Rating: 
Summary: Ignorant of History
Review: The rise of any great power is always destabilizing, asserts Huntington. He cites Wilhelmine Germany as an example. Why the rise of America as a global power is not destabilizing, he never explains. (So far it hasn't been.)Huntington points at China as the next destabilizer. His ignorance of history is astounding. There was a time when China was not only the richest and the most powerful country in the world, but equal to the rest of the world combined in wealth and military might. This was about AD 1000. China was the world's only superpower. But no evidence exists that China clashed with any other civilization, although it easily could have, had it chosen to do so. Then a Chinese Empire could have straddled as far west as Ireland and as far east as Hawaii. The potential conflict between Europe and the Mongols under Genghis Khan could have been an example of a civilizational clash.....but Huntington never suggested it, perhaps because it never happened. Equipped with Chinese technology, the Mongols forged an empire controlling Russia, China, Central Asia, the Middle East, and northern India. But they never conquered Europe (though not for lack of trying!). They got as far as the Danube and the Oder, that's about it. There was no real clash, although Europeans felt the menace. The two most destructive wars in human history - the two World Wars - took place among the great states of the West. In both cases it was the Germans vs. the Anglo-Saxons. Certainly, both world wars involved non-Western countries, such as China vs. Japan, or Russia vs. Japan. But these were sideshows to the main core conflict taking place WITHIN the West. Even the US-Japan theater was peripheral to the European theater. Here's another fact from history: most human conflicts took place within a civilization. When Huntington calls for a united front among the countries of the West, I believe he really means the white race. How united has the white race been, historically? In addition to the two World Wars, the Cold War was a struggle between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans - Americans being mainly the relatives of Western Europeans. Until the two World Wars, the most bloody wars in world history took place mainly within Europe, i.e., within one civilization. For most of history China was, despite interruptions, one whole state. Inter-state wars were unheard of there since 221 BC. Middle East and North Africa were too sparsely populated to have real wars (the crusades were little wars). Sub-Saharan Africa is a black hole whose history we know little. Although China invented gunpowder, they used it for fireworks. It's no accident that the advent of firearms happened in Europe, or that the atomic bomb was made in America. The possibility is real, though, that the Islamic world will turn hostile towards the West in the future. But if it does so, the West has itself to blame. A careful reading of history indicates that it was Europeans who started the fight. Huntington shows a dreadful ignorance of history in this book. Or perhaps his ignorance is more selective than real: if you choose your facts and figures carefully, you can prove anything. That's why this kind of research is so unscientific.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book
Review: This is a fascinating book. It's important to read and be familiar with even if you disagree with his thesis. The most interesting ideas for me were the rise of China, the clash with Islam, and the potential threat of a Sino-Islamic anti-American alliance. The cover is prescient and bit spooky - it is a stylized photograph of the World Trade Center, published before September 11.
Rating:
Summary: Where is "the West"?
Review: In his excellent "The Triumph of the West", JM Roberts said: "'The West' is hardly now a meaningful term, except to historians." Well, Huntington is trying to revive it. But I don't see the point. "The West", which he defines as coterminous with Western Christendom, attained its greatest power over the rest of the world by 1914. Had it been united enough, it would have controlled and ruled over the world for centuries, if not forever. The West lost its chance. Now that the non-Western share of the world's economy is rising, this window of opportunity is not likely to come back. Huntington is right to recognize that (although he's hardly the first). So he advocates a united West to maintain superiority over the rest of the world and to prevent itself from being dominated in turn. The trouble is, I don't see how it's possible to unite "the West". Unlike India, it's not even a geographical concept. There was a time when the West was one whole unit: the Roman Empire. Even then it contained within its borders many peoples now considered non-Western (such as Egyptians), while many others, like the Germans, were not part of the Roman world. But ever since then the peoples who formed what Huntington calls the Western Christendom have not been a political or economic entity. Attempts to unite Europe by force, such as by Napoleon and Hitler, failed totally. America, which formerly was part of the British Empire, and thus part of Europe's sphere of influence, broke off over two centuries ago. Ever since then it has been taking it own path. When Russia was a menace, there was a link between America and Europe in NATO. But even then there was no free trade pact or common currency zone between them. With the communist threat gone, the incentive for unity between both sides of the Atlantic is weaker than ever. Europeans are trying to piece themselves together, form a common economy, and have one foreign policy. America's future ties seem to me to be with the rest of the Americas. We hear only news of growing differences between the US and Europeans, not the opposite. Just when free trade and globalization are lifting billions of people out of poverty, Huntington advocates a policy whereby the West contains itself and ceases relations with the outside world. To do so would require the complete cessation of investment in non-Western countries as well as of all imports from them. Without a doubt this super Great Wall would stop economic development in the non-Western world. This is not only immoral - it will destroy the West. Huntington's recommendation for America's domestic policy smacks so much of neo-Nazism that I shudder to think it comes from a Harvard liberal. All immigration from non-Western countries, whether legal or illegal, must be stopped, while the non-Western immigrants (i.e., non-whites) must be assimilated. How this assimilation is to take place, I don't know. You can't force people to marry each other. Yet Huntington can see that without actual racial blending, there will always be multi-racial and multi-ethnic divisions in American political life.
Rating:
Summary: Alice in Wonderland
Review: The distinguished Chicago historian William H. McNeill put it very well when referring to Huntington's recommendations: a prescription for World War III. He didn't mince words in his book review; but I doubt it's necessary to be worried, because no one who matters is going to take this book seriously. Huntington's divisions of civilizations are arbitrary and inconsistent. Some, like "Orthodox", referring to Russia and Eastern Europe - and believe it or not, "Buddhist" - are religious; while others, like "Sinic" (China) sound ethnic, and "Latin America" looks like nothing more than a linguistic civilization (based on Spanish, that is). He calls for total integration - political and economic - between North America and Western Europe. How likely is THAT going to happen?. Europeans have enough trouble integrating themselves into one whole unit. Also, the cultural gulf between America and Europe is widening. Just look at the unpopularity of McDonald's restaurants in France. Nor are Germans crazy about everything American, either. America itself is changing demographically. In 50 years' time white Americans may well be the largest minority, with no single group in the clear majority. This will make America even more different from Europe. Huntington calls for "Westernization" of Latin America. The fact is, America is Latinizing. The notion about putting an end to trade with Asia is absurd. It would be a disaster for American businesses and the US economy, which could be plunged into a depression so severe as to make the 30's look like a boom. No sane American farmers or CEO's would support that. If reform continues in China, it will make the country so powerful as to make a conflict between America and China a global catastrophe. Russia's own trade with China is developing fast. Relations between the two countries have never been better and keep improving. If America can't get France and Germany (two countries from Huntington's Western Christendom "civilization") to go along on tiny Iraq, the possibility that America can get Europe and Russia on its side in a total war with China and Japan is pure fantasy. Huntington's scenario should put Tom Clancy to shame. In any case, the assumption that China and America are on a collision course cannot be sustained. Just as America is changing, so too is China. Just as America's center of gravity is shifting away from the Atlantic and towards the Pacific, so China too will eventually liberalize and orient towards the West. Economic reform already has made the people far more open than they used to be. Just look at the effort the people in Beijing are making to learn English, in preparation for the 2008 Olympics. The communist government for all its rhetoric never hesitates to hold up the Space Shuttle as a shining example of AMERICAN technology - it's on every poster. This trend will continue, notwithstanding Huntington's doubts. Trade between China on the one hand and Europe, America, and Russia on the other is developing so quickly, that I don't see how Huntington can bet on a growing rift between the Sinic "civilization" and the rest of the world. With trade also comes cultural and value influences, as McNeill points out brilliantly. Huntington has to be quite myopic to despair of longterm changes. Perhaps he reads too little history. As an ethnic Chinese born in then British-controlled Hong Kong, but also a Canadian citizen, having travelled all over America and Europe, I see more and deeper links between civilizations in the future. McNeill calls cultural interchange the basic pattern of history. With ever faster communication links - jets, internet, television - civilization boundaries are more porous and blurry than ever. Even the cleft between Islam and the West is not unbridgeable. (Of course, there will always be a small group of extremists - on both sides.) Viewing the future with a Cold War mentality, from a time when America and Russia had little to trade with each other except bullets and propaganda, Huntington simply assumes the same will happen, this time on ethnic/religious/civilization lines rather than ideological ones. It makes me wince to think that a professor at Harvard - TR's and FDR's own alma mater - can be this dumb. A man of TR's realism or FDR's practical sense wouldn't even bother to pick up a book like this. Shut up in a library all day, extrapolating things in a simple-minded manner, seeing everything in black and white, Huntington draws ivory-tower lessons from his books. He should get out in the open air, travel a bit more, and meet more people.
Rating:
Summary: Simplistic
Review: Huntington has a lot to explain why the rapid trade growth between China on the one hand and America, Germany and Russia on the other cannot promote cultural interchange and reduce the possibility of a clash between the three different civilizations represented here. Bush can't seem to get France and Germany to go along on Iraq, yet both are obviously part of the "Western Christendom" civilization to which America belongs. China is changing fast economically. Eventually, and however slowly, China will also change and liberalize politically. It won't be like America any time soon, but it will not be what it used to be either. America is itself changing. In 50 years time whites will be in the minority, though the largest minority. America is thus becoming less and less Eurocentric by the day. The gulf between America and Europe is widening. I don't know if America and China are on a collision course many years down the road, as Huntington claims, but I do know that if they are Europe won't be on America's side. Russia will have so much to lose in a conflict with China that any attempt on America's part to get Russia involved will be futile.
Rating:
Summary: good and interesting.
Review: The author possesses enormous knowledge of this world. It is interesting to see how a scholar sees and imagines the world.
Rating: 
Summary: An important and dangerous book
Review: A book that 6 years after publication still raises this number of reviews is not an ordinary book. Huntington makes a case and does it convincingly, it is not easy to find fault with his analytic interpretation of history and recent events. As every book that tries to make a case it is by necessity one-sided, tectonic fault lines are not the only factor shaping geography but maybe the most violent. If it is the only book on international relations you have or will ever read, do not read it, if it is the 20th, do. If you are conservatively and western-imperialist inclined, your prejudices and fears will come out reinforced, if you are not, it is a welcome intelectual sparring partner.
If you read it, read it to the end to find Huntingtons 'agenda' and admonitions which actually counter claim some of his analysis but at the same time are the weakest part of the book. He does not seem to realise that his prescriptions for countering the 'moral decline' of the west are incompatible with a relativistic interpretation of the values of the west, moral values are universal or they are not moral. Values must be universally applicable, non-adherence is a choice which can be accomodated but not approved by a living value system. In that respect Western values can only regain ground and appeal if they are principled, not relativistic. That international politics must be pragmatic and realist is obvious.
Another aspect of his book that is manifestly false is his equation of the west with Christianity (Judaism contributions and Zionism (fault lines) are curiously absent from the whole book). Christians may send missionaries with some success to divide further the chasms he describes and make it self-fullfilling prophecy. The intellectual appeal of the West is however its lay (liberated from thy Christian yoke) moral and political philosophy of the enlightenment and modernity:, to blame a Muslim for not being a Christian gives a 'so what ?' blaming him or a Sinic leader for not having democratic legitimacy is still a sting that bites because it is of another magnitude and nature.
Rating:
Summary: simplistic but need to know
Review: Short and sweet:
Read this if: 1) you want one view of how some theorists are thinking about the shape of international relations after the end of the Cold War and you don't mind a simplistic view of Islam; 2) you are interested in a somewhat novel argument against US intervention abroad that moves beyond human rights and international law. Don't read this if: 1) you don't have a lot of time and have already read his article in Foreign Policy; 2) you'll be angered by a view that is still somewhat Eurocentric.
Rating:
Summary: Clash of Ideas
Review: First of all, I must disclaim, that I haven't read this entire book. I've read excerpts of Huntington's work over the years and find his cultural approach to the world interesting and informative, yet overly simplified. I challenge anybody who is reading this book to consider alternative theorists such as Alfred Stepan, who debunks Stepan claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy in "Arguing Comparative Politics" chapter 11. A few points worth mentioning is how about 40% of Muslim live in democracies or semi-democracies. He also counters with various excerpts from the Koran that may encourage tolerance, writings and interviews with Muslim clerics, etc. Also to minimize ideology and economic dependency as potential causes for "clashing of civilization" ignores a great deal of established literature on the subject. But again, I havent read the entire book so I'm not sure how he would address this.
Rating:
Summary: A hypothesis put forth to test reality. Grim predictions.
Review: This book gives a detailed explanation of WHY societies are different and explains HOW some conflicts occur as a result of "multiculturalism." This is a book that could be read by many people on university campuses to settle their hash about their reasons for wanting "diversity." And some of the real life conflicts that can spin out of control, never to be resolved as a result thereof. One such example he gives is Sri Lanka, where the conflict between the different languages there has gotten so out of control that it has destroyed an economy that had great potential. It echoes what was written in Lee Kwan Yew's book "From Third World to First," but when it is read in the context of this book, it is a more potent example.
As a scientist, I think that the best part of this (social science) book is that it made a model to explain the data as opposed to writing things just because they "sound nice." So one often hears in Pan African Studies the notion of "European Culture," and "African Culture" without any good, detailed set of observations that this idea needs to explain. His observation of the alignments of different groups in conflicts between major powers is what his working hypothesis explains. He shows that there is indeed a lot of overlap between the thinking patterns of people from certain parts of the country. For example: Legalism and social control are major elements of Chinese Society. Though Singapore is not a "Chinese" society the way that Huntington would have us to believe, they are indeed obsessed with controlling everything. But on the other hand, they have taken elements from his concept of "Western" society. The quotes from the popular press and the position of the government show that they are fully aware of adopting these elements from two different societies. No one needs to go out on a limb looking for why they don't have open democracy (as has Christopher Lingle): It was not in their minds to begin with. I don't think that this book was meant to be an exhaustive detailing of every single country in every single society, because that would be just too dense and too difficult to read. But it does give a very useful theoretical apparatus from which to look at these things. Often, one hears quoted that the attacks on our country in Sept. were because of "United States' Foreign Policy." (Incidentally, it is most often heard at universities.) But the conflict between Muslims and Christians has been going on for a very long time. The presence of the USA in these later years shows that because of the more fundamental conflict of Islam vs. West, if it were not the USA, then it would just be someone else. Finally, here is a reasonable analysis that is not just a matter of fine anti-American phrases that one hears so often out of the ivory towers in the USA. His analyses are something that would be very useful for our government to understand and learn from in their application of foreign policy. Both by way of understanding who is a useful ally, and in terms of WHY certain social prescriptions are not appropriate for other countries (i.e., human rights in China). Huntington quotes one speaker (Matahir Mohammed) as saying that Asians like "deception" as a way of behavior. That is 150% percent true. Most of the immigration to our country now is from these areas of the world who have NO concept of things that it has taken the West hundreds of years to discover. This could be paving all the right circumstances for a disaster in the future. And if it does come, one cannot say that it was never written down somewhere. This is a result of very different ways of thinking. I don't think that the government has acknowledged this, nor do I think that they have as much information as the author has gathered. This will make an interesting read for someone who wants to gather data to demonstrate unequivocally that NOT EVERYONE THINKS THE SAME.
| 
