, would "show its fangs." Turkey Air Force jets flew reconnaissance flights along the Armenian border; Turkey suspended food shipments and air flights to Armenia; and Turkey and Iran announced they would not accept dismemberment of Azerbaijan. In the last years of its existence, the Soviet government supported Azerbaijan because its government was dominated by former communists. With the end of the Soviet Union, however, political considerations gave way to religious ones. Russian troops fought on the Side of the Armenians, and Azerbaijan accused the "Russian government of turning 180 degrees" toward support for Christian Armenia.

Third, with respect to the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, Western publicsmanifested sympathy and support for the Bosnian Muslims and the horrors they suffered at the hands of the Serbs. Relatively little concern was expressed, however, over Croatian attacks on Muslims and participation in the dismembermentof Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the early stages of the Yugoslav breakup, Germany, inan unusual display of diplomatic initiative and muscle, induced the other 11 members of the European Community to follow its lead in recognizing Slovenia andCroatia. As a result of the pope's determination to provide strong backing to the two Catholic countries, the Vatican extended recognition even before the Community did. The United States followed the European lead. Thus the leading actors in Western civilization rallied behind its coreligionists. Subsequently Croatia was reported to be receiving substantial quantities of arms from Central European and other Western countries. Boris Yeltsin's government, on the other hand, attempted to pursue a middle course that would be sympathetic tothe Orthodox Serbs but not alienate Russia from the West. Russian conservative and nationalist groups, however, including many legislators, attacked the government for not being more forthcoming in its support for the Serbs. By early 1993 several hundred Russians apparently were serving with the Serbian forces, and reports circulated of Russian arms being supplied to Serbia.

Islamic governments and groups, on the other hand, castigated the West for not coming to the defense of the Bosnians. Iranian leaders urged Muslims from all countries to provide help to Bosnia; in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, Iran supplied weapons and men for the Bosnians; Iranian-supported Lebanese groups sent guerrillas to train and organize the Bosnian forces. In 1993 up to 4,000 Muslims from over two dozen Islamic countries were reported to be fightingin Bosnia. The governments of Saudia Arabia and other countries felt under increasing pressure from fundamentalist groups in their own societies to providemore vigorous support for the Bosnians. By the end of 1992, Saudi Arabia had reportedly supplied substantial funding for weapons and supplies for the Bosnians, which significantly increased their military capabilities vis-a-vis the Serbs.

In the 1930s the Spanish Civil War provoked intervention from countries that politically were fascist, communist and democratic. In the 1990s the Yugoslav conflict is provoking intervention from countries that are Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian. The parallel has not gone unnoticed. "The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina has become the emotional equivalent of the fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War," one Saudi editor observed. "Those who died there are regarded as martyrs who tried to save their fellow Muslims."

Conflicts and violence will also occur between states and groups within the same civilization. Such conflicts, however, are likely to be less intense and less likely to expand than conflicts between civilizations. Common membership in a civilization reduces the probability of violence in situations where it might otherwise occur. In 1991 and 1992 many people were alarmed by the possibility of violent conflict between Russia and Ukraine over territory, particularly Crimea, the Black Sea fleet, nuclear weapons and economic issues. If civilization is what counts, however, the likelihood of violence between Ukrainians and Russians should be low. They are two Slavic, primarily Orthodox peoples who have had close relationships with each other for centuries. As of early 1993, despite all the reasons for conflict, the leaders of the two countries were effectively negotiating and defusing the issues between the two countries. While there has been serious fighting between Muslims and Christianselsewhere in the former Soviet Union and much tension and some fighting between Western and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic states, there has been virtually no violence between Russians and Ukrainians.

Civilization rallying to date has been limited, but it has been growing, and it clearly has the potential to spread much further. As the conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia continued, the positions of nations and the cleavages between them increasingly were along civilizational lines. Populist politicians, religious leaders and the media have found it a potential means of arousing mass support and of pressuring hesitant governments.In the coming years, the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major warswill be those, as in Bosnia and the Caucasus, along the fault lines between civilizations. The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: civilizations; clash; clashofcivilizatio; geopolitics; historylist; huntington; islam; napalminthemorning; philosophytime; religion; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

1 posted on 04/11/2002 5:51:39 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine, ipaq2000, Lent, veronica, Sabramerican, beowolf, Nachum, BenF, angelo, boston_libert
PINGING!   ) ) ) )  

If you want on or off me Israel/MidEast/Islamic Jihad ping list please let me know.  Via Freepmail is best way.............

2 posted on 04/11/2002 5:52:41 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Excellent book -- I'm in the middle of it right now after Tancredo recommended it.

One of my favorite quotes is at the beginning from Michael Dibdin's "Dead Lagoon":

3 posted on 04/11/2002 5:59:36 PM PDT by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; backhoe
backhoe posted earlier, similar
4 posted on 04/11/2002 6:01:44 PM PDT by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
Excellent book -- I'm in the middle of it right now after Tancredo recommended it.

Tom Tancredo talked about Islam? I heard him on radio once and he had pleasant voice. Tancerdo is Italian name...maybe Sicilian

5 posted on 04/11/2002 6:04:18 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

It is a great read. Wonder if Dubya has a clue.

Kinda makes it clear who the West should be and not be in bed with.

Granted they got the oil, but at what cost do we kowtow to their values?

6 posted on 04/11/2002 6:08:06 PM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I found the following quite revealing but at the same time, nothing new. We have been and will continue to be a limbic driven F**KED up species. The only answer to this blood and filth is G-d.

A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.

7 posted on 04/11/2002 6:10:13 PM PDT by HockeyPop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I have read the book, I may come back and read this to see if there is anything new or different. My problem with Profesor Huntington is that he sees no superiority in Western society over the current incarnation of Muslim or Confucian society. He sees all societies as equal with western society having reached its peak and in decline while both China and Islam are in their ascendency. This is partially true but the superiority of western ideals can allow us to survive and win the Clash of Civilizations.
8 posted on 04/11/2002 6:20:09 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
Superiority of ideas bow to sheer numbers, is what Huntington tells us. Bottom line
9 posted on 04/11/2002 6:43:19 PM PDT by don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: dennisw
1994 this was written? "The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations"It looks like I have some serious reading in different areas, to catch up on.
11 posted on 04/11/2002 7:34:32 PM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I am not impressed at all with this piece by Huntington, it is not an accurate portrayal of either the history of the cultural dynamics of the various cultures. True, the Muslims almost to the country move in "kinship" against any perceived NON-Muslim threats, but they also on occassion turn on each other. The West however, is has gone to the aid of Muslim countries quite often, even when in retrospect, it should have been aiding the other side of the conflict who were in some cases fighting against the same Islamic extremism that we have experienced in the US.
12 posted on 04/11/2002 7:35:31 PM PDT by Enlightiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: dennisw
China, North Korea and several Middle Eastern states, however, are significantly expanding their military capabilities. They are doing this by the import of arms from Western and non-Western sources and by the development of indigenous arms industries. One result is the emergence of what Charles Krauthammer has called "Weapon States," and the Weapon States are not Western states.

You can have the weapons but if you don't have the underlying society to properly use these weapons it really doesn't do any good. As Victor Hanson Davis points out in his latest book, using Japan as an example. You could also use the 4 Arab-Israeli wars, in each of them the arabs had the best weapons they could buy and still lost to the Israelis.

14 posted on 04/11/2002 9:29:10 PM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

the white world


15 posted on 04/11/2002 9:33:57 PM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: dennisw
1. Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years.
2. Islam has bloody borders.

Sad that more people don’t realize these facts. I myself didn’t understand the truth till many months after the 911 attacks.

17 posted on 04/12/2002 5:43:11 AM PDT by kapn kuek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kapn kuek
2. Islam has bloody borders.

This line is so true. Islam just cannot live with neighbors. Pakistan was created as a Muslim homeland and is a good example.

18 posted on 04/12/2002 5:51:27 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Thank you, dennisw; I think I've read this before and now it's good to have it on hand.
19 posted on 04/12/2002 6:23:44 AM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightiator
I think there might be a political game going on when US or Russia appear to side with Arab states, but ultimately there's no real alliance. No US-Arab axis, or whatever, is conceivable.

Europe, America, and Russia (and Israel, come to think of it) are very far from the Arab world. Very far. Journalists and 3rd-rate novelists never understand that. To them the East is still full of mystery and despite what you may have read they are all kids looking at National Geographic and saying, "Wow, cool." I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

20 posted on 04/12/2002 6:33:04 AM PDT by anatolfz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson