The CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER

Rating:
Summary: an understanding of the world's differences
Review: a well written, easy flowing analysis of how today's people's side with and against eachother and what we can expect in the future. a complex subject that was expertly broken down and presented in laymen terms. recommended

Rating:
Summary: Far mre influential than it deserves
Review: Huntington'e essay was far more influential than it deserves to be. The book version includes some interesting information and one useful wake up call needed by some...the world is not going to become a modern carbon copy of the West and "westernization" is not a prerequisite to "modernization".

Some readers will also be disturbed by the observations about declining relative numbers and importance of the "West". This and the comments about civilizations learning to get along earn a couple stars.

The main thesis about the clash of civilizations (something of a tautology) and bigotted view of Islam are not even well supported by the book's own evidence and logic. The final scenario of war with China is more frightening and no better documented.

That many would read and accept the essentially anti-Islamic views here without a more critical analysis does not reflect well on the quality of public discourse, or general education, either. A footnote in the book notes that the most criticized part of the article was the part about "Islam's bloody borders" but the book does not show serious reevaluation. The sources are very limited stacked against Islam - the very fact that they imply something innate, violent, and general for Islam is right up there with explaining Hitler's 1000 year Reich, Stalin the Seminarian, and Irish terrorism as implicit in the nature of Christianity.

It gets worse. Many of the 'bloody' Muslim countries are victims not originators of the violence (manipulation of Serbian Orthodox myths to generate hate and 'justify' ethnic cleansing is a dramatic example,Indian pogroms against Muslims and occupation of Paletine are others). The argument for 'militarism' then uses statistics about ratios of men 'under arms' in Muslim countries as 'evidence' without weighting for autocratic and unelected rulers armed to retain power and without reference to 'intent' or actual use of the military. The US ratio is lower (and unmentioned Israel has higher ratios too) but the superior technology trumps mere numbers of troops as an indicator of potential. And the record for attacks and bombings (at least 40 countries since World War II and bases in more than 100 contries) suggest the US to be far more 'violent' in terms that make more sense than Huntington's and mawk his argument.

Of course with the "red Evil Empire" gone a "green" one serves many useful purposes for the Pentagon and budget battles. As Huntington points out nations find identity in opposition to the 'other'. Not that missles have any real value against a few terrorists of course. Nor should the emerging US role as the greatest dealer in the Arms trade be mentioned by Huntington (certainly there is no reference to the Carlye Group and the senior Bush's role). Lack of better perspective amounts to lack of honesty even if it pleases Huntington's wealthy backers. The "Clash" was written before 9-11 but has, despite its sloppy reasoning and Right Wing funding, been well recieved as further justification for forgone conclusions.

'Denial' is not just 'a river in Egypt' it continues to be the state of public discourse in the US that has not begun to fathom the real reasons behind 9-11 or how removing some of the causes might help produce greater security and more justice. The US prefers to spend $80 billion to destroy a country with a total military budget of about $1.4 billion. Arms and Oil industries prosper, people die for their benefit. US security is diminished and its values are undermined. Huntington is not, at least in this book, a "neocon" but he has contributed to their cause.

Rating:
Summary: Believe him or not, there are differences
Review: Whether you like or dislike Mr. Huntington's argument or concur with his conclusions, the value of this book is that demonstates that there are diffences between the rest and the West.

It is this diffences that we must keep in mind, because we have a tendancy to mirror image other societis and assume they are not like us.

Rating:
Summary: Spengler or Toynbee it's not!
Review: Its value much exaggerated, this book is a good example of what political scientists do. What they do is to try to pretend that their work is scientific when it is actually quite speculative and subjective. I got more from Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, who had some philosophical training and historical perception, than from this academic spinner.

Rating:
Summary: Clash of Civilizations:Wrong or Right?
Review: I gave this book a five star rating not because I necessarily agree with everything which the author wrote,but because I think that the influence this book has had on politicians and policy makers is tremendous.After the events of 9/11 most people reading the book thought the points Huntington made about Islamic civilization were prophetic.The problem with the book though, is that as another reviewer mentioned Huntington identifies a group of civilizations which he believes the world is dividing into-the West,the Islamic civilization,the Sinic civilization and so on.If you look at international relations today you don't see the civilizations that he talks about.Islamic civilization? Doesn't exist and if you don't believe it you should take a look at press coverage of Arab League meetings during the recent war with Iraq.Those guys spent more time arguing with each other than getting together against any Western opponent.
Same thing with the West (take a look at relations between France and the United States).I don't think you can argue that the civilizations that Huntington talks about are in existence now.Perhaps in the future countries will align themselves in the groupings that he talks about.But as Huntington himself says in the book,the reason that he developed this theory of civilizations was because he felt that existing theories of international relations were wrong or didn't really describe what was happening.So if this is the test for his theory,then it doesn't do the job.Still, anyone interested in politics especially foreign affairs should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best explanatory political science model.
Review: Summary:
This is an amazing book. Written in 1996, this book is the expansion of a famous article written in Foreign Affairs in 1993. The political model developed in this book explains the events leading to 9/11 far better than most books written after 9/11. Call it prophecy, call it genius. Call it what you will, but read it.

Abstract:
This book does far more than explain the tension between Islam and the West. It also perfectly explains he ethnic cleansing and implosion of Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia), the tension between China and the West on human rights, labor rights, environmental standards, and trade; and why Turkey may never belong to the European Community no matter how much it tries to align itself with the West.

The author divides the world in five major cultural blocks: West, Orthodox Russia, Hindu/India, Islam, and Sinic China. Out of these five blocks, you get nine different relationships (West-Islam, Sinic China-Hindu India, etc.). The author studies each relationship in detail, and shows with much historical evidence how many of these relationships are conflictual.

After studying data, Samuel Huntington realizes that the West as a whole is experiencing a decline. He measures this decline among several dimentions. English speaking is less predominant now than it was in the fifties as a % of the World population. The same is true of Christianity that is on the decline, while Islam is on a rapid incline. Also, the West represents a far lower share of World GDP then it did in the fifties.

The decline of the West does not mean the specific decline of the U.S. But, more the decline of the entire West (when including the entire European Community).

Samuel Huntington described two major challenges to the West. These are:
1) The Islamic Resurgence; and
2) The Asian Affirmation.

The Islamic Resurgence entails a rapid population growth throughout the Arab world. This demographic force is a destabilizing element for both Muslim societies and neighbors of these Muslim societies. This demographic force is causing a youth bulge of disaffected, unemployed, frustrated young males who represent a fertile recruiting ground for terrorist groups. Samuel Huntington uses this "youth bulge" as a benchmark of country risk. If you look at what percent of the population is between 18 and 30 years old, Muslim and unemployed, you can estimate the level of conflicts within and outside a country a specific nation will endure. This is the type of incisive analytical observation that has made Samuel Huntington controversial, yet so prescient.

The Asian Affirmation refers to the rapid economic development of the Far East and China. As these countries economic might catches up to the West, they are becoming more confident to assert their views in international affairs. They also view their version of capitalism as superior to the West. They also view their own society as much superior to the West on moral grounds. Their values are focused on thrift, family, and discipline. They reject the West focus on individualism, and greed. They sneer at the West weakening family structure. Thus, Samuel Huntington suggests that China, because of its self perceived moral superiority, will be increasingly resistant to concede to the West regarding human rights, labor rights, and environmental standards.

Samuel Hunting acknowledges that a model can't explain everything, and is invariably proven wrong on specific details. But, he sets what are the objectives of a good model. His advise rings true regardless of the discipline. In his view, a good model achieves the following:
1) Captures reality at the general level;
2) Understands causal relationships among phenomena;
3) Anticipates future developments;
4) Distinguishes between the important and the unimportant; and
5) Shows us what paths we should take to achieve our goals.

After reading his book, many have concluded that his "Clash of Civilizations" model has been very successful in capturing the international political developments of the past decade. In this regard, Samuel Huntington's model has been more successful than most.

Rating:
Summary: entertaining, but I deny its conclusions
Review: "Give me a thesis and I'll deliver a proof" - claimed ancient Greek sophists. Not so much have changed since then. "Give me any commonly held notion, and I'll prove the contrary" - says Huntington and many others following the same path. It must be really common, a notion that means a lot to many people, if we claim the contrary and publish it, success guaranteed. If - after years - it turns out we were right, double success, and double money guaranteed. But, even if we were ridiculous, the stir we caused would bring us fame and success!
A proof? Here you are:
CHN (commonly held notion): Mars is and was a deserted, dry planet. No intelligent life could emerge and survive there.
PTC (prove the contrary): there are some structures on Mars that had to be created by intelligent beings. The authors of countless books applied mathematics, statistics, fractals, computer analysis to prove it. Their thesis remains more than doubtful, but the stir they created... many people earned fame and good deal of money.
CHN: As above, for the moon
PTC: "Somebody Else Is On The Moon" by George H.Leonard
CHN: Apollo 11 was a real spaceship travel to the moon, and Armstrong walked on the moon
PTC: It was only made in film studio for propaganda, to show how America outpaced the Soviets in cosmic race. A lot of articles written on the above subject, funny but somehow interesting!
Of course, the above examples refer to more or less ridiculous theses. But here are most serious cases as well:
CHN: The Earth is flat and motionless and the sun turns around the earth
PTC: (Copernicus and Galileo) The earth is spherical and turns around the sun
We could bring countless examples here, but think for yourself and you'll find them as well.
While the commonly held notion is that the civilizations converge (expressed brilliantly by Francis Fukuyama), Huntington's book contradicts it. There is only a question, where it is, on the ridiculous or revolutionary side. While we cannot seriously claim the first about professor Huntington and his interesting and quite entertaining book, he is also sure no Copernicus or Galileo. And it is very hard to say who is right, he or Fukuyama, maybe it will be obvious in the next century or even later? I vote rather for Fukuyama and his vision, and will try to bring some arguments below.
First of all, I deeply believe the most important factor is education. Educated people do not submit easily to any kind of brainwashing, hatred or nationalistic ideology. The students at Japanese high schools learn basically the same knowledge as at Polish or Chinese or American. They know foreign languages, mostly English, so there is a communication, and there is a vast common knowledge we learned. Cultural differences make these contacts even more interesting and intellectually fruitful. Educated people are also fully interchangeable as employees, educated Chinese can easily and effectively work for an American company, and an American for Chinese. There can be some local habits and differences to adjust to, but, especially for young people they cause no basic problems. We all use Internet and communicate through it, even now. Would any intelligent Iraqi citizen have any problem to read and understand this review and (hopefully) appreciate or (less preferably) despise it?
I feel I have much more in common with Vietnamese scientist than with poor Polish peasants or ghetto gangsters from Chicago!
The only problem is, how to spread education and effective social organization to afford it, especially the free market economy. I would emphasize the last: free market economy not necessarily democracy. I do believe the full democracy (with the common right to vote and be elected) is not always the best. The quality of democracy reflects the quality of people in the land given, and - most important - the level of their education. Otherwise it leads to embarrassments or even tragedies. German people chose Hitler in democratic voting,
Byelorussian people chose Lukaszenka. Recession, corruption and inefficiency of democracy in Poland leads to the growing popularity of anti-democratic populists; they can even win next elections, then kill young Polish democracy and stop any free-market economy. The slogans of populists and radicals appeal to least educated, poorest people. Commonly held socialist, utopian beliefs can stop changes even in the countries with the older democratic traditions, although it is obvious the changes are inevitable - see Germany and France. But I am sure the Germans and French will understand and accept the necessary changes, as did British in the end of 70's when they voted for Thatcher. But I am not that sure if Poles or Ukrainians will do - the level of education is really low here - I am afraid they will vote populists and thus get into real trouble! On the other hand, some wise authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes proved quite effective in some countries. See South Korea under the dictator Park or Chile under Pinochet. Please, understand, I do not appreciate or even justify the crimes if committed, I only talk about the effective economical systems implemented there. Effective systems based on free trade economy created technology and development, the money raised allowed better education. And educated, wealthy people did not want any more to live without freedom to speak and freedom to vote - this way economical prosperity led to democracy and full freedom. I am sure this scenario could be repeated, and this is America's big mission (only America has military and economical power to do that) to implant effective social and economical systems wherever possible. And it does not mean democracy at once (see above) - every society must grow to democracy and it ain't easy. This strategy proved successful - see post-war Germany and Japan.
And it is the only way to avoid the "clash of civilizations" based more on obscurity and intolerance than real cultural differences. I hope the new, more active U.S. global policy will help. All Husseins, Castros, Kim Dzong Ils, beware!

Rating:
Summary: 11 sept. was proving he was right ?
Review: I got my first class in geopolitics on the 11th of Sept. How could it be more coincidence than on this date. I almost would refuse to believe that coincidence does exsist, thats what I have learned from hanging around in China to much I think. Since there everything seem to have a meaning, on itsekf a beautifull thought.

I still remember I was finnishing my class and was on my way home in the train when my dad called me that I should come home right away on 11th of Sept. So I did. When I walked through the door and layed my eyes on the TV to find out what my dad was so excited about I saw the secvond plain crashing right into one of the twintowers, my God what a view was that. Soon after that the only think you was hearing on CNN was people using that famous sentence that is the tittle of this book. Quite disturbing I thought it was. Especially if you realize that maybe only 25 % of all who use it never read the book.

It seems that on this day Huntington was proving his right, and showed to workd religion will become the main problem for war & trouble in the next coming years. From the other side I also think that the US (still the hegemonial country these days) is in a serious identity defusement and desperatly seeking for a new victim. To be a corestate its absolutely aquired to create a periphery. After the cold war Liberalism won it from Communism. But that also brought a new problem : To who are we going to fight now. Simple lets just begin a Neo Crusade to all this who wanted to begin a Jihad to us. So a fight between religion after all.

My only critique to the book : Religion will not become the most important source for conflicts, for as far as I can see, that was already the case for the last 2000 years. Only it was fought out in Europe only, and when they wanted to christianize the European colonies, they were superious anyway. But now that all seem to change, and the Christian enemies are getting stronger and more radical. And that with weapons we once provided them.

BBe sure to check out the last 80 oages of the book, its about how a potential third world war will maybe start, fun thing is in Huntingtons eyes this will not begin with a religious conflict, but with the conflict between China & Taiwan, my gld lets not hope he is right.

Rating:
Summary: Provocative but flawed
Review: Despite its controversial conclusions, this is clearly an important book in that it has so deeply influenced our current administration's foreign policy. So much has been said about its strengths, however, that I would prefer to outline a few weaknesses:
- It reduces the political, religious, economic, historical, linguistic and cultural aspirations of 6+ billion into 7-8 indivisible primary cultures. As such, it doesn't adequately consider intracultural tensions and how much they contribute to realpolitik and the range of foreign policy options available today. One only need consider 'the West' as a united front that speaks with one voice and shares common strategic interests vis-a-vis Iraq to see how shaky this proposition is. Similarly, you will find factions in the Arab and Muslim world, Muslims in North America and Europe, Latin Americans who hardly share "Western" values and much more cultural singularity than Huntington supposes in the Asian world. He actually imagines the Japanese and Korea will readily submit to a rising China, which is hard to imagine given the bitter embers of WWII.
- His contention that Islam is the most bellicose culture of our era is equally tenuous. He says roughly half of the world conflicts in the early '90s involved Muslims, and 3/4 of those involved Muslims clashing with other cultures. He fails to examine how much of this violence is motivated by self-defense, or throwing off the yoke of colonial domination. He estimates Islam's contribution to world violence based on number of conflicts rather than number of deaths, or instances in which Muslims were the aggressor. Much of what he calls "clashes of civilizations" in Central Asia, the Middle East and other regions could just as easily be viewed as wars of independence. Having traveled in Cairo within weeks of 9/11 and felt more safe there than in most American cities, I find the characterization of Muslims (20% of the world's population) as an overly violent people offensive and dangerous as well as grossly inaccurate.
- Huntington maintains America's cultural roots lie only in Europe. He not only ignores the influence of Iroquois political traditions on American ones, but he imagines that a Europe swept away by two authoritarian ideologies in the past century are singularly devoted to individual freedom and pluralism in so far as Americans are because Europe is the supposed birthplace of these ideals. America is much more of a stew than that. He clearly views the world from the dim reality of an increasingly diminishing majority in America. Out-of-touch.
- Finally, although Huntington makes clear the increasing challenges for American national security in the post-Cold War world, he advocates a defensive and reactive posture toward it. Democracy and pluralism may not be embraced in wholly American form in the Islamic world, but he regards America's best course as uniting the West, weakening any potential challenger in the Muslim world and hampering Japan's acquiescence to China as the emergent dominant power in Asia. It's striking that a man who devoted so much of his life to academic pursuits fails to see education and cultural exchange as a supplementary or alternative way of addressing the cultural divide. Hunker down and arm yourself for the inevitable conflict seems to be his advice. Certainly, cultural differences cannot be ignored and Americans should not suppose every other people is yearning to live as we do. But Huntington doesn't examine why past efforts to bridge the gap with the Islamic world, however dismal, have not worked. Right now an education in the West is largely only available to the wealthy elites in the Arab and other Muslim countries. Meanwhile, the youth population is exploding in these countries, and youth that find little economic opportunity and oppressive political conditions are likely to embrace radical religious and anti-Western propaganda. Were the West to deliberately attract & educate the best & brightest minds in the Arab and Muslim world regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances, the freedom and economic opportunity we enjoy might well be our best sales tool. Not only should we facilitate greater outreach to the youth in the Muslim world, but we should be promoting Arabic and Islamic studies and exchange programs among American youth. It's so much easier to hate what you don't understand. Think it's too expensive to be a realistic foreign policy imperative? Then consider former Harvard President Derek Bok's admonition, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Cultural differences are deep and significant and deserve to be respected, but human values and aspirations that transcend culture persist. Huntington misses that.

Rating:
Summary: Ultimately flawed but incisive analysis
Review: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Samuel P. Huntington
Touchstone Books, 1996.
367 pages.

Shortly after the fall of Communism euphoria gave way to uncertainty and confusion. The policy of containment, largely authored by the brilliant George F. Kennan, had been a fixture of American foreign policy for nearly a half century and the Soviet implosion stimulated vigorous debate among foreign policy intellectuals regarding the nature of the new world order. Was it truly "the end of history" as Francis Fukuyama asserted, or was the world rendered more vulnerable as cultures, rather than nation-states or ideas, served as the renewed source of human conflict? In The Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington elaborates on his seminal article published in Foreign Affairs that categorically refutes the ultimate triumph of liberal democracy. Huntington describes the post-Cold War world as "multipolar and multicivilizational" , and rejects the contention that globalization and Westernization follow parallel paths. Civilizations matter because they appeal to basic questions of human identity. Whereas Kennan's world was a bifurcated one of Communists and anti-Communists, Huntington's geopolitical arrangement is a multipolar world consisting of Western, Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese, and Buddhist civilizations. In Huntington's civilizational paradigm, borders lose significance because civilizational conflict, which had previously been subordinated to ideological conflict, transcends the often arbitrary demarcations of nation-states. Although Huntington's thoughtful and provocative ideas provide alternative means of deciphering international (or inter-civilizational) events, his excessive reliance on vast generalizations renders his thesis largely untenable.
The pillars of Huntington's thesis rest on the assumption that civilizations matter. Civilizations encapsulate the fundamental elements of identity, such as race, religion, language, culture, and history. In his critique of existing paradigms, Huntington deduces the logic of identifying civilizations as the most significant contemporary geopolitical actors because civilizations "provide an easily grasped and intelligible framework for understanding the world" . Although Huntington contends that his civilizational paradigm "sets forth a relatively simple but not too simple map," as one of his critics noted, "because [his] brush is broad, his specifics are vulnerable to attack." Huntington's paradigm is so generic that its utility is eroded by its failure to account for numerous inconsistencies. Events such as Turkey's unsuccessful attempt to enter the European Union and Russia's dogged support of their Slavic Serbian brethren in the Balkans conflict redeem a cultural or civilizational approach. However, Huntington's paradigm cannot account for the multicivilizational peacekeeping force that continues to preserve peace in the Balkans today, or the complicity of several Islamic nations in the second Anglo-American (decisively not Western) war against Iraq.
While Huntington's paradigm can provide another lens through which to analyze historical or even current events, it is too fragile a framework for actual application in foreign policy. Due to Huntington's prediction of international alignment along cultural-civilizational lines, his implication on the future of international relations is grim indeed. Whereas ideas are mutable and conflicts between nation-states soluble through diplomacy or negotiation, civilizational composites change over generations. A foreign policy based on a civilizational paradigm in the rough hands of inexperienced or myopic statesmen can easily degenerate into a policy based on xenophobia and cultural relativism, with the ugly head of genocide lurking just beneath the surface. Huntington states, "A dangerous source of a global intercivilizational war is the shifting balance of power among civilizations and their core states." Yet his proposed solution for America's relative decline vis-à-vis the Islamic and Sinic worlds of "adopting an Atlanticist policy of close cooperation with...European partners" exacerbates civilizational conflict. Huntington's model presupposes "the clash of civilizations", which, with strict adherence, denies valuable opportunities of engagement and cooperation that transcend linguistic, religious, cultural, and indeed, civilizational differences.
Huntington's incisive analysis and depth of research make The Clash of Civilizations required reading for any serious student of international relations. Despite its shortcomings, the civilizational paradigm serves, in the very least, as a primer for a more astute model that includes the relevance of culture and civilization. Both pedantic and stimulating, Huntington's thesis is a weighty contender in the current clash of paradigms.