Clash of Civilizations
Do the attacks on the US on 9/11 and the "war on terror" vindicate Huntington's thesis? Has the clash of civilizations begun? Can it be preempted? Do you have an alternate explanation of current geopolitics?
Politics of the Developing Nations POSC 311
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Khan's Politics of Developing Nations [POSC 311-010] class.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
- Comments on the 09.08.05 lecture on Globalization
- Important Guidelines for Posting
- Levels of Analysis
- 21st Century Demographics: Highs and Lows
- Asian Values
- Eastern Philosophy
- Defining Globalization
- The United States of Globalization
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
Links
18 Comments:
I feel that the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent "war on terror" can be spun to vindicate Huntington's thesis, while in actuality this is not the case. It can be used by those who agree with President Bush that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and liberties. While it may be true that these people have extreme disdain for our culture and what is perceived as our decadent lifestyles, I do not believe that these people commit their lives (sometimes in the process of the attacks) to murdering certain people just because they have differing views on how to live one's life. The more likely scenario is that these attacks occur because the United States (and other powerful Western governments) support governments that are oppressive, often dictatorial and extremely corrupt. Most of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a country which possesses a large portion of the world's oil supply. The government is run by the Saudi family. In the 1970's the Saudi government purchased millions and millions in U.S. Government Securities. The interest on these securities paid to the Saudis was then invested in American oil companies and other U.S. infrastructure firms that helped modernize Saudi Arabia, but more importantly closely linked the economies and governments of both nations. Most of the incredibly massive profits from oil revenues never trickle down to the average Saudi citizen, but instead end up in the pockets of U.S. oil tycoons (and in turn U.S. politicians) and the Saudi family who are more likely to spend it gambling in Monte Carlo Casino or their boat for sailing the French Riviera. Additionally, the United States has had tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia, in which Mecca (the holiest site in Islam) is located. A similar comparison would be if say Jordan sent 30,000 troops to protect Vatican City. The terrorists from Saudi Arabia , while obviously are appalling monsters, conduct these haneous acts against the U.S. because our government keeps the Saudi Family in power, which in turn keeps the Saudi citizens oppressed and in poverty, not because Americans view pornography on the Internet. While this passage may be a case of hyperbole, over generalization and simplification of many complexities, it helps to reveal that it is the policies of the U.S. government (and other western governments) that result in the terrorists attacks, not a clash of cultures/civilizations. And since these governments are democratically elected, they are accountable to the will of the people and therefore U.S. citizens can share part of the blame for these policies and their detrimental effects.
9/13/05 my bad
This post has been removed by the author.
This one is a little long too, but let me know what you think.
The Clash of Civilizations
This post has been removed by the author.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were definitely an eye opener to the U.S. government and its citizens. In the early days following the tragedy many would have been quick to agree with Huntington in his assertion that the clash of civilizations is upon us. At first glance, it seemed that this was the only explanation for such acts of hatred, however, when taking a closer look at history it becomes clear that fighting between the West and Islamic civilizations has been taking place for over a thousand years. History shows that from the times of the Crusades up until the Gulf War, disagreements surrounding culture, religion, land, ideals, etc. have put these two groups in uncompromising positions. To say 9/11 started the “clash of civilizations” is wishful thinking to say the least. If anything, 9/11 opened up a new can of worms and made people around the world once again take notice of this underlying problem that has come to repeat itself over time. With such contrasting groups, it’s hard to propose a logical solution; however, I think the impact of globalization will have a positive effect on the problem. As interdependence becomes more prevalent and global interests more similar, the other factors that posed as difficulties in the past will become less important due to the benefits that each side can achieve by working together.
-Michael Donahue 9/15/05
I do believe that the attacks on September 11 were part of a cultural clash. I know that they did not come out of nowhere, and that we have a long history of fighting with Middle Eastern countries. (Of Which I do not know the details.) The problem is that we always see things from the American point of view. After the attacks I did not here one reason of "Why" they did this on the news or in newspapers in the years after. Instead of understanding their reasons exlpoding our trade centers, so in the future we can perhaps have better communication with those groups of people, we label them "terrorists" and say how they're "evil" and vow to take revenge. Sound like a country western tale of Cowboys and Indians to anyone else here?
This is not to excuse by ANY means what happened that day. However, I think what we did/are doing to Iraq could be viewed as the same thing (terrorism). Well, we had a good reason, you say. We want to 'free' them. Perhaps, but didn't they have a good reason then too? What if their aim was to breakdown our government? IN both cases, both countries hate the way the other is run. Im not saying that I'd like ot be living under tribal dictatorships, but looking at things abstratcly, and it's really not all that different...
I have to agree with Michael in the fact that the "clash" between Islamic and Western civilizations did not begin with 9/11. However, it took that tragedy to open many peoples' eyes to the situation (including people in government). Sometimes it seems that the two cultures are just too different and that there will never be a way to live peacefully. However, globalization has taken us extremely far just in the past decade. It's hard to say what the impacts of further economic, political, and cultural integration will be in the next 10 or 20 years. However, I feel that there is a great possibility of positive change due to globalization.
9.15.05
The first thing that comes to my mind when I read these postings, of which I really enjoyed, is how important "international relations" are. While I would love to believe there could one day be total peace, I believe that the differences in cultures and ideas will never meet to become one, universal principle. However, I don't believe that would make the world a "better place", for the importance and joy of education, I believe, comes from the differences of opinions, ideas, theories, thoughts and beliefs.
(This was not a comment regarding 9/11, but a response to the other postings. So, maybe I didn't answer the question, but I really enjoyed these postings and thought that there were some great points made by all.)
First of all I thought Huntington's topic was very biased towards other cultures and relegions (in particular ISLAM). It is because of people like Hunington that there exists "a clash of civilization". Hunington and people like him are the reasons why there is so much confusion, anger and misunderstanding between West (in particular US) and the East. I do not think that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 vindicate his thesis. If there is a clash of civilization between West and East, then why is it that Al-Qaid and other terrorist organizations are not attacking western countries like (Sweden, France, Switzerland, etc). He forgets to mention why there is terrorist organizations to begin with. Why do they hate us is the question I hear in media everyday? Well to begin with, US has around 6 thousand or so soldiers in the Holy City of Mecca (which the Muslims don't like at all). NO one would want to have a stranger in your house or country. It is not that the people in the East hate the Americans (in fact you will find people in Iran who have American friends and relatives). It is the foreign policy of the US government that they hate the most. In a sense they look at the US government as hypocritical. They wil install a monarch somewhere (if it is in their best interst, like Iran, Chile, even Iraq), and if they no longer see it in their interest they will remove that guy from leadershi (like Saddam Hussein) etc.
When you have people like Hunington who bash other cultures by saying that their culture and relegion have no cocept of liberalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, etc, then surely there will be a clash of civilizaion.
When considering the "clash" between the East and the West, we have to consider where it comes from. As a few people have previously stated, we have a long history of strained relations with the Middle East. However, according to the CIA factbook, there were 1.4 billion Muslims in the wolrd in 2003, it is the second largest religion in the world, and figures are now showing that they represent aprox. 20% of the world's population and still growing. The Arab world primarilry consists of only about 15-18% of the entire World's Islamic population. However, when asked where Muslims come from, the average American would say that they come from the Middle East. This fact, is for obvious reasons, mistaken. Now, when most of the World's Islamic population is primarily elsewhere, why do we continue to place the Middle East at the center of the entire religion? I know the Middle East literally IS the ceter of Islam, with Mecca at its heart...but according to population size it cannot compete with Asia or Africa. I would not consider that the West is "clashing" with Muslims at all. The religion and people who follow it are actually quite peaceful. Those who have chosen to declare a "holy war" on us are the Islamic fundamentalists primarily located in the turbulent countries located in the region we call the Middle East. But overall, I don't think that most Muslims consider themselves at odds with those from the West. We've read the article by Kung preaching a "global ethic," in other words, a basic global acceptance of others, not a unified, but just a new understanding of eachother. But until the media starts portraying Muslims for who and what they really are, a very peaceful people, and avoids sterotyping one fith of the world as radical fundamentalists, we must educate ourselves and must not consider Islam our 'enemy.' We've got our work cut out for us already, we don't need to add fuel to the fire.
-Jacque DiMattia 09/15/05
It seems that the attacks of 9/11 could effectively be spun around to support Huntington’s overarching goals of the article, as discussed in class, giving the West an “other” to be united against. But even terrorism and the 9/11 attacks did not unite the West for very long, nor did the attack on the U.S. succeed in united the East with the exception of the fundamentalist groups who supported such actions. I have thought for quite some time now, and it seems other intellectuals have posed a similar idea, that terrorism has become what communism was during the Cold War especially in relation to the United States. In the case of the US, terrorism becomes this fear that invades everyday life for most citizens because the government has scared us into thinking that a terrorist attack could happen at any moment (which is possible, but not as likely as the government would have you believe) and we have to be willing to give up some of our civil liberties in order to prevent this from happening. In correlation with the war in Iraq, as we have seen with many other wars, Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties in order to ‘protect’ themselves. Also, the US government has tried to bring other countries along with them to fight terrorism, similar to alliances made after WW II against communism, but this has only worked temporarily. And certainly did not end in a uniting of the West against the East, as seen by the UN Security Councils vote against invading Iraq. Beyond temporarily connecting with the general goal of Huntington’s article, the 9/11 attacks are not the beginning of the ‘clash of civilizations’. Current geopolitics are much more complicated than a base unit of civilizations competing and warring against one another. There truly is no overarching community of either the West or the East, there are certainly similarities in regions that border one another, but there are also similarities across ocean boundaries that maybe shared by different groups of people.
I do not attribute the 9/11 attacks to the culture clash, rather to misguided extremists. Many people point their fingers at the West, as it is our fault that other cultures enjoy western indulgences. America's culture seems to be a somewhat universal civilization, in the way that our culture was shaped and made by so many cultures melting together. I appreciated in the Hungtington article when he discussed the lines of civilizations. The west will be more advanced because we took part in all the great changes of time. We were geographically advantaged and highly motivated. It will take time for the rest of the world to catch up, but this is not a reason to punish us. I do not believe that a universal civilzation is necessary or even appropriate for the whole world. I think that the west just wants people to live as well as we do. I’m sure many people say that it is not our business how people in other cultures live, but if you want our money when disasters strike your country, or help when another country invades your country, I feel you are obligated to hear the Western’s two cents. The dependency from other countries has helped make the West what it is. Many people are so critical of what we are doing in Iraq, they say we are taking too much action. Well in Rwanda there was no political will to take any action, and as a result, hundreds of thousands died at the hands of their own people. These are not a direct comparison, but it is plain to see that you can never please everyone. Maybe I am an idealist when I say that I would rather work proactively and potentially save some people then sitting back and watching disasters strike. Maybe it is this attitude that causes people to hate the West, but if by being influenced by the West meant increased safety, food, water, and vacinations I wonder who would turn it away?
At first glance Huntington's thesis appears to be justified. The Sept. 11 attacks, and the "war on terror," both involve two diametrically opposed groups of people. We are difffernt states, with different religions, and are geographically separted. But violence and war are complicated. Hatred against one's civilizations cannot be so formulaic. According to Huntington, this is the case; with a rather simple commonm denominator: religion. We eat pork and pray once a week--muslims avoid swine and pray five times a day. We have the ten commandments--they, the five pillars, and bam....conflict.
I disagree. The attacks against the West, have been from a select few fanatical individuals, hardly a civilization. Would it be fair for the Klu Klux Klan to represent the United States in a political arena?
Most Americans would say no. The recent attacks against the US are feeble attempts to combat change, which scholars refer to as "globalization;" you may have heard of it. These individuals feel the "west" is polluting their societies, and wish for a devolution of ideas.
But as time will show, change is inevitable; the youth will began to take a more agnostic approach toward faith and politics. Small single issue terrorism may never dissapear, but inevitable grand clashes over different culture blocs, is a little glum and unrealistic. Plus, according to Huntington there shouldn't be conflict among the same groups, yet how does he explain the Gulf War?
Today geopolitics are and will continue to be open minded. As cliche' as it sounds, one has to respect and embrace one's neighbour, along with their religion and culture. Foreign policy recognizes that a "civilization" is much more than a fundamental religious sect, rather, it is a group of individuals who go to work, share the same fears, want their children to succeed, food on the table, and goodwill towards others; and I don't see it changing.
This post has been removed by the author.
Sherdian, Your example of KKK was very nice. Truly, because of the actions of few individuals one cannot, and should not generalize. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups do not represent the true face of ISLAM.
Mustafa Zia, Sept,20,2005
The clash of civilizations was not started by 9-11. As Mr. Donahue pointed out, a clash of civilizations can date back to the crusades, yet not the one we are partaking in today. The crusades were a clash between two religious civilizations. Today, the clash we are involved in is the western culture against strict muslim extremists. Our president does not like the way they live their lives and they do not like the way we live ours. This is the most important clash we are dealing with, the clash of how we think people should live and how they think people should live. 9-11 did not start this, it just emphasized it.
Sean Guidera, posted 10/26
Post a Comment
<< Home