The Clash of Civilizations: Reality or Illusion

[Xudeedi]

The Clash of Civilizations: Reality or Illusion

 

The “Clash of Civilization” by Samuel P. Huntington(1993) puts forth an intriguing claim that has attracted a sizable number of people’ reactions and counter-reactions. Huntington, an influential theorist and professor at Harvard, writes with clear and concise style. It seems he is writing to an audience of policymakers from both the rightists and leftists and the general public about the shape of the world in the future. His article first appeared in Foreign Policy in the summer of 1993.

 

 

Huntington’s claim is that leading source of conflict will be cultural. He states, “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.....the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilization…”(paragraph 2). As he puts it, nation states will still play a dominant role in world politics but the chief friction of global conflicts will take place among civilizations. Huntington defines civilization as “cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity…” (paragraph 4). For instance, a Saudi is a Saudi in Yemen and Middle Eastern in either Europe or the United States. He predicts that interactions among civilizations will perpetuate inevitable conflict. This clash of civilizations, as he argues, “will be shaped in large measure by interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possible African civilization.” (paragraph 5).

 

 

Huntington provides several cogent reasons as to why interactions will cause clashes among civilization. One of the reasons is that our differences are fundamental, and they relay different beliefs or understandings to things we hold dear. For instance, we have moral relativism to every aspect of our lives. Second, the international relations among nation states are increasing, which in turn leads to “consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations…”(paragraph 7). He provides evidence as to the recurrent, racial incidence in France, for example. Not only have these interactions been confined to resentment and native paranoia but also political receptivity from the more tolerant segment of the host society. Third, due to technological advancement, trade, and demography, there has been a decline to local identities as people of different nationalities intersperse and mix together. Consequently, these trends, as Huntington argues, “weaken the nation state as a source of identity,” (paragraph 8). World religions have filled the gap and cemented the new relationship. With the rise of a group labeled as “fundamentalists”, this group as he argues will emerge from Islamic civilization. They will disrupt the world order and might wreak havoc on the western fringes. Members are identified not by the country he or she is from but the religion he or she embraces. The new identity transcends national boundaries.

 

 

However, “The Clash of Ignorance” (2001) by Edward Said, a rebuttal to Huntington’s article, comes from different view points. Said dismisses Huntington’s view on global politics as “bold, belligerent, and vague notions.” Conversely, Said claims, “the major contest in most modern culture concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture, or for the unattractive possibility that a great deal of demagogy and downright ignorance is involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization”(paragraph 5). In this claim, Said argues a misconception of the modern culture, be it Islam or Hindu, is widespread, and there are insidious labels involved in grouping a whole group of people or religion as belonging to one civilization. Said reasons that no civilization is unadulterated. The history of different civilizations have coexisted, borrowed from each other, and together created the world order as it is today through “cross-fertilization and sharing”(paragraph 5). The clash of Islam and West, which Huntington argued will be inevitable, was already contained by human history of different civilizations, so it is correct to say and in support of Said’s argument that the “clash of civilization” has provided “fluid ideas full of ambiguity and skepticism…”(paragraph 7).

 

 

On the other hand, the most interesting reason, important enough, is the mass confusion and labels that fly between Islam and the West. Said relates to an experience while teaching at a West Bank university; a Muslim student challenges Said’s ideas as western while wearing suit, a main symbol of Western culture. And when the student was reminded of the roots of his formal dress, he was embarrassed at his attempt to put people into a pigeonhole. Similar to this is the analogy that Said disputes exist as a prevalent stereotype of which Islam is labeled and accused of not being part of modernity: “how they(terrorists) had mastered all the technical details required to inflict their homicidal evil on the World Trade Center…”(paragraph 5). Hence, these outright labels and generalizations are blindly exchanged by both groups. Said reasons and provides enough evidence of how Islam has grown exponentially in the west. The presence of a large number of Muslims in the West has fostered, despite the mistaken and continual paradigm of right versus wrong between Islam and the West, “closer ties between apparently warring civilizations…”(paragraph 7).

 

 

The West’s dominancy over [our] scarce resources and the world order it created prior and after War World II, entail the basic source of conflict, or the internal dynamics of our cultural differences, ethnicity, and religion, are reemerging as new forces or movements whose goal is to form the world into non-Western ways.

 

 

First, although Huntington mentions the phenomenon, the true nature of conflict the world might be facing both now and the future is not cultural but political, or the friction between the maintenance of the status quo and a new voice for a change. In fact, Huntington is a realist whereas Said is an idealist. The former provides a persuasive but a hypothetical point of view of the nascent phenomenon, the “fundamentalist” and its determined threats on the fringes of the West in order to reverse the balance of power in their own countries. They accuse the West of playing active role in supporting countries (in the Middle East) whereby virtuous of equality or democracy is a nonexistent. For example, the Islamist is a political force that comes to light as grassroots movement. Its goal is to create an Islamic state, so it invites the unwavering support of all constituents inside its country and any person who is Muslim regardless of his or her national origin so long as that person fights for them and identifies himself as a member of the organization. In this case, Huntington lends credence to his definition of civilization as the broadest rank of cultural grouping.

 

 

Second, while Said was basically right to pinpoint the hidden target of Huntington’s article in which he discusses the clash between Islam and the West as the main key players of the new phase that is to come and dominate the global politics, he argues that it is the definition or interpretation of the two groups of Islam (moderate versus radical Islam) and cultural plurality that matters as opposed to lumping them with a whole civilization such as Islam. Said goes into detail the internal dynamics of Muslims and their distinct culture, an important view to note. However, the Islamist, which “distorts the religion and debases tradition…”(paragraph 6), as Ahmed stated, is the most important case moderate, majority of Muslims both in the West and in Islamic countries have advocated ever since the September 11 and beyond. For example, I personally experienced and even debated over this phenomenon of Islamist movement in my country, Somalia. It has been the subject of much debate. Many people in my country have exchanged constructive dialogue of how Somalia would be once the Islamist takes full control of the rest of Somalia.

 

 

The Islamist came into light after they defeated the warlords in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, a city where constant rape, looting and pillage were the rites of passage to its residents. The Islamist garnered nationwide support in its earlier success of defeating the warlords, but over the years, they have shown an expansionist attitude and a willingness to lay siege to peaceful regions. Neighboring countries started playing proxy wars. United States were then alarmed of the movement and expansion of the Islamist organization, named as Islamic courts. How these Islamist group that has sprang up in Somalia celebrated victory was its cause to becoming an alternative resolution mechanism for the anarchy and lawless nature of the capital city, Mogadishu. Regional experts and intellectuals admitted the cause. However, the Islamists are now on a campaign to debase our tradition, history, and culture. They banned listening to Somali music, burned the Somali flag, closed down two public media that were critical of their activities, and prohibited women from going to the beach, etc. It seems as though the late Ahmed Eqbal knew what is happening now in Somalia when he stated, “an Islamic order reduced to a penal code, stripped of its humanism, aesthetics, intellectual quests, and spiritual devotion”(paragraph 6). However, majority of Somalis are becoming knowledgeable of the true colors of the Islamists, so the initial support they gained from the folks when they pacified, restored law and order to Mogadishu---dubbed as the most dangerous city in the world, are now on the wane. This experience of mine supports the position of Said that religious distortions and fanaticism occur in every religion and hence in any country. Theirs is contrary to peace and tolerance that our religion teaches. It is not fair to group civilization as the highest level while not paying heed to the critical differences within the civilization itself, differences that trigger conflicts of bloodshed.

 

 

Third, the dual role of the west as Huntington pleads his case among several touches off today’s reality of global politics. Even though I disagree with his whole thesis, this one reason is compellingly real and can be detached on its own. The second role of the West which confronts non-Western ways, for instance, the “re-Islamization, is a trend that is taking a big shape and which relies on the reasons I stated above. On the other hand, the means and ways to confront the Islamists either in brute force or negotiation are already at the center of discussion. Islamic countries, for instance, are extending their support to the United States and its war on terror but the impatience and political miscalculation of U.S foreign policy are complicating the current issue of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. While Islamism is a radical ideology that seeks to take over all forms of authority in the region it emerges through the galvanization of the illiterate persons in the street, they do not constitute a large number of the population of any countries. In fact, they are minority and it is crucial to distinguish them from the majority of Muslims who have been subject to misplaced aggression and stereotypes created by this radical group. Huntington, for instance, fears that the Western democracy introduced in Islamic countries have strengthened the growth of this group. He states, “in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces”(paragraph 15). In this particular case, he might rely on the past event that led to the election victory of the Islamist political organization in Algeria as I recall in which the autocratic government of Algeria denied the results of the election and started hunting down leaders of the Islamist party.

 

 

Fourth, the dominancy of the West over the control of the oil resources in the Middle East and the presence of American troops has left many feeling resentful of the West. In the past, the significance of the interactions between Islam and West during colonialism and imperial conquests, and how European colony fought bigger battles in their colonies and how the natives protested against the unfair taxation and treatment of the colony and won their independence, still remains as the legacy of modern conflict in the Middle East. Still, the presence of American troops, both a distinction of power and political dominance for the U.S, and both humiliation and occupation for the Arab people in general, could be said to have intensified the conflict, particularly, of radical Islam and the West. When and how a compromise will be reached is very uncertain as long as the West supports Israel and protects its economic interest in the region. “This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline,” (paragraph 15) writes Huntington.

 

In Conclusion, what is important is to state the obvious that the conflict is mainly political and economic. Said’s position seems strong even though Huntington has made one realistic case based on the reality of today’s politics. It is unfair to single out civilizations as broad since it would only foster misconceptions and generalizations. Civilizations have been violently interdependent and will be so.

 

 

References

 

 

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993) “The Clash of Civilizations.”

 

Said, Edward.(2001) “The Clash of Ignorance.”

 

Hirad, Abdalla.(2006) “SOMALIA: A NATION IN LIMBO: BETWEEN ISLAM AND TRIBALISM.” Wardheernews.com

[Bakar]

The author says:

 

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.....the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilization…”(paragraph 2). As he puts it, nation states will still play a dominant role in world politics but the chief friction of global conflicts will take place among civilizations."

 

 

What is the connection between the above hypothesis made by the author and the events that are unfolding in Somalia? Is he insinuating that they are two civilizations in Somalia with two contrasting ideologies which pose a threat to one another? In other words, since these civilizations rigidly adhere to their respective ideologies, war is the only viable solution to settle the “ideological difference”. I failed to understand how these premises suit the current circumstances in Somalia. According to my understanding of Huntington's argument, the clash will occure between the major politcal actors,.i.e. West, Islam and so on.

 

Second, while Said was basically right to pinpoint the hidden target of Huntington’s article in which he discusses the clash between Islam and the West as the main key players of the new phase that is to come and dominate the global politics, he argues that it is the definition or interpretation of the two groups of Islam (moderate versus radical Islam) and cultural plurality that matters as opposed to lumping them with a whole civilization such as Islam. Said goes into detail the internal dynamics of Muslims and their distinct culture, an important view to note.

 

What is the historical evidence or pattern that made him preddict the clash between “moderate and radical Islam”? And also how does the political reality of somalia fits in this hypothesis?

 

It is a good read. I have to read it agian in order to understand how the articles relates to ICU and other events...

[Bakar]

Double post

[Xudeedi]

I think the [author] above underlines that the influence of the Islamist whose root cause is the Middle East has reached Somali soil. And he does not wholly agree with Huntington's thesis that is why i think he is questioning the reality or illusion of this influential concept as the "Clash of Civilizations" argues is the reality. You probably misunderstood his points. Besides it is a cummulative analysis of current issues from opposite point of views, based on the theoritical foundations

of the "Clash of Civilizations" by Huntington.

 

Due to the glaring evidence, it is probably true that International Al Qaeda and affiliates have joined the Islamic courts based in Mogadisho and parts of the southern Somalia. They probably share staff and financial services. The goal is the same--to create an Islamic state. The general identity they use is also clear cut--It transcends national boundaries. Their obsession to regulating moral behavior, reducing our beautiful religion into a penal system is also obvious. The West's dual role in playing a leading role in international stage of the influence of the Islamist by brute means is also current.

[Viking]

Maakhir,

Huntington was right when he was talking about the role "core states" have in safeguarding the safety of the members of 'its civilisation'. He claimed that the Islamic civilisation lacked a core state and this is all evident from the way Muslim countries are treated all over the world. But there is a point that he seems to overlook, the fact that a country can deter any hostilty from other civilisations by acquiring nuclear weapons. In Huntington's eyes, USA is the keeper of countries that belong to the western civilisation, but I don't think countries belonging to this civilisation are under threat if they posses nuclear weapons. Germany (or any other country) would hardly invade France or Britain because the consequences can be grave.

 

I agree with Egward Said and he makes evident the mindset of the western imperialists in his works 'Orientalism' and 'Culture and Imperialism'. As long as a nation somewhere in the world is not anglo-saxon (this means that they will not be viewed as a subject or an inferior people who need to be 'led') or/and does not posses nuclear weapons, then there is no guarantee that the "West" will be friendly towards them all the time. Clashes will occur as long as the nation concerned does not comply with the superpowers whims and desires; it doesn't matter whether they belong to the Hindu, Confucian, Orthodox or Japanese civilisation. An updated nuclear arsenal means that this clash is very unlikely to become a military conflict.

 

I think the author is totally misplaced in attempting to tie Huntington's [ridiculous] theories to what is going on in Somalia. Somalia might be a bit similar to Israel, the forces of secularism in conflict with the orthodox.

[Xudeedi]

Originally posted by Viking:

I think the author is totally misplaced in attempting to tie Huntington's [ridiculous] theories to what is going on in Somalia. Somalia might be a bit similar to Israel, the forces of secularism in conflict with the orthodox.

Dear Viking Have you really read Huntington's article(1993) and its later expansion 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order' (1996)?

 

 

The core concept of this whole article of Huntington boils down to the West vs the Islam Fundamentalists--which confronts non-Western ways. All other civilizations are infused to sugarcoat his theories. Edward Said highlighted that by stating,"major civilizations, of which the conflict between two of them, Islam and the West, gets the lion's share of his attention."

 

 

The movement of the crazed radicals is universal and it can seep into any country. Somalia is no exception. I think that is the message of the author above. It confronts non-Western ways in terms of legal, culture, forms of human government built on the values and enlightenment of Western civilization. The Islam, esp from the Middle East, is infuriarated by the control of the West over their resources and adminstrations, so it seeks to reverse it through the galvanization of the illeterate in the street. Islamic courts, for instance, is a small entity that could be part of this whole international movement in the Muslim World

 

I am sure you are familiar with Evangelists like Pat Roberton and Billy Graham. Pat is the founder of CBN, Regent University(Prof. Said Samatr teaches here), and he is also the host of the “700 Club”. This man is very influential and sometimes claims that he uses his power to avert catastrophic events. Jerry Fallwell and Benny Hehn are two other evangelists to note. These men advocate the return of Christ shall occur with no single Muslims left in the Middle East. And the only possible way of purging Muslims out of the holy land is by the sword. Billy Graham once advised former president Nixon to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam and Cambodia.

 

Muslims particularly the Wahabist, on the other hand, advocate the same thing, puritanical position in regards to religious practice, although religiously as was prescribed it is the grace of Allah for the return of Muslim power. The Wahabi “confronts non-Western ways” in the Middle East. They advocate, as Bin Laden said over and over, that infidels should be removed from the holy lands.

 

Their strict interpretation of our religion creates tension in all over the world. They seek to destroy all tombs, including revered ones. For instance, they completely leveled Al-Baqiya where most of the Saxaaba(companions of the prophets) were buried. They seek to destroy the tomb of Umar ibn al-Khattāb and the three other Caliphates built next to the mosque of the Prophet (PbUH). The Saudi government is preventing them from doing this. They even want to destroy the tomb of our Prophet (PBUH).

 

If we allow these radicals attain their goal, traces of history will vanish. Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan attests to this fact when they used dynamites to demolish the Budhist statues. What will happen to Pyramids in Egypt if the Islamist there also takes over?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

you guys must not have heard about globalization. there are no different civilizations. There different cultures but civilizations anymore.

[Xudeedi]

You right, but that will only happen through the peaceful coexistance of the existing nation states. Regional trade a.k.a bilateral trade now dominates as opposed to the world trade or globalization. The WTO hardly tries to regulate protectionism and restrictions of trading regions versus other regions. Globalization will not be effective or possible in the long run.

 

Here is the article for readers like Viking and others."Full Article"

[Socod_badne]

Illusion for sure as history is my witness.

[NASSIR]

I agree with Socod Badane

[Viking]

Originally posted by Maakhir:

[Dear

Viking

Have you really read Huntington's article(1993) and its later expansion 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order' (1996)?

Yes bro, I read it almost ten years ago so forgive me if I seem to have misunderstood the article

 

 

Originally posted by Maakhir:

The movement of the crazed radicals is universal and it can seep into any country. Somalia is no exception. I think that is the message of the author above. It confronts non-Western ways in terms of legal, culture, forms of governance built on the values and enlightenment of Western civilization. The Islam, esp from the Middle East, is infuriarated by the control of the West over their resources and adminstrations, so it seeks to reverse it through the galvanization of the illeterate in the street. Islamic courts, for instance, is a small entity that could be part of this whole international movement in the

Muslim World

"

[/b]

Although the West vs Islamic Civilisation seems to be centre-stage we should not be blinded into the Huntonian view because American hegemony doesn't stop in Baghdad or Mogadishu. American imperialism isn't confined to Muslim lands. Ever heard of the Monroe doctrine? Remember the Contras of Nicaragua? Remember how Pinochet was prefered to Salvatore Allende, how Mobutu was prefered to Patrice Lumumba, how Pahlavi Shah preferred to Mossadeq?

 

The USA has a had a lot of influence and has caused a lot of problems in Latin America more than any other region of the world, and this region can hardly be referred to as belonging to the Islamic civilisation. They have lost their influence in Latin America today because their efforts and funds are directed towards nations rich in natural resources (read oil and natural gas) which is the only way to secure the future of a energy guzzling superpower.

 

Before the Berlin Wall came down, the threat came from Communism. With the Soviet Union dissolved, the threat that has emerged (which challenges American hegemony) is Islam, call it it Islamism, Wahamism, Ithna Cashariya (or Iran) or any other name. Imperialists don't like anyone who stands in their way. Just like the British Empire, the Americans start by calling their opponents deluded, crazy, dangerous and not really part to the masses (the subject races) since they are "happy" with status quo. The tune is the same and the enemy is anyone opposing Pax Americana, not necessarily a Muslim, it just happens that Muslims live around their Zionist pals and inhabit lands rich in natural resources.

 

 

Originally posted by Maakhir:

I am sure you are familiar with Evangelists like Pat Roberton and Billy Graham. Pat is the founder of CBN, Regent University(Prof. Said Samatr teaches here), and he is also the host of the “700 Club”. This man is very influential and sometimes claims that he uses his power to avert catastrophic events. Jerry Fallwell and Benny Hehn are two other evangelists to note. These men advocate the return of Christ shall occur with no single Muslims left in the Middle East. And the only possible way of purging Muslims out of the holy land is by the sword. Billy Graham once advised former president Nixon to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam and Cambodia.

I am somewhat familair with the veiws of the Right wing Evangelists who support Israel in order to facilitate the return of the Messiah. It doesn't come as a surprise and their collaborations are mentionned several times in the Qur'an (...don't take them as awliya [friend, protector], they are protectors of each other...). These Christian right wing extremists do seem to have similar views to Muslim extremists but it seems that the only extremism taht gets attention is the one perpetrated by Muslims.

 

Originally posted by Maakhir:

Muslims particularly the Wahabist, on the other hand, advocate the same thing, puritanical position in regards to religious practice, although religiously as was prescribed it is the grace of Allah for the return of Muslim power. The Wahabi “confronts non-Western ways” in the Middle East. They advocate, as Bin Laden said over and over, that infidels should be removed from the holy lands...If we allow these radicals attain their goal, traces of history will vanish. Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan attests to this fact when they used dynamites to demolish the Budhist statues. What will happen to Pyramids in Egypt if the Islamist there also takes over?

A Muslim's way is the middle path. A Muslims is neither extreme in his views nor is he negligent. Calling Muslims 'kafirs', calling for the annihilation of those who disbelieve or belong to the 'People of the Book' etc is not the Islamic way. The extreme views emanating from the Hijaz are indeed worrying, but this can not be adressed unlessed the Ummah wakes up from the deep sleep we are in and rid ourselves of the various malaise afflicting us, both intellectual and spiritual.

 

The problem is that leaders in predominantly Muslim countries are turning to the west to supress any type of ressurgence of Islamic movements. These despots are kept in power by the west to keep the masses in check and when they 'expire' (like Saddam) they are replaced by new ones. Americans are currently considering reinstating the Baath party because they realised that Iraq is a very difficult country to hold together.

 

To be honest, I don't think that the west is concerned much about 'Wahabism'. They are much wearier of the Shi'a and think that the Shi'a "belt" in the Middle East (parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon etc.) could charge the demographics with funding and support from a [perhaps in the future, nuclear armed] Iran.

 

 

Globalisation is mostly a joke! The poor are being globalised and exploited and the WTO, WB and IMF are the tools used by the west to make this possible. Countries in Africa are poorer now than they were in the 70's and 80's.

[Xudeedi]

A Muslim's way is the middle path. A Muslims is neither extreme in his views nor is he negligent. Calling Muslims 'kafirs', calling for the annihilation of those who disbelieve or belong to the 'People of the Book' etc is not the Islamic way. The extreme views emanating from the Hijaz are indeed worrying, but this can not be adressed unlessed the Ummah wakes up from the deep sleep we are in and rid ourselves of the various malaise afflicting us, both intellectual and spiritual.

It seems you have agreed with me. Pax Americana has been shown its limits in Iraq and I don't think it will stretch beyond its limitation. Economic wise, they will dominate since United States is the leading and biggest international debt and it has established strong enough in the Middle East, the Pacific , and Europe. You might think that EU is an exact copy of America's political and economic system. It is!

[Xudeedi]

A new article related to this thread

-------------------------------

 

Somalia's new conflict, rooted in old ties

By H.D.S. Greenway | January 2, 2007

 

THE OLD YEAR closed with the murderous musketry of a new war. Ethiopia holds to the legend that it was founded by King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba's first son, Menelik, 3,000 years ago. Christianity came in the fourth century with Ethiopia's first bishop, Frumentius of Tyre. Seventeen centuries later, Ethiopia spent Christmas bombing the airfields of Mogadishu in neighboring Somalia.

 

 

It appears that Ethiopia, long ruled by Christians, does not want to see Somalia ruled by radical Islamists, and is therefore hard at work putting Somalia's warlords back in power. America's role in this conflict has not been adequately explained.

 

 

Long antagonists, Ethiopia and Somalia were divided during the Cold War by the ideological fault lines of the American-Soviet rivalry. "During the Cold War a country could be nonaligned, as many were, or it could, as some did, change its alignment from one side to another," Samuel Huntington wrote 10 years ago in his eerily prophetic book "The Clash of Civilizations." Ethiopia and Somalia were classic examples of the latter, abruptly changing alliances. Ethiopia switched from being America's ally to the Soviet bloc, inviting in Russian advisers and Cuban soldiers to help fight Somali rebels.

 

 

Today, the fault lines are more cultural and religious, as Huntington predicted. "In the new world order . . . cultural identity is the central factor shaping a country's associations and antagonisms. While a country could avoid Cold War alignment, it cannot lack an identity. The question, 'Which side are you on?' has been replaced by the much more fundamental one 'Who are you?' " Thus Ethiopia sees its war against its old antagonist as a fight against militant Islam, and therefore is helping the old lords of Somalia, who are thought to be more moderate in their religion if not their murderous behavior.

 

 

Although these same Somali warlords humiliated the United States during the Clinton administration, the Bush administration is backing them against the Islamists. But, as Jeffrey Gettleman wrote in The New York Times, since the United States became bogged in Iraq, there is the "Africa-wide sense" "that the United States is not the kingmaker it once was."

 

 

When he wrote his book, Huntington had the Balkan wars of the '90s as a vivid example. The Cold War threat of the Soviet Union taking back its errant Communist province kept Yugoslavia together under the strong, if undemocratic hand, of Josip Broz Tito. But no sooner had Tito died, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist, than Yugoslavia fell to pieces largely along religious and cultural lines -- Roman Catholics vs. Eastern Orthodox vs. Muslims.

 

 

A decade earlier had been the Lebanese civil war, which pitted Shi'ite Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims vs. Christians, with a dash of Druze thrown into the mix, all vying to protect or increase their power.

 

 

And today, the Israel-Palestinian struggle, which used to be a quarrel over land, is increasingly transmogrifying into a religious struggle with all the intractability that entails with the ascendancy of Hamas.

 

 

Ten years ago Huntington wrote: "The West's universalist pretensions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China . . . The most dangerous clashes of the future are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness." So far rivalry with China has been kept in check.

 

 

The arrogant, universalist pretensions he feared, however, have not, and the desire to "make the world like America" has led us into Iraq. "The central problem in the relations between the West and the rest is, consequently, the discordance between the West's -- particularly America's -- efforts to promote a universal Western culture and its declining ability to do so . . . What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest," Huntington wrote.

 

 

When Huntington first published his thesis in Foreign Affairs, some scholars said modernity would trump religious and ethnic antagonisms. This has not yet come to pass, however, and Iraq is breaking up Balkan-style: Sunnis vs. Shi'ites vs. Kurds.

 

 

The late president Gerald Ford put America's pretensions into perspective when he said: "I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security." He might have added, especially if the hellfire and damnation is going to make us less secure.

 

 

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

Maakhir, you should try to read "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama This is a more accurate describtion of what might happen. Even though reason conflict in the middle east, africa and terrorism realted conflict put doubt in this theory, it is more consistant then huntingtons.