Clash of Civilizations,,, back again.
 

A very famous international political prospect named as Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington looks working and surely would be the fate of geo-politics of the earth.

The model describes the 4 large civilizations and their future conflicts when the supremacy of USA will be over ridden by emerging powers like 'sleeping lion' as known as China, India and Russia again.

Chinese civilization, Western Civilization, Arabian civilization and Indian civilization are the icons of concern.

Have your views on this....:thinking:thinking:thinking

The theory of he "Clash of Civilizations?" criticized at large world wide. It seems that theory is advocating its title "Clash of Civilizations?" but author said:

"This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like".


Following is an overview of the theory.

[B][CENTER]The Clash of Civilizations?
By Samuel P. Huntington
Summer 1993[/CENTER][/B]


[B]Overview[/B]

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights, liberal democracy and capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the 'end of history' in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines.

As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.

In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes:

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

so what do you think about it?

Views regarding the Theory of Clash of Civilizations
--------------------------------------------------

[B]Noam Chomsky[/B]

There is no Clash of Civilizations
-One of the biggest fundamentalist Islamic state is our biggest ally i.e. Saudi Arabia
-Money from oil should flow to us so no clash of civilizations
-We provide countries like Pakistan billions of dollars of aid during Afghan conflicts so I don't see a clash of civilizations there
-We are not trying to undermine Indonesia, a biggest Islamic country

[B]Edward Said[/B]

-First appeared in 1993 with a question mark
-Few years later it came as a book without a question mark
-Hostile attention paid to Islam
-Timing of essay important than what he says
-Steps for west to keep its opponents weak and divided
^exploit differences and conflict between confucian and islamic states
^strengthen int'l institutions to promote western interests
-He is interested in expanding cold war and continue it with his chauvinist approach
-He steals his title from 'The Atlantic:The Roots of Muslim Rage' by Bernard Lewis
-Most of his info is second hand, he is not objective in his argument and is partisan
-He is only concerned with anti-western hatred of Muslims

Noam Chomsky

[B]One of the biggest fundamentalist Islamic state is our biggest ally i.e. Saudi Arabia
why?
[/B]

Because of geo politics and to surpass such things like clash of civilizations, the strategic set up in Arabian Peninsula specially the navy set up is its giant proof.

[B]Money from oil should flow to us so no clash of civilizations.
[/B]
It is not a feasible concept after the changing of China’s policy. It has arisen economically and the robust hold it had in the world markets will shift money from oil to china. It’s a fact in contemporary world.

[B]We provide countries like Pakistan billions of dollars of aid during Afghan conflicts so I don't see a clash of civilizations there.
[/B]
I think for a complete comprehension of aid given by USA it would not be feasible to make this post larger. Pakistan is the need of central Asia’s geo-politics along with afghan imbroglio.

And about Edward I agree on some points.

When he says that it’s a beginning of creating differences between Confucian and Islamic states he is quite right, because such things will cause delinquency but on the other hand there is a veiled approach behind it.

He is not only concerned with anti-Muslim hatred, what I think, but he shows vulnerability of the decline of the super power which has been started. World is going to be a multi-polar world again and possibilities of another era of colonialism might go and make a history again, think in prospects of Pakistan, destabilization here and usage as a proxy state in central Asia which is the epicenter of three large civilization namely, Confucian, Arabian, and Indian. It is the need of hour to have a carrot and stick policy in Pakistan. Simple but enigmatic.

Wash Aathke
 

Posing the clash of civilization was the setting stone of the power hungry giants,whose primary aim has always been remained to step up their own strength by relying on trans-regional resources and by manifestation of their clandestine intentions.World has witnessed ,that the usurpers name differently their objectives.They always try to enshroud their primitive motives and pretend to achieve those by presenting some artificial assumptions and presumptions.
I do not agree what the so-called theory of clash of civilization is all about.Without being held biased,i must say,that the only factor,which motivated such firebrands and harbingers,was their inclination towards exploitation of regional resources and taming the states according to the pre framed policies.Waging war on iraq can not be justified by the claim only,that the gladiators were belong to different religions or the followers of philosophies.It was not stretched merely to degrees the islamic civilization of its rudimentary teachings.Same is the logic here in afghanistan.What we know,is that U.S and her allies,stepped in afghanistan to defeat the taliban regime.NO,,,,I object!
U.S has perched here not to tame Taliban,nor to truncate their ideological beliefs.She has brought an amalgam of objectives.The motive,which guided their policies,was to check the mushrooming growth of china and phoenix Russia.Her servile accomplices like and india and northern alliance are working as watchdogs and the splinter groups are her lapdogs.Likewise,Sudan and other african regions are not being trampled down merely on the basis of this ideology.Iran,on other hand is not being victimized,because of its islamic identity.Same is the situation with North-Korea and Libya.
We have become attuned to find answers of what they utter,without being apprised of the hidden motives.
Tail piece:It is not the war on terror,but it is the war of two economies and two differently mindsets.It is the war of exploitation.It is the war of taming states and bringing them within the encircled policies.It is the war of weak and strong,whereas one is defending its resources and other is hovering with bare sword to cut the throats,merely to cater its own needs.It is not the clash of civilization,but it is the clash of interests of global stakeholders.It is the war of regionalism and expansionism.It is not the faith,which has brought nations in between vicious circle,but it is the lust of power and supremacy,which has pulled the scavengers and the producers together.

Thanks for a good rhetoric Riyaz ,

I want to know what do you mean by GLOBAL STAKEHOLDERS? who they are ? and what is their origin? where is there setup?

War of regionalism and expansionism. If it is the point then the word GLOBAL stakeholders remains ambiguous, isnt it? Global stakehoders have got global stakes then why they will be concerned about states which are the main actors of the global politics.( Realism)

Another dimension which i would like to ponder for you analysis from your own words is that if this is the war between two economies, first one is USA the other one is China or Russia? cold war of currency is another new tool that is going to be the hot one among the international political economy. A war minus missiles.

War on terror and the invasion of Iraq, Iran's issue and about the North Korea and et al think in terms of geo-politics and alliances and colonialism respectively leading to olive green, north atlantic, central europe,shia'stan, wild east etc.

Surely the invasions after 9/11 were not because of nuclear weapons, war on terror or weapons of Mass destruction, the thing that was horrible for NWO is culture, beliefs, religion, color, creed and history, which are the constituents of Civilizations.

Wash Aathke
 

[QUOTE]I want to know what do you mean by GLOBAL STAKEHOLDERS? who they are ? and what is their origin? where is there setup?[/QUOTE]

well.I meant,the most lethal but ever dynamic lobbies of which we can not be remain forgetful.With special reference to the Jewish lobby,which has strongholds in U.S and other war predators.Its longstanding existence has permeated in the vitals of the aforementioned powers.I am not only concerned with the jewish lobby,there are many other lobbies,who aim at their own vested interests.How can we deify the emerging Russian and Chinese lobby?Isn't the worlds strategists concern there stimuli?Why we are taken away by the smoke-screened gossips,that the real fight is between Christianity and islam?What about the worlds major arms producers?Aren't they working to commercialize their commodities by floating cognitive dissonances?To what extent U.S has remained successful in vitiating the zealot group's ideologies?Aren't we aware that all the contracts in iraq have been given to Jewish companies?How can we remain forgetful of the fact,that the iraqi oil reserves are being utilized by U.S? How can we deny the fact,that the international powers have set off to seek strategic locations in order to protect their ideological and geographical borders together with their preservation of national interests?
Again the question arises,as to why the muslims are becoming the most vulnernable segment across the world?The answer is very simple.Muslim countries are rife with natural resources and their strategic allocations as per topographical point of view,are of great importance.Be they landlocked parts of central asia or the central asia;they are the alluring points which are conditioning the international agendas.
[QUOTE]War of regionalism and expansionism. If it is the point then the word GLOBAL stakeholders remains ambiguous, isnt it? Global stakehoders have got global stakes then why they will be concerned about states which are the main actors of the global politics.( Realism)
[/QUOTE]
Again the reverberation of the same point.We can not associate the above term in physical expansionism only.International politics has taken a new turn.Powers are trying to prop up impersonal representatives throughout the world.Their sway over regional policies and politics speak volumes of it.We can however justify the very fact that multiplicity of their objectives in the name of terrorism or clash of civilization are being served by their tactical moves.U.S is scared of Rejuvenating Russia and climbing China not for their preoccupied visionaries regarding the world politics.It is only fearing from polarization;if happened,might squeeze its influence and political dominancy.U.S is in a psychological warfare with these two emerging giants.China being defensive and Russia as sleeping lion has provided multiple opportunities to the west to impose their own doctrine and override the regional interests. All these with geometrical growth are changing their places from dominator and upcoming with new threats in the eyes of US and its courtiers.

[QUOTE]Another dimension which i would like to ponder for you analysis from your own words is that if this is the war between two economies, first one is USA the other one is China or Russia? cold war of currency is another new tool that is going to be the hot one among the international political economy. A war minus missiles. [/QUOTE]
Why US waged a ferocious war on afghanistan,is a clear answer to your question. Afghanistan being war trodden and administeratively weak,provided US with an opportunity to camp here.What does she seek here is question worthy to be discussed.This is the most feasible strategic location for it to keep china and Russian under check.She is working to give a new role to India not for the very benevolent of Afghanistani nation,but coddling it to make it stand as an equal power against the uprising china.On the other hand by enhancing its regional ties with central asian countries is another manifestation of its intentions;which aim at sidelining the Russian influence and confining it within its internal considerations.Helping Ukraine and Taiwan on one hand,and providing assistance to resistant groups around on other,are clear reasons to believe that her interests are above than humanitarian conventions.

the first paragraph is about it na dear, its about clash of civilization...yeah i agree there are some other lobbies and organizations who are expanding their wings, and they are based on civilizations...you can not deny from the fact..

I had just read the first para of last reply and i think my job has been done..