Foreign affairs: overview and contemporary issues

¶ … Clash of Civilizations?

Politics, ideology, and economics have been sources of conflict throughout modern humanity. All have played out in the rise and fall of every empire to date. Be it the Roman, Ottoman, British, or American Empire; they have all gained influence by exerting these aspects of existence. Huntington (1993: 22) asserts future conflicts will not be of previous natures; rather conflict will be of cultural origins. To use his term, conflict will be among cultural fault lines. In other words, clashes of civilizations will dominate global politics, (Huntington 1993: 22)

This is a bold assertion on Huntington's behalf.

Conflicts have every thing to do with ideology, economy, and politics. Culture has every thing to do with ways of life, geography, and as Huntington states, most importantly religion. Here he wants to separate religion from ideology; this is short sighted, and contrary to the following argument. The battle of ideology is a power play to control culture of thought and action. In other words, ideology drives cultural movements. Ideology can be seen in both political and religious terms. And will be examined through the history of Iran, and current Iraq.

Huntington addresses the Cold War and its implications to further his point of cultural influences on global politics. Through the Cold War we will examine the Iranian Revolution as an example of ideological conflict. How that movement exemplifies all aspects of conflict: religious, economic, and political.

More recently, religious extremism is arguably the leading source of conflict. Islamic fundamentalism is seeking to control and manipulate a regional culture in the Middle East. This point directly contrasts Huntington's assertion of culture being the culprit of conflict. Through the lens of extremist movements it is apparent that conflict is a battle for cultures, not of them.

Quickly apparent to the United States shortly following WWII was the expansionist desires of the Soviet Union. At the close of WWII the Soviet Union refused to leave Iran, (Holds 2011: 1). Britain and America pulled forces out, as there remained no reason to protect Iran form Germany. Through diplomatic pressure the Soviet Union relented. The soviets physically removed themselves, however, the overt move on Iran's energy became the birth of the Cold War.

Huntington's description of the Cold War is one of competing ideologies. This seems to miss the mark. If America were implementing Democracy wherever it stemmed Communism, then yes, it would be an ideological showdown. However, It was America's intention to stave communism by purely economic prowess. This is seen in the implementation of the Marshal plan (Marshal 1947). Basically, provide economic assistance wherever communism threatened.

Ultimately successful in defeating communism the Marshal Plan often left corruption in its wake. This corruption is seen in the avaricious tyrant promoted by the United States in Iran. The shah's blatant corruption, due to America's disinterest in responsible implementation of democratic process, achieved conditions ripe for Khomeini's historic revolution. A revolution built upon ideology. Defronzo's, (1996: 258) "Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements," build's upon this point. The upper class in Iran in 1963 constituted .01% of the population. Obviously massive influx of wealth via oil and Western business fell in few hands while much of the population suffered.

Western money, not supported by political ideology, led to corruption and an avenue for extremism. C.T. Evans describes the backlash, (Evans 2000: 1) despite growing prosperity, opposition to the shah was widespread, fanned mainly by conservative Shiite Muslims, who wanted the nation governed by Islamic law; directed, from France, by Khomeini. Here is a flashpoint of Islamic fundamentalism successfully combating economic clout of the West. This is an example of an economic strategy, stripped of political ideals, as defenseless to religious ideology.

Religious ideology to Khomeini became a political system in itself. Khomeini exerted extreme Shiite fundamentalism as a bulwark to moral degradation the West perpetrated against the Iranian people. A return to Islam became the strategy. Andrew Bostom affirms this sentiment (2011: 1); Khomeini's revolution was, in reality, a mere return to oppressive Shiite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502.

Had the Cold War been a true clash of ideologies rather than a simple thwarting of communism, Iran may have faired differently. Hindsight shows the Marshal plan counterintuitive to the West's long-term benefit. Iran, to this day, has been untenable concerning diplomatic relations to the West. Thus Huntington's assertion of the Cold War as a conflict of ideologies does not hold true. Simply throwing money at communism does not an ideology make.

Today we see the same strategy employed by Islamic fundamentalists, a direct result of Cold War implications. Extremists of today, seen in the Taliban and Al-Qaida, seek to corner the market on Islamic rule of law. Afghanistan, another country negatively affected by the Cold War, became a foundation for a rising movement to impose extreme Islamic rule. Ahmad Rashid supports this sentiment, (1999: 1) & #8230;20 years of war and the collapse of stable government, (in Afghanistan) has brought in a new generation of violent fundamentalists, nurtured and inspired by the Taliban's unique Islamist model… radicals fighting with the Taliban seek to carry out Islamic fundamentalist movements throughout the world.

The west is now fighting extremist movements with ideology. Making the biggest conflict of the last 40 years about ideology, and not about cultural clashes as Huntington predicted. The extremism coming from Afghanistan caused major conflict in that area as well as in Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, America decided for the first time in history it would implement Democracy. Tony Blair suggests the war to be one of ideas rather than force, (2007: 1). We chose values, concerning the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. We said that we did not want another Taliban or a different Saddam Hussein….you can't defeat a fanatical ideology just by imprisoning or killing its leaders; you have to defeat its ideas.

This battle of Ideology runs contrary to Huntington's proposal. Iraq, today, is looking far more like a nation ready to embrace democracy than ready to denounce it for radical Islam; thus more aptly equipped to preserve a moderate culture. By all accounts radical Islam is the minority trying to impose its will to the majority. The Wall Street Journal describes the situation in 2009 as thus. Disputes among the three largest Iraqi communities -- Kurd, Shiite and Sunni -- can be bitterly fought. But now the setting is usually in the halls of parliament… and these fights don't pose a danger to a unified Iraq. Democratic ideology is gaining momentum, making it more difficult for extremism to dominate the Islamic culture (Wall Street Journal).

Political unrest throughout the Middle East today is another instance of ideology forming culture. In each instance the rank and file are rising up against people of their own culture in order to attain political autonomy. Whether or not this recent confidence to defy corruption has anything to do with democratic success enjoyed in Iraq will be answered in due time. What is known today is the masses throughout the Middle East are now calling for democracy. Uprisings are about bettering conditions of life, bettering social standards and in total, seeking access to a just social contract.

The conflict of the West and the Middle East is one of ideology. If it were a simple conflict of civilizations the West would simply overrun the Middle East with massive military might. Rather, global politics require the resolution of conflict through political ideals rather than cultural conquest. The battle is for cultural existence rather than between cultures. Democracy is thus far stemming the tide of extremism in Iraq by preserving the culture sought by moderate Iraqis. . Whether or not the struggle of democracy can stand up to the hostilities of extremism remains a question.