“The clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” by Samuel Huntington

Huntingtion main thesis is that with the end of the cold war the US needs to adopt a new paradigm for viewing world politics. Instead of a system defined by the dichotomous cold war (the US and the USSR), there is emerging a multicivilizational world where civilization matters (egs. Western, Islamic, Latin American), not ideology (like capitalism, marxism, or democracy).

The civilzations that Huntington identifies are:  Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Japanese.

These civilizations are distinct from each other differing by language, race, religious beliefs and/or cultural practices. These differences include the structure of the family (and the role of women), the role of the individual (and the role of dissent and democracy), the value of work (and the role of employers/unions). These differing cultures will clash and will be the source of all major conflicts in the future.

The problem is that the US has not accepted this. Instead the US has embraced a belief that Western values are universal and will be eagerly accepted by all, if only governments (Iraq) or culture (treatment of women) can be overcome. The reality is that some civilizations (Islamic, Chinese, Japanese) are enthusiastically rejecting western values and are arguing the need for a resurgance in traditional values to counter the Wests attempt to export their values.

So as the West tries to export its values (liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, private property) through the media (movies, music), diplomacy and economic organizations (IMF, Wolrd Bank), and military intervention (Iraq) – it creates a reaction as other countties rally around their cultural core states and assert a need to reinvigorate indigenous culture. This will lead to conflicts that the West may lose as Chinese economic might and Islamic population overwhelms

This is exaerbated by a shift in the balance of power: SE Asian economies are booming relative to Western (especially European economies) and Islamic countries are experiencing a major surge in population.

·        The Asian civilizations (led primarily by China) are experiencing strong economic growth that they primarily attribute to cultural superiority over the slothful, crime-ridden, decadent West. Instead they offer a value system based on Confucian values of consensus and harmony (over conflict), community (over the individual), and family. Investment among the SE Asian countries is growing, creating a tight-nit economic network among SE Asian countries (many of which have substantial Chinese minorities) primarily led by China. China has substantially increased its military budget with an eye to being able to “project” their military might. Japan, while culturally distinct, may serve as a natural ally to this growing Chinese power.

·        The Islamic countries meanwhile have an exploding population which means large numbers of workers/warriers/immigrants eager to expand the borders of Islam – this is destabilizing for both the Islamic countries and worrisome because of the Islamic cultures tendency to resort to violence (“the bloody borders of Islam”) – Islamic values are particluarly inconsistent with the West because it envisions government and faith to be synonynmous whereas the West has embraced the secularization of government and rights (Belgian cartoon seens as act by Belgian government by Islamic world, while the West saw it simply as free speech)

As the West is declining in relative influence, there are emerging cultural alliances as countries with similar values group together for trade and military support. Some of these camps are led by “core states” that lead the smaller nations in their camp (Russia for the Orthodox, US and Germany for Western, China for Chinese, South Africa for Africa, India for Hindu) while others lack a core state, meaning the culture lacks a national leader (Islam, Latin America)

·        these core states can give support to smaller states in their camp, but also help mediate disputes and cool down tensions (which may be the reason that conflicts involving Islamic groups so often result on serious violence)

·        In the former Yugoslania you saw the Croats (who are Christian) backed by the Europeans, The Serbs (who are Orthodox) backed by Russia, and the Bosnians (who are Islamic) getting backing from Arab counrties (as well as the US). It was these core states that mediated the Dayton accords that stopped most of the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia but the core states also provided much of the weaponry.

What does this mean for new conflicts?

            Cleft states – states with more than one culture can face serious internal violence as the internal cultures vie for dominance (Ukraine, Chechnya, Sudan, Turkey) – These conflicts may be perpetual (though will rise and fall in intensity) as the underlying source of the conflict is never resolved.  Huntington worries this may happen to US with Latin American immigrants and Europe with Islamic immigrants

            Fault-line states – borders between cultures are often a site of violence (Kashmir region between Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan, former Yugoslavia)

So what is the US to do?

1)      Acknowledge that Western culture is distinct and reject multicultural claims that the US is really just a mix of immigrant and indigenous values and is not Western. The threat of multiculturalism is that the resulting mix-mash of values squabbling for recognition will dilute, diffuse, and destroy Western values. Especially dangerous is an emphasis on group rights (for women, racial minorities, gays and lesbians) instead of the traditional Western value of individual rights (free speech, democracy). If the US becomes uncertain and hesitant about its cultural values, how will it compete with other cultures?

2)      Reaffirm our Western culture, acknowledge that Christianity is at the heart of Western culture, and develop close alliances with Europe. Be wary of immigration that might challenge the Western culture.

3)      Be realistic about the difficulty in exporting Western values (especially through force), but continue to advocate for Western human rights (being aware that democracy can unleash anti-American forces)

4)      Fight the proliferation of WMDs to the rest of the world to maintain a military advantage to the West

5)      Pursue the “westernization” of Latin America in general and Mexico in particular (possibly also Russia, and Turkey )

6)      Acknowledge the new geopolitical reality and the role of core states (so Russia needs to be involved if Serbia is, China if North Korea)