Rating: 
Summary: Civilizations vs. Advancing Markets.
Review: Some books and articles written by the plenapotentiaries of academic institutions provide substantive thought and strategic discussion but entirely neglect the tactical details and historical facts that have created the entire situation. Given the depth and dynamics of this international field, this book does a quality job in description and analysis of the reasons and outcomes of the interaction of people, countries and civilizations. However, from both a historical information and smaller market position, details are missing which serves as a minor detraction from a well-written, quality research and analysis.
Through a descriptive analysis of the major civilizations: Western, Eastern and Islamic the author well-explains the personal, internal and external forces shaping and moving societies towards an inexorable future. To desire more is to advance into the future, the thrust for modernization also includes militarization and the sincere possibility of agression between civilizations with different histories, cultures, ideas and directions. This book also considers man-made superstructures to change: NATO,EU,ASEAN, CARICOM,CIS, IMF, etc. And their continued important role in this entire discussion.
History and the markets are areas where I believe this book is lacking. Starting with a characterization of World War II as a "civil war" the book does not even attempt to consider the significant cultural, economic and military aggression leading to this strategic war, but more importantly, the direct lasting economic, financial, military and market impacts of this war has upon a worldwide civilization and the projection of power which is still largely intact in contemporary times. The book does mention and should have elaborated on the increasing influence of the financial and natural resource markets, and the actual control of these markets creating its own civilization, this beyond the soverignty of nations or even military strength. In a real-time marketplace where foreign currency trades to 3-4X the value of a countries GDP, the arguement should become 'market based civilization' as a part of what the author terms: "The Remaking of World Order."
History, civilizations and the marketplace will all continue. This well-written analysis also includes a survey of the historical cultural, religous, and sophisticated youth elements that may have influence on the future structure and direction of civilizations. And a final conclusion if not inevitable, a conflict between civilizations--to want more is to advance into the future; and to define a civilization among history and the advancing power of the markets. Sean M.
Rating: 
Summary: Predictive power in a well written study
Review: I originally read this book in 1997 and did not think it was very good, since it does not provide solid evidence of the direction the author believes the world is going in. I read it as part of an international politics course in college, and it drew inflamed critism from many students who found it biased and bigoted. I decided to revisit the book more recently, especially given the recent conflicts between the U.S. and the Middle East, and found that the author has conclusions that contain much predictive power, which would have benefitted decision makers had they understood it. The basic premise is that there are 7 civilization and that future conflict will be draw along civilization lines rather than country borders. It is a generally theoretical book, for someone interested in general system dynamics. There is not enough information on individual conflict dynamics, so someone interested in a clash between two particular civilizations is better off looking elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: Prophetic
Review: Just a general idea of what to expect from this book: Published in February 1998, this book provides a sociocultural explanation of the upcoming clash between Eastern cultures and the Western World. Do not expect a book summarizing the information presented in the news networks or a compilation of events. Instead, buy it expecting a prediction of the clash based on centuries-old rivalries and insight into the psychology of Non-western groups. Why I say prophetic? While the book does not predict specific events, like September 11, it predicts that the world regions with which we Westerners are more likely to get in conflict with are in the Middle East and, perhaps, the Far East. I guess it was not a prophetic book for the author or avid social science readers, but it seemed prophetic to me in retrospect. I guess one could say September 11 was for us the visual marker of what this book was saying. Smaller-scale (though not less important) attacks did not open everybody's eyes like September 11 did. Unless you are a lover of sociological theories or history, some parts of the book may taste like a textbook...but if you don't understand the cultural and historical background of both civilizations, you will not understand why West and East are clashing now. The book, which I could classify as "Social Scientific", puts no blames on either side. The book only states facts as they serve to explain the cultural boundaries and why both sides (West and East) are in conflict. As an American, I take sides with the West, but this book will not lead you to take sides with either group. It is not propaganda or passionate creed. It is beautifully written and objective. If you are a college student, this should be part of your library. If you are a teacher, teach this book. If you are just someone wanting to understand why our world is as it is, read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting theories, but he needs stronger backup
Review: Huntington presents some interesting and compelling data to back up his arguments for a "clash of civilizations" and whether you agree with his conclusions or not, this book should not be ignored by anybody who wants to understand global geopolitics from the Euro-North American viewpoint. Huntington's Big Picture: Western-style capitalistic democracy is not necessarily the natural "end-state" for all humanity and many other "civilizations" continue to thrive (or in some cases, persevere) under radically different social models. Moreover, these civilizations frequently feel deeply offended and physically threatened by the notion that they will one day all be Western-style democracies. In other words, they reject the notion put forth bluntly by a US Marine Corps Colonel in Stanley Kubrik's "Full Metal Jacket" that "Inside every [edit], there is an American trying to break out". Huntington goes on to point out that, in today's highly networked world of global trade, civilizations are forced into ever more intimate contact. Huntington believes that the net effect of this could well be to generate more, not less, conflict, as civilizational differences are even more loathsome at close range than from a distance. While these theories are interesting and merit close reading, I think Huntington's conclusions are a bit of a stretch. I was not convinced that Huntington has made a sufficient case that when people of different cultures are forced together, they always end up fighting: there is too much evidence that the opposite often happens (look at multi-cultural success stories emerging in parts of the US, Hong Kong and Australia to name a few). Although Huntington insinuates that "domestic melting pots" and the meeting of two culturally distinct "civilizations" in an international context are not the same kind of situation, rendering my previous examples null and void, I still think the jury is out on Huntington's theories. Overall, an interesting read. If you think a lot about global politics then this is one book you should not skip.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting thoughts on world.
Review: You have to love a book that inspires such irrational responses from some readers. I'll assume at least some of the people that wrote one star reviews actually read the book. One recent reveiwer appears to have written at least 3 reviews within a few weeks, upset over the references to China. If this book didn't inflame such passion in people I would have only given this book 3 stars. The theory that civilization is the key driving international relations seems nonsensical to me, simply because national self interest will always trump civilization in my view. The idea that "civilization" does matter is an interesting notion and the examples he examines in the book support this idea in general. I think the portion of the book entitled "Islam's Bloody Borders" is perhaps of the most interest as it examines the Islamic revival currently underway across the Third World. It is hard to point to an Islamic country where religious violence isn't present in some form or another. In the end this book is not the end all of international relations, but the notions are relevent and anyone with a interest in the foreign relations would benefit from this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Dangerous Nonsense
Review: I have a real problem with finely spun academic theories. Already, France and Germany are clearly making complete nonsense of Huntington's plans for a united West. Also, without Muslim allies in the Middle East, there's no hope of a solution, whether military or diplomatic, to Saddam. And China's help is absolutely crucial to keeping Kim Jong Il on a tight leash. Break off relations with China, and the next thing you know, China will encourage North Korea to build ICBM's to reach US Pacific fleets in Hawaii and California. And how would Russia like to lose its best customers in China and the Middle East (for its weapon sales) just so that America can strike left and right with Moscow's consent?
Jefferson used to write tons of metaphysical junk about politics: the importance of agriculture, the urgency to free all slaves immediately, the evil of a central bank, power to the states rather than to Washington, etc, etc. But when became president, he was practical enough to disregard his own advice on all these. (For instance, had he followed up on his own written views on the residual powers of Washington to conduct business with foreign governments, under his interpretation of the Constitution, he could not have made the Louisiana Purchase. Now, imagine America without the last thirty-seven states.) The world envisioned by Huntington is annoyingly black and white. No leader of any major country can take him seriously, due to the obvious and severe consequences of his recommendations, which harm everyone and do nobody any good. To follow his advice would be SUICIDE. Instead of this book, Josephy Nye's "The Paradox of American Power" and Margaret Thatcher's "Statecraft" should be required reading for anyone seriously interested in world affairs and the future of US foreign policy. Anything by Henry Kissinger is excellent - sane, pragmatic, balanced, historically-informed. Nothing would do greater damage to America's interests than to make this book the bible of policy makers. Return it to the bookstore for a full refund. (I did.)
Rating:
Summary: Out of Touch with Reality
Review: Where is the united front in Huntington's beloved "Western Christendom"? The gulf between Western Europe and the US - over everything from Iraq to Kyoto - is widening at such a rapid rate, even the blind and deaf know about it. Huntington can kiss his flight of fantasy goodbye. Some of his facts may be right. But his interpretation shows immaturity, a complete lack of touch with reality, a poor understanding of world history, and racism. A C- thesis by a graduate student majoring in international relations at a third-rate college can beat this book hands down. Hitler in his youth used to read this kind of trashy treatises for enlightenment. Among them some were written by an unfrocked monk named Joerg Lanz von Liebenfels, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and of course Spengler. That's how he formed his worldview. Nowadays, young extremists in the Islamic countries are doing the same - only the authors are now different. The educated ones (remember some of the 911 hijackers had university degrees) pick up this kind of books and see their burning hatred of America fully justified. People like Huntington have a lot of responsibility to bear for future calamities to befall America.
Rating:
Summary: Paranoid Fantasy
Review: Why is the professor so paranoid about the decline of the West? I mean, look at history. Until the Renaissance, Western Europe was an insigficant part of the world, both in terms of the size of the economy and in population. The scientific and industrial revolutions pushed Europe to the top ahead of the rest of the world. But this was temporary. East Asia is now catching up from behind, fast. China was indeed the most powerful country for most of history anyway. Its only equal in the West was the Roman Empire at its height. But Rome was not as rich or as populous as Han China, even though Rome was China's equal in military might. The professor wants to turn the West into a citadel, ceasing contact with the rest of the world. But who's listening? Would Royal Dutch/Shell stop building their Chinese pipeline? Would Toyota stop selling cars to Americans? Would USA move all troops out of Korea? I think the professor is living in a world of his own. Whether it was the ancient Greeks fighting one another, the Vikings pillaging and burning the English coasts, the Saxons and the Bavarians murdering each other in the Thirty Years War, the English and the French scalping each other on banks of the Hudson River, or the Germans fighting the British in both world wars, there never was any unity in the West in history. Why now? There's much doubt in my mind whether America itself will long remain a Western country. The professor classifies Latin America as a separate civilization. What makes he think America won't be part of that civilization by the end of this century? When I see the popularity of rap music and Jennifer Lopez, that's where America seems to be heading. And what's wrong with that, pray tell me? Some of the professor's assumptions and implicit suggestions border on the racist. Why is the professor so eager to see a war between America and China? Europe and Russia are supposed to be on America's side in this war, while Japan and the Muslims are on China's side. What is the likelihood of that, if America can't get France and Germany's help over Iraq? Can American planes still fly without oil? And what mad men in the Kremlin would want 10,000 Russian nukes unleashed on China? There will be clashes between states, as always. But not between civilizations, because they're inconceivable and unsupported by historical precedents. Trade and cooperation between states make distinctions between civilizations artificial and meaningless. This book is a pointless academic exercise - a mix of facts and fiction concluding with a totally impossible recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful and useful
Review: This book presents a useful way to view the world after the cold war. Although written before Sept 11 2001 it is helpful in putting that into a wider context. Given the coming war with Iraq it is very useful to read for its section on Islamic reactions/interpretations to the last war between US and Iraq. The author's main thesis is not so much the "decline of the West" as the emergence of China with its rapid ecomomic growth rate and of Islam with its rapid population growth and the increasingly anti-Western stance of these two civilizations. It puts to the test the widely held Western view that Western values and system of government have universal appeal, and that modernization means Westernization. It demonstrates that there is nothing inevitible about the triumph of the West, its values, economic/governmental system or influence. Even if you do not agree with the conclusions in the book there are many very interesting facts/interpretations of history, and a reasonable way to think about global politics in the future.
Rating:
Summary: Absurd Scenario
Review: So China is the enemy! Now, China is one of America's largest trade partners. By 2020 they'll have an economy as large as ours. If we're going to fight a cold war with the Chinese, we'd have to stop trading with them as well. What would that do to our economy? It doesn't take a rocket scientist. If it's going to be a shooting war instead, how are we going to be able to prevent it from escalating to a full-scale nuclear war? Is Huntington out of his mind? By singling out China and Japan as our enemy, this book forces people over there to take notice, and react accordingly. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the Islamic world will be on China's side, according to this book. We all remember what happened when they shut off our gas pumps. They have three-quarters of the oil supply, these Muslims. So, let's start a war with them, and see if we can still fly our B-52's. Can we be sure we can still run our cars? The Nazis used to have all these fanciful ideas about what the world should and would look like, with their improbable alliances and struggles among states. Huntington's philosophy is so eerily familiar to those of us acquainted with this Hitlerite gobbledegook. Lunatics like Tim McVeigh would probably learn this book by heart. It should be banned.
| 
