The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order Paperback – August 2, 2011

Reading this 1996 publication after 9/11/2001, the onset of the War on Terror and the US experiment in "regime change" and "nation building," one cannot but be amazed at the accuracy of its prognostication and the degree to which its advice was not heeded. The basic thesis of the book is that it is impossible to impose Western political, religious and cultural values on non-Western countries. A most astonishing proof of this thesis is the first Gulf War of 1990, waged by the United States against Iraq. To Western eyes it was an entirely just war, backed up by a coalition of Arab states, which succeeded in stopping Saddam Hussein from invading a weaker sovereign state, Kuwait. But, as Huntington shows, it was roundly condemned by public opinion in the Middle East as an imperialist intervention in domestic affairs, a threatening show of military force and a war of the West against all Arabs and all Muslims. The good war, even altruistic war, backfired. Undertaken to protect the life and property of an Arab state, it provoked fear and hatred in the Arab world and empowered the defeated aggressor, whose prestige gained in neighboring states.On the basis of such examples, Huntington draws the painful conclusion that we (as Westerners) cannot universalize rights and principles that we hold dear and apply them to other peoples, governments and states that do not observe them. To do so, he warns, is false, immoral and dangerous. He asserts toward the close of his book: "Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world." He advances an "abstention rule": that core states of one civilization abstain from intervening in the conflicts of other civilizations. He proposes that a constant seeking for common values, practices and institutions among different peoples, states and civilizations is the key to peace and world order in the realignment of nations taking place after the end of the Cold War.THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS was a bestselling book that was widely discussed and debated throughout America--in the popular media, in the halls of academe and in the chambers of government. Henry Kissinger endorsed it. Zbigniew Brzezinski called it revolutionary. Presumably every reader of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, where Huntington's initial statement was published, studied the book. This means all the world analysts in the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Cabinet. It is hard to imagine another publication that had a greater chance of influencing US foreign policy. And yet, as the US prepared to go to war for a second time against Iraq, then went to war and got stuck, every single argument, proof and piece of advice packed into its nearly 400 pages was forgotten or ignored. All that was left was a catch-phrase, "clash of civilizations," which was denied and almost always misused.Contrary to one of the reviews on this page, there is nothing simplistic about this book. The concepts of "civilization," "core state" and "fault-line war" are put forward with precise definitions, reasoned exposition and pertinent historical examples buttressed by statistical data and a full scholarly apparatus. Balkan politics are discussed in exacting detail, Chinese and Central Asian politics as well. Islamic militancy is examined with unflinching objectivity. Distinctions are drawn between domestic multiculturalism and foreign universalism which are hairsplitting, but crucial. The writing abounds in classifications and qualifications; often tedious, but often capped with a memorable maxim: "The great beneficiaries of the war of civilizations are those civilizations who abstained from it."For me, the discussions of post-Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe are most instructive: "People could no longer identify as Communists, Soviet citizens or Yugoslavs, and desperately needed to find new identities. They found them in the old standbys of ethnicity and religion. The repressive but peaceful order of states committed to the proposition that there is no god was replaced by the violence of people committed to different gods." The presentation of civilizational alignments in the Afghan war of 1979-1989, the Tadzhikistan war of 1992 and the Chechen wars beginning in 1994 provides the background for ongoing conflicts today. The analysis of Sino-Russian politics and prospects brings us right up to the moment.The failure of this book to prevent the very thing it warned against is very troubling and raises questions about the real impact of public discourse today. No doubt it is too much to ask power-mongers to re-read it, but for us mere mortals it is essential. We may not be able to change the world, but we at least want to understand it.

As pundits reference THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS regularly (or at least frequently recycle the phrase "clash of civilizations"), I half-expected the book to be a neocon apologist's version of why the U.S. must wage war in the Middle East and Central Asia. It is not. Actually, the book provides an incredibly thoughtful and provocative examination of the world we live in today. Huntington writes: "[C]lashes of civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace, and an international order based on civilizations is the surest safeguard against world war" (13). As he clearly states in the preface, it is intended as a paradigm for viewing global politics.Huntington's thesis is based on his belief that "the most important distinctions among people are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural" (21). Thus, the most important and dangerous conflicts will be between people from different cultures (28). Huntington sees the world "divided between a Western one and non-Western many" (36). He states that "[c]ulture is the common theme in virtually every civilization," and that the most important element which defines culture is religion (42). At this point, one might assume that Huntington is setting the reader up for justification as to why the U.S. must go to war with ________ (insert Muslim country here). He is not.Some concepts that Huntington elaborates upon are that of 'fault lines' and 'core states,' as well as 'indigenization,' which would be defined as the reassertion of indigenous cultures and beliefs. Indigenization serves to explain why many countries in the world are not on the same page as that of the U.S. And his idea of core states is especially significant. To simplify, basically each civilization has a core state. For example, in the West it is (and must remain) the U.S. In East Asia, it is China. But in the Muslim civilization, there is no core state, and this, according to Huntington, helps explain why there is so much conflict and unrest in this part of the world. Incredibly, this book very much holds up after 9/11, and I'd say that recent history could serve to validate much of Huntington's thesis thus far. This is not to say that I agree with everything he espouses. For example, I think he unfairly paints the Muslim world with a broad stroke, and I would argue that many people in the Muslim civilization are actually motivated by reasons that are political and economic (not religious), yet his argument merits serious contemplation. Huntington also focuses significantly on China/Sinic civilization, Russian/Orthodox civilization, as well as examines the Bosnian War as a case study in fault line wars.Huntington makes two points that especially stood out to me. One is addressing the issue of weapons proliferation. Huntington writes, "The hold-down efforts of the West may slow the weapons build up of other societies, but they will not stop it" (190). He explains this in further detail, but I can't help think of the U.S.'s position on Iran and those who advocate another pre-emptive attack. Secondly, in his conclusion, Huntington encourages that civilizations focus on what they have in common in order to get along peacefully. This makes perfect sense to me, and I wish we would hear this more often. He writes: "[T]he world's major religions - Western Christianity, Orthodoxy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism - also share key values in common. If humans are ever to develop a universal civilization, it will emerge gradually through the exploration and expansion of these commonalities" (320).Reading this book is well worth your time. I recommend it.