The key advantage of Huntington’s famous model is that it describes the world as it is—not as we wish it to be.
What do the controversies around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the eviction of American missionaries from Morocco earlier this year, the minaret ban in Switzerland last year, and the recent burka ban in France have in common? All four are framed in the Western media as issues of religious tolerance. But that is not their essence. Fundamentally, they are all symptoms of what the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington called the “Clash of Civilizations,” particularly the clash between Islam and the West.
Huntington’s argument is worth summarizing briefly for those who now only remember his striking title. The essential building block of the post-Cold War world, he wrote, are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.
The balance of power among these civilizations, he argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.
The West’s universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations.
Huntington’s model, especially after the fall of Communism, was not popular. The fashionable idea was put forward in Francis Fukuyama’s 1989 essay “The End of History,” in which he wrote that all states would converge on a single institutional standard of liberal capitalist democracy and never go to war with each other. The equivalent neoconservative rosy scenario was a “unipolar” world of unrivalled American hegemony. Either way, we were headed for One World.
President Obama, in his own way, is a One Worlder. In his 2009 Cairo speech, he called for a new era of understanding between America and the Muslim world. It would be a world based on “mutual respect, and . . . upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles.”
The president’s hope was that moderate Muslims would eagerly accept this invitation to be friends. The extremist minority—nonstate actors like al Qaeda—could then be picked off with drones.
Of course, this hasn’t gone according to plan. And a perfect illustration of the futility of this approach, and the superiority of the Huntingtonian model, is the recent behavior of Turkey.
According to the One World view, Turkey is an island of Muslim moderation in a sea of extremism. Successive American presidents have urged the EU to accept Turkey as a member on this assumption. But the illusion of Turkey as the West’s moderate friend in the Muslim world has been shattered.
A year ago Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan congratulated Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election after he blatantly stole the presidency. Then Turkey joined forces with Brazil to try to dilute the American-led effort to tighten U.N. sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Most recently, Turkey sponsored the “aid flotilla” designed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and to hand Hamas a public relations victory.
True, there remain secularists in Istanbul who revere the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of the Republic of Turkey. But they have no hold over the key government ministries, and their grip over the army is slipping. Today the talk in Istanbul is quite openly about an “Ottoman alternative,” which harks back to the days when the Sultan ruled over an empire that stretched from North Africa to the Caucasus.
If Turkey can no longer be relied on to move towards the West, who in the Muslim world can be? All the Arab countries except Iraq—a precarious democracy created by the United States—are ruled by despots of various stripes. And all the opposition groups that have any meaningful support among the local populations are run by Islamist outfits like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
In Indonesia and Malaysia, Islamist movements are demanding the expansion of Shariah law. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak’s time is running out. Should the U.S. support the installation of his son? If so, the rest of the Muslim world will soon be accusing the Obama administration of double standards—if elections for Iraq, why not for Egypt? Analysts have observed that in free and fair elections, a Muslim Brotherhood victory cannot be ruled out.
Algeria? Somalia? Sudan? It is hard to think of a single predominantly Muslim country that is behaving according to the One World script.
The greatest advantage of Huntington’s civilizational model of international relations is that it reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be. It allows us to distinguish friends from enemies. And it helps us to identify the internal conflicts within civilizations, particularly the historic rivalries between Arabs, Turks and Persians for leadership of the Islamic world.
But divide and rule cannot be our only policy. We need to recognize the extent to which the advance of radical Islam is the result of an active propaganda campaign. According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.
Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington’s most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.
Ms. Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is the author of “Nomad: From Islam to America—A Personal Journey through the Clash of Civilizations,” which has just been published by Free Press.
Yamit, regarding your request that I cite examples to back up my statements earlier in this discussion thread, I believe you know those examples as well as I.
I am not going to play along with your little games of asking for my examples, when I am confident you know the answers. That is a pointless make work exercise.
As in past when you have pulled that stunt, I have asked you to admit that you honestly don’t know the answer to the questions you put to me and tell me honestly that your questions of me are sincere.
You of course refuse to say so, because you know it would be a lie. Instead you mendaciously accuse me of ducking or obfuscating your questions.
No, Yamit I am not into make work projects that only serve to make you smugly satisfied that you got me to play your silly little games.
I put to you again Yamit, if you admit to me that you honestly do not know the examples you have asked of me and sincerely ask that I provide same, I will respond to you with specifics.
Your ever admitting to me that you honestly are ignorant of what you ask and honestly telling me you are sincere in your questions of me, however won’t happen. You know it and I know it.
Go find some child’s sandbox to play your little games. Conning children to play your games is not something to be proud of. Perhaps Yamit, you are short on pride. That might account for these games you play and move you badmouth anyone you can’t con.
Satisfy my curiosity Yamit. What do you refer to when you note HWSNBN and just what reaction does HWSNBN seek to elicit from you?
HWSNBN, is attempting to elicit a reaction from me.
What’s wrong with that definition of history?
Do you have a better definition?
Still ducking my questions and obfuscating. Nothing you say is obvious unless it is to yourself. Refusing to ans. direct questions is cowardly.
Kendraa, your asking me to explain appeasement is puzzling to say the least.
It is a word very much discussed on Israpundit by me and others in relation to the sensibilities, sensitivities and innumerable demands of many Muslims, including some Muslim nations and Muslim groups in the West. The West seems far too often to be overly sensitive in this regard and thus accommodates those Muslim demands and expectations far more then they should, if at all.
In those many lead articles and discussion threads, if you have followed Israpundit for some time, there are numerous examples of how the West appeases the Muslim world.
You state:
You are making very wrong assumptions as to what I think.
America has not effectively prosecuted the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. By that I do not mean, nor have I ever called for America and the West to kill millions of Iraqis and Afghanis. Why do you suggest that?
As to Iraq, America had an entrance strategy, but no exit strategy. America under Bush continued to make up that exit stragegy on the fly, framing the objective to be one of democratizing Iraq and providing Iraq with a stable and strong form of democratic government that would unite the country and put it on a sound economic footing.
If you recall, when it came time to draft a new Iraqi constitution, the constitution passed, while giving some expression to democratic norms, justice and laws, made such norms, justice and laws subject to Islam/Shariah. As you well know there is much in Islam/Shariah that is antithetical to Western culture, norms values and justice.
It increasingly appears that whatever patina of strength America may have created for the Al Malaki government, once America pulls out, the Shia and Sunni factions will likely be at it again. You can safely also bet that Iran will be quick to extend its influence in Iraq.
As for Afghanistan, the Kharzai government is corrupt beyond redemption. The country is tribal and the Taliban continue to exert much influence. America has not come close to wiping out the Taliban. With Obama announcing American troops will leave in 2011, the Taliban just have to bide their time and the tribes of Afghans know that once the Americans leave, they will have to contend with and likely under pain of death have to submit to Taliban rule.
America’s effort to democratize Afghanistan, if it has a chance will not be accomplished in a matter of a few years, but rather it likely will take a generation or two.
As for the economy, America is not destroying the Iraqi economy. Regarding the Afghani economy, it was and remains largely based on production and supply of heroin.
Do you really think that America is in Iraq and Afghanistan to destroy their economies? That makes no sense at all. Political stability depends in part on economic stability.
I don’t mind you disagreeing with my views Kendraa.
I urge you to raise your specific counter points with me. Hopefully you will be unlike Yamit who, cannot help but protect his fragile ego and thus he will invariably declare himself the winner of our debates so he won’t have to admit to himself that I have thoroughly trounced him.
In these Israpundit debates Kendraa, it is my view, quite contrary to Yamit’s, that there are no losers.
If one of us bests the other in a debate on an issue, we both win.
The reason is that in such case, while the winner, wins the debate by proving the superiority of their view, the loser doesn’t really lose at all because they have learned something they did not before know or they have gained a better insight into an issue.
Yamit- Instead of asking for my help to see the obvious that obviously you simply cannot grasp on your own, you refuse to make that obviously simple request that I said I would respond to and instead cast more aspersions.
Your continued self aggrandizing nonsense convinces me that you prefer to remain incurably ignorant rather than accept the simple and obvious measure I suggested you take to elicit my response. Go figure it out yourself.
Narvey: You have a tendency to use the words appease very loosely. Can you cite specific, concrete examples where the west has appeased Islam? I frankly have no idea what you are talking about?. Has America not prosecuted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan vigoursely enough for your taste? What would you like 2-3 mil more casualties. 7-10 years is not enough time to destroy the economies of both the enemy states and America?
I have read many examples of appeasement being referred to in the context of relations with the Saudis. Do you expect that the Saudis should be treated poorly when America needs their oil so very badly?
On a personal note, as a lawyer have you not had experience where you were compelled to deal amicably with a disreputable client or associate to promote your professional practice? Probably more times than you can count. That is appeasement- whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
Often I hear complaints that the Brits should have not appeased (there’s that word again) the fascist and Nazi forces prior to the second world war. What is never taken into account is that the allies were practically disarmed and were really powerless to stop Hitler’s advances. They had little choice but to attempt to arrange a settlement rather than resort to a war that they could not wage effectively.
(source-Rethinking World History-M.G.S. Hodgeson- pgs 110-135)
Currently we have exhausted our forces and resources fighting unwinnable and poorly planned wars. We have fought wars that favoured the enemy and have fallen into the seductive trap of thinking that we are invinceable.
I have perused through the archives and found your comments easily the most intelligent, even though I don’t always agree with your opinions.
I have also been fascinated by the brilliant incites of Yamit82. may I cite one example (Israp arch-march 2008)-
when asked to give his definition of history- he replied in his detailed scholerly fashion,
” How do I define history? Its just one thing after another”.
The clash is portrayed in the media as being between the West and Islam, with the West being guilty of being too intolerant to intolerant people. However, Islam is merely the surface of the clash.
key paragraph,
The Dragon in the living room here is, China. Everyone sees the Dragon in the living room but disregards it since it has always been sitting there, remaining quite and moving little—although, the Dragon has grown immensely over the past few decades.
China is preparing to challenge the US for global supremacy. They are currently involved in financial warfare design to break the US economic engine and destroy the dollar. Their best soldiers in this endeavor have been Americans. Right now, they are taking much of the wealth they are pulling from capitalism and turning it into military power. Once they believe they are strong enough, the will make a move toward world supremacy.
Russia has realized what is taking place in China and thus, has become friendlier with China over the past few decades. Russia will still have to decide at some point—as Mussolini had to choose—who to throw their hat in with, Europe or China, East or West. Russia is in a place politically that they can do what pragmatically seems expedient. However, that didn’t work out so well for Mussolini.
Islam is the fuse. Irresolvable tension between East and West is the powder. Israel could end up being used as the match.
No, not help, just your explanation with examples of generalizations you stated as a given. I don’t see them as a given and since you made the statements I think it your obligation to support your own statements. Since you can’t I accept your silence as an admission of error and gross exaggeration.
Yamit, is that a plea for my help for you to understand the obvious? If so, please just say so and I will oblige. Its just that obviously simple Yamit.
So Yamit, what’s it going to be? Another spiteful sour and juvenile accusatory name calling quip or a sincere request for my help?
Okay Narvey I always try to pin you down when you make off the wall generaliztions I know are for you Bon-Ton but have no supportable references.
As usual you duck and cover. I thought Lawyers were good at presenting credible debate and factual argument and I guess some are. 😉
Yamit, I am surprised that given your vast respoitory of knowledge that you take such pride in, that you could not do more with it and figure out the obvious.
If you are struggling to tie the pieces together, please let me know and I, ever accommodating, would be happy to oblige you with the obvious answers.
Your examples are?
Your examples are?
I concur with Ali’s views, save for the following:
I believe the West does, but simply does not know what to do about it.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims, many millions of whom have come to the West. There have been a number of incidents which fundamentalist Muslims have very easily stirred up the anger of millions of Muslims against not just the principal actors, but the West generally and that has led to much strife and violence.
The West is fearful of the “clash of civilizations” becoming a full fledged war between the Muslim world and the West.
The West has fears that the Muslims in their nations will all be ginned up by Muslim fundamentalists to become 5th columnists in Western nations where blood will then run freely in Western streets.
The West’s default position is to ingloriously appease Muslim sentiment, expressed or anticipated, by trying to convince themselves that it is not appeasing they are doing, but rather standing strong behind and for Western norms, values and principles.
I also disagree with Ali’s following comment:
The American led West has in fact done a very great deal to promote Western civilization and its norms, values and principles to developing non-democratic nations and the Muslim world. It is therefore not the efforts in that regard that have been negligible, but rather the success ahieved by those efforts.
America in the past has set aside many constitutional individual rights when it thought it necessary in it’s own defense.
The problem is that almost all of the political and economic elites in America have yet to buy into Islam as an existential threat to western civilization in general and American civilization specifically. Besides the values and ideology threatened by Islam a lot of economic vested interests resist coming to the necessary conclusions and acting accordingly.
Money, greed (individual, corporate, political and national)stand strong in resistance to reaching the rational, logical and factual actionable conclusions.
So The west and specifically America will lose. You can’t defeat an enemy you are afraid of offending or even identifying.
Well, Ali does give an answer. She concluded with” “Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended.”
What she doesn’t do is concretely defined what an active defense is. Let me start: ban the belief system known as Islam, and its practice.
Eidelberg