• Theory of the Conflict of Civilizations

What Remains of the Theory of the Conflict of Civilizations?

It must be recognized first of all that there are strong, advanced and dominant civilizations, dying or retreating civilizations at the end of the line which have no effect on events, and there are civilizations which vanish from existence and die.

There is no more serious indication of this than the criterion of the disappearance of human languages. Throughout the whole span of human history there have been about ten thousand spoken languages spoken languages. Today the number is about six thousand languages which are used, but many of them are not used frequently and taught to children, that is they are in fact dying languages. There are now only about 300 languages spoken by more than one million people. Within the next century more than half of the spoken languages in the world may die out.

A language is not merely a collection of letters or spoken words, nor a mere structure of grammatical rules, but represents the diffusion of the human spirit over the Earth on which we live. Through it the essence of civilization passes through to the material world. Language has the sanctity of the human entity to which is linked its distinctive character and its progressive development. Sorrow over a language becoming extinct is no less than sorrow over the human race becoming extinct.

A comparison between this situation and what is happening in the biological world confirms that there is a great similarity between them. When dying is balanced by the birth of a new being, that is a normal phenomenon. But massive losses of living species as a result of human activities are unprecedented. In the same way languages, like cultures and living species, were constantly developing. But in our present time we find languages disappearing at an ominous rate - within a generation or two - and for a language to die out is like a nuclear bomb being dropped on one of the greatest museums in the world. With the disappearance of languages, cultures die, and the world in its essence becomes a dull place with a uniform pattern. Suddenly original knowledge and intellectual accomplishments which humanity achieved over thousands of years are squandered.

The World after the Cold War

During the few years that followed the Second World War, it was common for writers and speakers to call the period in which they lived the post-war period. But a post-war period, or a post-anything period, cannot last long, and the situation settles down in the end for a period that assumes for itself a name arising from its own atmosphere. This happened beginning from 1947 and was to a great extent completed in 1949, so that the post-war period became the age of the "cold war".

This same principle for making a framework is applicable to the transitional phase in which we are living today. To continue to talk about the post-cold war world, more than a decade after its end, has nothing to do with scientific analysis. It is also futile for us to go on calling it the "post-cold war period". The one obvious thing over which there is no disagreement is that we are living in a new phase, and the lack of an agreed name for this phase is an outward manifestation of the lack of an agreed analysis to the international situation.

The problem does not lie in the lack of specific characteristics with which describe the conflicts of the new phase, but rather in their great number. The fact is that since 1993 there have been four main characteristics which we can at least suggest are the major axes of international conflict. After the pattern of descriptions of previous phases on the basis of wars, there are:

Trade wars, particularly between the United States and Japan, Western Europe and then China.

Religious wars, aimed against Islam in particular.

Racial wars, especially in the former republics of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and the "extinct" states of Africa.

Renewal of cold wars, notably those involving Russia and China.

This is the path followed by the American thinker Samuel Huntington, the author of a well-known treatise who to a great extent lumps together the four different types of wars under a single formula, the "clash of civilizations".

With regard to trade wars, it was natural immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the idea of Communism that most analysts would concentrate on the victory of liberal capitalism and the spread of the global economy as main features of the new phase. But it was also natural that some people should think, on the basis of experiences from the previous age or by analogy with them, that the motive factors of international politics are the great powers, unless these states transform themselves into "commercial states" rather than "military-political states". Great powers are great economically, namely the United States, Japan, and German-led Western Europe. Hence the international conflict can assume, basically, the form of an economic conflict or trade wars.

With regard to religious wars, some analysts see another dimension to the continuation of the past or consistency with it, namely ideologies or world view. After the collapse of the Communist idea it was natural for these people to think of the need to wage a new struggle with the other radical ideology, Islamic political movements - at least until another opposition force is formed which is suitable as a target for struggle, which must continue in order to preserve the cohesion and impetus of Western civilization. This is what some Western thinkers and strategic planners believe! In order for any ideology to have political strength internationally, it needs to have "a state ruled by the idea", as was the case with regard to the Soviet Union, and so that the struggle can be directed against it. Iran was a strong candidate to occupy this position, after the Iranian Islamic Revolution. But the historical divisions between the Islamic sects made it retreat, to make way for Islamic groups like Al-Jihad and the Jamaa Al-Islamiyya in Egypt, the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, Hizbullah in lebanon, Al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan, and the list is long.

As for racial wars, some analysts have concentrated on the wars which occur, not those which are likely to happen. Hence they have paid great attention to those wars which are marked by a revival of nationalist and ethnic hostilities from ages before the cold war. The collapse of the Soviet Union was also the collapse of the multinational state and of the internationalist ideology. This of course applied to states like former Yugoslavia, which was a modified, smaller scale version of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Socialist/Communist systems in these two countries led to the outbreak of violence between the various ethnic groups. These comprehensive states did not succeed in solving the national question as they had believed, they only repressed it, just as had happened with the disintegration with the disintegration of multinational empires in past historical phases, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and before it the Roman Empire and then the Islamic Empire.

With regard to the likelihood of a renewal of the cold war, other thinkers say that the military capabilities and political systems which characterized the cold war have not completely ended. Although Russia has lost its far-flung empire, it remains one of the largest countries on earth in terms of size and number of inhabitants. But more serious than this is that it still possesses more than 20,000 nuclear warheads which can be upgraded. In theory, therefore, it remains the only country in the world capable of causing the destruction of the United States of America. Consequently, the fear of a renewal of the cold war remains feasible. China represents a variation of this thesis of a renewal of the cold war. With its huge area, its large population, its massive army, its considerable nuclear and conventional arsenal, its strong economic position and the continuation of its Communist Party system, it remains a likely enemy of the United States of America.

These are the four suggested circles of conflict which is likely to break out in the present phase of human history, which we have no alternative but to call the post-cold war world. So why is it the "Clash of Civilizations" alone which has jumped to the forefront at this time?

Huntington's Civilizations

In this context, Huntington entered the discussions for the first tie in 1993, after the fall of the Soviet Union, with his article published in Foreign Affairs magazine. He developed his ideas subsequently in his famous book which bore the same title as his article, The Clash of Civilizations.

He believes that the main axis of conflict in the new phase will be between cultures or civilizations. Although he does not deal independently with the forms of the aforementioned conflict, his concept of civilizations embraces all of them.

He admits, for example, that trade disputes will inevitably erupt, but he rules out them being turned into real conflicts. The United States and Europe, in his view, are parts of the same Western civilization, and dispute between them will be marginal and containable (was the Second World War contained?)

Consequently, the conflicts in Yugoslavia between the Muslims, Serbs and Croats were conflicts between the Islamic, Orthodox and Western civilizations. The war over Nagorno Karabakh was a conflict between Azeri Muslims and Armenian Orthodox.

Thus Huntington believes that the major conflict will be between the West and a kind of broad alliance between the Islamic and Confucian (Chinese) civilizations: The Confucianist civilization with its economic and military strength and Islamic civilization with its oil wealth and its geographical contiguity to the West. Conflict between the West and Islam is to him the most complete pattern for the clash of civilizations. According to this view, the long conflict between Islam and the West (which has been going on for thirteen centuries) is in itself an indication of the likelihood that it will continue for a long time to come.

On the other hand, although the conflict between the West and Confucian civilization is of a shorter age (less than two centuries, since the 1840-42 Opium War), it was more bitter and painful. In addition to that, the resurgence of the economies of Confucian countries now offers them the opportunity to think about reviewing the unequal balance between them and the West.

Huntington believes that Russia will stand on the side of the West in this conflict (it stood by the United States in its war against Afghanistan). This is primarily due, in his view, to the fact that it is torn between two civilizations: its elite and is policy belong to Western civilization, while the masses of its inhabitants and its history belong to Orthodox civilization. In addition to Russia's long suffering under "the Mongol yoke" of the rule of Genghis Khan and his descendants, which Russian history sees as very similar to Confucian civilization.

Huntington regards Japan as an isolated, at least not a Confucian, civilization, which thanks to the wisdom of the West will become its ally and a no-man's land separating the Western and Confucian civilizations.

Historical Falsification

This Huntington view of the contemporary world involves a great deal of historical falsification and neck-twisting. Perhaps the greatest falsification lies in ignoring states and political institutions, in spite of the pivotal role that the state plays, both the older dynastic empires and the modern nation-state, in establishing any civilization. The West is one homogeneous bloc in spite of strong differences between America on the one hand and the European countries on the other. Islamic civilization likewise is one bloc, not different states, peoples and nationalities, both during the zenith of its power and glory (when it was an Arab civilization) during the Umayyad and Abbasid eras, or under the Ottoman Caliphate which imposed its domination over a large part of the ancient world, or even in the present age in which the Islamic countries are suffering from the utmost poverty and economic, political, military and scientific weakness, let alone the fragmentation between them.

It is well known that no civilization can be established without the existence of an economically, scientifically and militarily strong core state which plays the role of its guardian. According to this view the Ottoman state was the last strong core, at least militarily, for Islamic civilization. In the present world situation, with the regional and international political, economic and military balances, no relatively large Islamic state (Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey) can play the role of core state which could lead this - alleged - modern Islamic civilization in its confrontation with the - also alleged - Western civilization, or any other marginal civilization.

Thus Islam today remains a religion, not a civilization with a core state to lead it in confronting other civilizations. Civilizations rise, prosper, then are defeated and decline. But the religion remains an essential part of the spiritual fabric which makes up humanity, and no one can remove. With this understanding we can affirm that a (conventional or nuclear) war will never happen between Western and Islamic civilizations according to Huntington's vision of the conflict of civilizations. The only real likelihood - and this is exactly what has happened in Afghanistan - is that limited, unequal confrontations may occur between Western states with massive material capabilities and poor, angry Islamic groups in the form of aggressive actions as reactions against the repression from which these groups are suffering. These are confronted with retaliatory military counter-operations which confirm the strength of the Western powers and their domination over the world and its numerous "civilizations". But these clashes have another interpretation to be discussed.

The greatest falsification to which Huntington resorted is his view of Western civilization itself which he classifies according to the two criteria of geography and religion only.

This falsification of Huntington is related to the essence of Western civilization itself.

Western civilization is the only non-religious civilization. To be more precise, it is the first post-religious civilization. It is not the result of a revolution or a qualitative leap forward, but the result of massive and smooth accumulations which extended throughout the length of human history, from cultural and social transformations and movements and major scientific and political discoveries. Three centuries ago, or slightly more, there was nobody who talked about Western civilization. The expression which was prevalent at that time was "Christendom". With the age of geographical discoveries and the industrial revolution which followed it, the spread of the ideas of the age of enlightenment and the rise of the commercial bourgeoisie, secularism infiltrated wide sectors of the population. Europe gave up its religious wars and it was no longer "Christendom". The term "Western civilization" only appeared in the early twentieth century. It is a term that implicitly involves awareness that this civilization, in contrast with previous dominant civilizations, does not place religion in a pivotal position.

The American World

The last decade of the twentieth century saw the emergence of the term globalization, against the background of the collapse of the bipolar world which we knew throughout most of the twentieth century, and the emergence of a unipolar new world order.

Daniel Dresner, in an article entitled Globalizers of the World Unite, says that decade was not propitious for the nation-state, whose economic and security functions, and its sovereignty itself, became a matter for questioning and doubt.

The advanced industrialized countries lost quite a bit of their influence over the world economy, and transnational companies with their huge potentials have become able to bypass states, managing their affairs and their own international agreements. If the most advanced industrialized countries have found themselves encircled, weaker countries have been torn to shreds.

Many governments are now facing a situation in which they have legal sovereignty without actual sovereignty over their territories. These companies resemble feudal counties which developed into nation-states. They are merely the vanguard of the new Darwinian system for politics. Since they occupy the real forefront of globalization, while the overwhelming majority of the Earth's inhabitants are still immersed in their local environments, the big transnational companies will remain free for the next few decades to throw behind them the environmental and social debris they have left behind.

There is almost unanimity among the most prominent analysts and thinkers that the global spread of capitalism leads to the atrophy and erosion of the power and independence of the nation-state, and that transnational capital leaves profound effects on states, cultures and individuals themselves. Benjamin Baber ???, in his book Jihad vs. McWorld, draws an inspired picture of globalization when he describes it as the future embodied in a picture filled with the movement of economic forces, technology and ecology seeking integration and harmony and drowning the consciousness of humanity everywhere in a flood of fast music, fast computers and fast food, pushing the nations continuously towards a single homogeneous international fun fair. He describes political society in the age of globalization as a society suffering from division in which the loyalty of the various members of society is confined to their own personal interests at the expense of any concept of the public interest or the common good. The fact is that the global market, or "McWorld" as Baber ??? calls the forces of globalization, prefers global markets based on interests and which have deep roots in consumption and profit, leaving aside questions of the common good and the public interest. The fact is that the economic essence of globalization is the shift of the center of gravity of the world economy from the national to the global, from the state to transnational companies, institutions and conglomerates. Here economic globalization imposes its own logic, even if this logic conflicts with the wishes of the largest and most arrogant states. These developments have led to the economies of the advanced countries being changed from industrial economies into post-industrial economies, from modern societies to post-modern societies.

A Clash of Civilizations or of Wills?

The fact is that globalization in the sense mentioned here is the official announcement of the end of Western civilization and the beginning of the emergence of a new global civilization. In confronting some rational voices which call for global benefit from this global civilization, Huntington and those like him try to turn this global civilization into the Americanization of the world: a civilization whose essence is absolute American military, economic, technological, information, cultural and social domination. This is unrestrained domination, to the point that led French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine to invent a new term in political science, since the word superpower is no longer adequate in his opinion, and from now on the United States should be called"??? ???".

The paradox is that at a time when Huntington and his followers are promoting his falsified concept of "Western civilization", the cultural and political elite no longer view America as part - or even as a carrier - of Western civilization. Rather they regard it as a distinctive society which embodies cultural and ethnic pluralism, whose culture is the product of cultural interaction between European, African, Islamic, Asian, Slavic and other cultures. These cultures strike roots in African, Latin American, Confucian and Islamic, and not only European, civilizations. Thus America propagates its cultural pattern as the only pattern for the age of globalization. After forcibly leading the world into achieving economic, commercial and legal homogeneity in global terms, it is trying to achieve a similar global homogeneity culturally.

We do not believe that Huntington's thesis on the conflict of civilizations is anything other than a mobilization idea that smells of racism. It is not based on any scientific facts or moral justifications. Its aim is simply to justify the violent clashes which the world is witnessing as a result of many people's rejection of the logic of "domination and swallowing up" rather than the logic of globalization.

If Huntington means by his idea on the clash of civilizations that "Western civilization is confronting other civilizations", I find that the real meaning is that "America is confronting the world". The paradox here is that Huntington and Bin Laden represent two sides of the same coin. They both represent the biological aspect of culture, namely reliance on heredity in considering the other a "barbarian" or an "unbeliever". Their ideas inevitably lead to incitement to nationalist, racial and religious disputes and conflicts under the slogan of defending religion, identity or national interests, or the slogan of defending democratic values, civilization and human rights.

What I want to say is: there is a global civilization which dominates the world today. The situation was always like that throughout the ages of history: a prosperous central civilization dominated the world and coexisted with older civilizations that had surrendered to their fate or were trying to rise up. Hence we understand this conflict as one pertaining to civilization but not between civilizations. The question remains the ability of ancient civilizations to develop themselves in accordance with their own conditions and circumstances, fully aware of the useful aspects of modern civilization and at the same time rejecting acts of interference that are of no benefit and do harm to their essence and heritage. Civilizations which will remain capable of survival and continuity are those which have the will and which can accept what is new on their terms and with their own conceptions.

Sulaiman Al-Askary 

Resource: 1