In order to understand some of what follows, it is necessary to
read the 1/24 edition of this column concerning Samuel
Huntington”s 1993 controversial essay, “The Clash of
Civilizations.”
And in light of President Bush”s comments in his State of the
Union address on Tuesday, it helps to repeat a comment of
Huntington”s from his article which appeared in the summer ”93
issue of Foreign Affairs.
“The conflict between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states
focuses largely, although not exclusively, on nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and other sophisticated
means for delivering them, and the guidance, intelligence and
other electronic capabilities for achieving that goal.”
Well, we”ve reached the point where this is clearly the overriding
issue for the West.
After Huntington”s piece was published, many in the foreign
policy community felt compelled to comment, some of which
appeared in the September / October 1993 issue of Foreign
Affairs.
—–
Professor Fouad Ajami / Arab affairs expert:
Ajami comments on Huntington”s statement, “The next world
war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations.”
“Huntington is wrong. He has underestimated the tenacity of
modernity and secularism in places that acquired these ways
against great odds, always perilously close to the abyss, the
darkness never far…” [Ajami is referring to countries like
Turkey, but these examples are still few in number.]
Commenting on Huntington”s theory that the clash of
civilizations will come about because of a focus on
“traditionalists,” Ajami writes that “The phenomenon we have
dubbed as Islamic fundamentalism is less a sign of resurgence
than of panic and bewilderment and guilt…(these traditionalists)
crash Europe”s and America”s gates in search of liberty and
work, (while) they rail against the sins of the West.”
“Tradition-mongering is no proof…that these civilizations
outside the West are intact, or that their thrashing about is an
indication of their vitality, or that they present a conventional
threat of arms.”
With regards to Turkey, Ajami correctly noted in ”93 that there
was no stepping back to the nation”s imperial past. “Ataturk
severed that link with fury (and) pointed his country westward.”
Separately, “Huntington would have nations battle for
civilizational ties and fidelities when they would rather scramble
for their market shares, learn how to compete in a merciless
world economy, provide jobs, move out of poverty.” [Well, here
Ajami was wrong. The vast majority of the Islamic world is not
scrambling for global market share, outside of oil.]
—
Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore foreign minister
“Western retreat could be as damaging as Western domination.”
“In all conflicts between Muslims and pro-Western forces, the
Muslims are losing, and losing badly, whether they be Azeris,
Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians, or Bosnian Muslims, with so much
disunity, the Islamic world is not about to coalesce into a single
force.” [Mahbubani had some of this right. The extremists are
obviously trying to coalesce the Arab World into a single force,
though success seems unlikely, while at the same time, yes, they
are “losing badly.”]
Huntington notes, “The West in effect is using international
institutions, military power and economic resources to run the
world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect
Western interests and promote Western political and economic
values.”
Mahbubani says, “This combination is a prescription for
disaster…Simple arithmetic demonstrates Western folly. The
West has 800 million people; the rest make up almost 4.7 billion.
In the national arena, no Western society would accept a
situation where 15% of its population legislated for the
remaining 85%. But this is what the West is trying to do
globally.” [Interesting thought.]
Mahbubani had the following comment concerning the West in
general. “Leadership is lacking. Any politician who states hard
truths is immediately voted out.” [Again, this was 1993, and for
the last 9 years it”s tough to argue with the supposition. Until
now, hopefully.]
Lastly, “Western values do not form a seamless web. Some are
good. Some are bad.” [Mahbubani was referring to things like
single-mother births, divorce rates and violent crime, many of
which declined significantly over the past few years.]
—
Robert L. Bartley / Editor, Wall Street Journal
“There are powerful forces toward integration. Instant
communications now span the globe.” [Huntington notes that
this is part of the problem. See Kirkpatrick below.]
—
Liu Binyan / Chinese dissident and Princeton professor
“The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany may no longer exist, but
the economic, social and political factors that led to their
emergence still do – economic dislocation, xenophobia and
populism.”
—
Jeanne Kirkpatrick / former UN ambassador
“Indubitably, important social, cultural and political differences
exist between Muslim and Judeo-Christian civilizations. But the
most important and explosive differences involving Muslims are
found within the Muslim world – between persons, parties and
governments who are reasonably moderate, nonexpansionist and
nonviolent and those who are anti-modern and anti-Western,
extremely intolerant, expansionist and violent. The first target of
Islamic fundamentalists is not another civilization, but their own
governments.” [Again, 1993. Brilliant, and another reason why
I love Ms. Kirkpatrick.]
“Huntington is also surely right that global communication and
stepped-up migration exacerbate conflict by bringing
diametrically opposed values and life-styles into direct contact
with one another…Religious tolerance in the abstract is one
thing; veiled girls in French schoolrooms are quite another. Such
challenges are not welcome anywhere.”
—
So there you have it, just a little of the debate on a clash that we
can only hope Western leaders grasp, before it”s too late.
Barring unforeseen events, next week I”ll take a look at the 30th
anniversary of “Bloody Sunday.”
Brian Trumbore
