The Clash of Civilizations Article Review

¶ … fall of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s spurred debate among policymakers and intellectuals about the shape of future of world politics, and the role that the U.S. would play in it. One of the greatest early voices in this debate was Samuel Huntington, who through his article, 'The Clash of Civilizations', took difference in civilization as the greatest source of conflict in the international political system in the post Cold-War period. According to Huntington, conflicts between civilizations seeking to gain and maintain influence in a new world order are the leading source of interstate instability in the post-Cold War era. Events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York, as well as the bombings in London, Madrid, and Bali have been interpreted by many scholars as evidence for this particular paradigm. However, other scholars have come out strongly in critique of Huntington's viewpoint. One such scholar is Mian Muhammad Ashraf, lecturer in the Political Science Department at the Zakariya University in Pakistan. This text compares the views of these two scholars within the context of America's ongoing War on Terrorism. It begins with a brief description of the views posed by both scholars.

Huntington's Civilization Thesis

As already mentioned, Huntington based his view on world conflict on the clash of civilizations. In his view, the dominant source of interstate conflict in the post-Cold War period is not the clash of ideologies (as was the case during the war), but the clash between people and nations of different civilizations (Huntington, 1993). A civilization, according to Huntington, is the "highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have" (Huntington, 1993, p. 25). People belonging to the same civilization are joined together by religion, tradition, culture, language, and history - facets that are more fundamental and less easily compromised than economic and political ideologies (Huntington, 1993).

Huntington puts forth a number of reasons for why civilizations are such an important identity in the period in question, and why people of different civilizations will clash. First, differences in ideologies between groups/people in different civilizations are on a fundamental level, touching on sensitive questions such as marriage and the relationship between humans and God. Secondly, due to economic liberalization, interactions between people of different civilizations have increased, weakening the nation as a source of identity, and reviving religion as an alternative identity source. Thirdly, there is an us-versus-them mentality spurred by the anti-westernization movement, where the west, being at the peak of its power, clashes with the non-west that opposes any form of association with it. Non-western civilizations begin to feel that the west is trying to impose its culture on them; as a result, they cooperate to compete with the west in order to maintain the uniqueness of their civilizations.

Ashraf's Thesis

Ashraf supports Huntington's view that there is a clash of civilizations, particularly between groups in the west and non-western domains. In his view, however, this is not the dominant cause of conflict between states. According to Ashraf (2012), groups fight to protect their belief, blood, family, and faith; however, these are only secondary to economic interests. In other words, economic interests are the dominant cause of interstate conflict in the post-Cold War period (Ashraf, 2012). Ashraf posits that the economy is the primary factor shaping international relations in the current period -- states' economies are considered the dominant factor in global politics (Ashraf, 2012). As such, states do their best to improve their economies so as to have greater influence in the global political system (Ashraf, 2012). Ashraf (2012) argues that in the present world, countries are categorized based on their levels of economic development -- developed countries and developing countries. In order to improve their economic statuses, developing countries are constantly cooperating with certain developed nations (Ashraf, 2012). Regional groupings such as the OAU, COMESA, and ASEAN are formed in an attempt to improve individual member countries' economic positions (Ashraf, 2012). There is no way, therefore, that grouping countries in terms of their beliefs, civilization, and culture will be more important than economic positioning (Ashraf, 2012). According to Ashraf (2012), the main reason countries will fight each other is to protect their individual economic interests.

The Two Viewpoints and the Ongoing War on Terrorism

A lot has been said about America's war on terrorism, and whether or not it is a clash of civilizations as suggested by Huntington. Based on the theses put forth by both Huntington and Ashraf, I would argue that the war on terrorism is a clash of both civilizations and economic interests. That it is a clash of civilizations between the west and Islam is evident in the speeches of some key stakeholders such as former president George Bush, under whom the war was initiated. In a speech to Congress on 19th September, 2001, Bush suggests that the war is a civilizations fight, organized by civilized people who have come together to fight against rogue and barbaric nations that perpetrate heinous acts against innocent civilians. As Dunn (2006) points out, the very phrase 'War on Terror' was "engineered to heighten fear while simultaneously tapping the righteous indignation of citizens in 'civilized nations' against barbaric murderers" (p. 2). The war, therefore, is a clash between Islam and the west, in which one civilization views the other as barbaric and rogue.