Clash of Civilization in Middle East

Ever since demise of ‘Communist threat’ in 1993, all scholars of the world are proliferating about future of the world. Among them ‘Samuel P. Huntington's theory’ ‘Clash of Civilization’ is topic of debate in all over the world. According to this, “Conflicts of post-cold war era occur along cultural fault lines like region, ethnic groups and nationalities and religious group and divide civilization at two levels. First is micro level, in which countries try to hold their control in their territory. Second is macro level, in which countries compete for military power in order to promote their political and religious values.

Now in present days, situation of ‘Middle East’ is the worst in the world. ‘Huntington’s theory of Clash of Civilization’ is proving true in Middle East. Civilization is facing threats from dragons of their regimes at micro and macro level. But world is not giving importance to that dangerous situation and especially Muslims countries who are fighting with each other for their political control rather than to sit and find solution of that situation.

As regards, element of religion in International relations, there are two types of School of thoughts are present in the world,

1) According to first one, as international relations is secular term. So, there is no part of religion in it. For example after fall of ‘Ottoman Empire’ creates new liberal govt. in Turkey. So, it is example that now-a-days countries don’t give importance to religion in their foreign policy and work for their mutual interest.
2) But according to Second School of thought, after establishment of Israel and 9/11, now religion has most importance in world politics.


As Christianity is divided into two groups, ‘Catholic and Protestant fractions’, Muslims are divided into two major groups, which are ‘Sunni and Shiite’. Saudi Arab is leader of Sunni Muslims having population of 85-90 % Sunni and 10-15% Shiite Muslims. While Iran is heading Shiite Muslims and also rival of Saudi Arab having population of 90% Shiite and 10% Sunni Muslims.

Syria and Iraq are two variants where majority are denied to rule in their countries. Syria with Sunni majority having 74% Sunni, 16% Shiite and 10% Christians. Sunni are denied to rule in their country and Shiite is ruling in Syria. After fall of ‘Ottoman Empire’, Syria became French colony and after independence in 1946 power kept swinging between Sunni and Shiite. But in 1976 ‘Hafiz Al-Asad’ a Shiite, became ruler of Syria and after that mainly Shiite were seen on top levels in govt. departments in Syria, but Asad kept sectarian harmony in society. But Basharul Asad lost that harmony in Syria after 2011.

Iraq with Shiite majority having 60-65% Shiite and 30-35% Sunni Muslims. But Shiites were denied to rule in Iraq, because they denied British rule in WW-I, while on the other hand Saudi Arabs are creature of ‘Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill’. But after fall of ‘Saddam Husain’s regime’ in Iraq in 2003, Shiite got power.

But if we study American’s policy for Iraq, we learned following things,
o Washington tried many political actors to rule in Iraq, but failed to provide political stability.
o Instead of creating sectarian harmony Washington converted Iraq into a Shiite state.
o Due to this prevailing pseudo-democracy in Iraq, Shiite got rule after nine decades of Sunni regime.
o Many trained soldiers of Iraqi govt. instead of fighting with Iraqi army against ISIS; they met with ISIS in Syria to fight against Bashar-ul-Asad regime.
o Iraqi former premier ‘Noori Al-Maliki’ made two mistakes; first he could not develop national consensus among people and second he could not develop combine force against prevailing threat of ISIS.

In Syria, where situation is worse than ever in that era, but brutality of ‘Bashar-ul-Asad ’ is continue. Now America, Saudi Arab, Turkey, UAE and even Israel are fighting against Asad regime. But Iran, Russia, China and fighters of Hizbullah are supporting Asad. But if we see Washington’s policy towards Middle East, then we come to know that Washington is supporting Iraqi govt. against ISIS, but fighting against Asad regime in Syria by supporting ISIS . So, Washington is supporting and fighting with same group ISIS in Iraq and Syria respectively, who are fighting current regimes in both countries.

So, we can summarize Washington’s policy towards Middle in one line is ‘It is nothing but total failure. ’Quoting ‘Dr. N. Janardhan’ region is hub of crisis rather than of stability. According to critics in US, both Democrats and Republicans are criticizing Obama’s policy towards Middle East, which instead of developing stability creates another militant wing ISIS.
Just mention Pakistan though having Sunni majority with 80-85% Sunni and world second largest Shiite population of 10-15%.Fawaz A. Gergis, the leading Lebanese-American philosopher, in his book 'America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests?’ stated that America asked new Islamic states in Central Asia to follow moderate Pakistani model of govt.
Though in Pakistan, there are many sectarian issues, but one have to appreciate Pakistan that in Pakistan everyone has equal opportunity to go in military, judicial system or even in parliament. Pakistan as being typical US ally against Soviet Union war in 1980s. But Pakistan maintains its relations with China, who is Russian ally. So, maintaining its relations with China and US at a time.

In the same way, Pakistan has equal level relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia; Pakistan never takes side of any one and gives equal importance to both of them. Recently when ‘King Salman’ requested Pakistan to coordinate with them to fight against ‘Houthi rebels’ in Yemen, but Pakistan did not take side of Saudi Arabia against Iran’s supported ‘Houthi rebels’. Pakistan’s stance on Yemen is clear that it can provide its help to organize political consensus between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So, regimes in Middle should have to learn lesson from moderate Pakistan and establish political consensus with each other like Pakistan. In this regard Pakistan can provide guidance them at any level. It is also time of need that Saudi Arabia who is leader of Muslim world should have to move forward with open heart to solve problems of Muslims and develop political consensus. May Allah give unity to all Muslim-e-Ummah. (Amin)

پھول کی پتی سے کٹ سکتا ھے ھیرے کا جگر

Your few arguments are right. But Huntington did not analyze the factors rationally. Thatswhy, this theory was strongly criticized by intellectuals. Clash of civilization can happen if concept of muslim Ummah prevails in true spirit. But world politics is now economic driven and most of the muslim countries are already under influence of capitalism. For neo-liberals, capatalist economy is the main concern. Democracy, human rights are rhetoric to appease people.