Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Religions?

Abstract

Every phase of American foreign policy has found its supporters inAmerican academia. The Cold War had its famous academicians who notonly justified American foreign policy at that time but later becameprominent decisionmakers. Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Baezinski arestill remembered as successful academicians who became policymakers.However, only one prominent scholar has been able to survive the ColdWar with his credibility intact while maintaining his influence on Americanforeign policy: Samuel P. Huntington.In his recent article on "The Clash of Civilizations" (Foreign Afsairs77:3), Huntington attempts to predict the scenario of the New WorldOrder that will have to be dealt with by the West. He then seeks to influencenot only American foreign policy, but that of the entire West. Hisopening argument is that the old topology of conflict will be replaced byconflicts of civilizations. The world will be divided according to existingcivilizations (i.e., western, Islamic, Confucianist, Hindu, Buddhist, LatinAmerican, and possibly African). He then MITOWS the list of enemies totwo civilizations: Confucianism and Islam. This short commentary willconcentrate on the reasons behind Huntington's article in order to uncoverthe decay that is eating away at the beautiful face of the West.The Supremacy of Western CivilizationFrom the beginning, Huntington attempts to convince the reader thatthe West represents a homogeneous culture. In addition, he infers that itsculture and civilization is desired because it is superior and therefore naturalfor it to dominate. Here, he lacks the necessary credibility to providea reason for such supremacy. Such a worldview is not new, for the samementality helped to form similar justifications for westem colonialism:"civilizing mission" and the "white man's burden" are the predecessorsto Huntington's arguments.Indirectly, Huntington calls upon the nonwestem world &I join westemcivilization. He assumes that some nonwestem civilizations might acceptwestem dominance faster and easier than others. The obstacles forjoining, which are most difficult for Islamic and Confucian societies, canbe traced to their cultures. He argues that such societies will not only rejectwestem civilization, but that they will develop their own economicand military capabilities through cooperation with each other. But whyshould he nonwestem world "join" the West, especially when "join," inHuntington's dictionary, means "dependent" or "servant" of the West, not ...