February 26, 2006
THERE IS ONLY ONE CIVILIZATION AND SEVERAL PRETENDERS (via Mike Daley):
The civilisations of the modern world are more likely to collapse than collide (Niall Ferguson, 26/02/2006, Sunday Telegraph)
or all its seductive simplicity, I have never entirely bought the theory that the future will be dominated by the clash of civilisations. For one thing, the term "civilisation" has always struck me as much too woolly. I know what a religion is. I know what an empire is. But, as Henry Kissinger might have said, who do I call when I want to speak to Western Civilisation? Anyone who crosses the Atlantic as often as I do quickly learns how vacuous that phrase has become.As Robert Kagan said, in another Great American Essay, "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus" - at least when it comes to the legitimacy of using military force. In a whole range of ways - from the way they worship to the way they work - Americans and Europeans are more than just an ocean apart. As for "Judaeo-Christian" civilisation (a phrase popularised by Bernard Lewis, another prophet of the great clash), I don't remember that being a terribly harmonious entity in the 1940s.
The really big problem with the theory, however, is right in front of our very noses. Question: Who has killed the most Muslims in the past 12 months? The answer is, of course, other Muslims. [...]
Now Huntington is too clever a man not to hedge his bets. "This article does not argue," he wrote back in 1993, "that groups within a civilisation will not conflict with and even fight one another." But he went on to reassert that "conflicts between groups in different civilisations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilisation."
Sorry, wrong. It is well known that the overwhelming majority of conflicts since the end of the Cold War have been civil wars. The interesting thing is that only a minority of them have conformed to Huntington's model of inter-civilisation wars. More often than not, the wars of the New World Disorder have been fought between ethnic groups within one of Huntington's civilisations.
To be precise: Of 30 major armed conflicts that are either still going on or have recently ended, only 10 or 11 can be regarded as being in any sense between civilisations, in the sense that one side was predominantly Muslim and the other non-Muslim. But 14 were essentially ethnic conflicts, the worst being the wars that continue to bedevil Central Africa. Moreover, many of those conflicts that have a religious dimension are also ethnic conflicts; religious affiliation has more to do with the localised success of missionaries in the past than with long-standing membership of a Christian or Muslim civilisation. [...]
The future therefore looks more likely to bring multiple local wars - most of them ethnic conflicts in Africa, South Asia and the Middle East - than a global collision of value-systems. Indeed, my prediction would be that precisely these centrifugal tendencies, most clearly apparent in Iraq today, will increasingly tear apart the very civilisations identified by Samuel Huntington.
In short, for "the clash of civilisations", read "the crash of civilisations".
The fundamental problem with the clash of civilizations theory is that it's an outgrowth of multiculturalism, whereas the End of History, though Mr. Fukuyama never grasped the fact, is essentially Evangelical. China and the Middle East are going to evolve into liberal democracies because they have no other choice. You just can't build a decent society and a functional state/economy on Confucianism or Islamicism. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2006 10:06 AM
The Arabs have to make a choice in the 21st century: Become more like the U.S. or Australia, or die.*
While some might not see that as a "clash of civilizations", bin Laden et al. certainly see it that way.
* Not necessarily through military clashes; Arab and indeed Persian populations have grown so large that the ONLY way that they can be supported, without their societies becoming American clones, is through oil revenues.
Unfortunately for them, both the demand for oil and their supply of crude will diminish greatly throughout the 21st century, leaving them mighty hungry.
"You just can't build a decent society and a functional state/economy on Confucianism or Islamicism."
This is certainly correct. The problems is that a reasonably large number of people may not agree, and are willing to die (and kill) trying.
Posted by: Bruno at February 26, 2006 12:17 PMThat's obviously a problem for them, not much of one for us.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2006 12:57 PMI suppose it all depends on your definition of 'decent and functional'. The Taliban thought that the route to 'decent' was through them and their literalism. The Wahabbis still think that way and they've got the bucks to back them up. A medieval world view and a cultlike adherence to a rather bizarre materialistic spiritualism puts them at a distinct disadvantage when the oil runs dry. A problem until then.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 26, 2006 1:26 PMTom:
Yes, that's why we were so happy the Taliban took over. They restored security to an anarchic land. But they couldn't set up a feasible economy or government because they were too repressive. Islamicism doesn't work.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2006 1:31 PMCommunism doesn't work either although it's still being tried. The more sensible knew it 100 years before it was attempted. Islam has been around a bit longer and in a smaller world it will either disintegrate on it's own or take many innocents down with it. It's current manifestation as 'Islamicism' may represent it's last gasp in a globalized economy of information and capital. If it 'reforms', it will no longer be Islam. They may decide to follow the advice of the prophet and go down fighting if the current program of oil funded propaganda and subversion fails.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 26, 2006 1:46 PMTom:
Exactly. Islam will Reform and Islamicism die. It's no different than the others.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2006 2:15 PMoj-
You're a natural optimist and I hope you're correct although the nature of Islam, (note: I'm saying Islam, not individual believers), and it's history of imperial aggression, individual coercion and intimidation in the name of conversion is not pleasant. The prophet's self-serving association of his wishes with those of his god as well as the Q'ran being held to be the complete and unalterable word of Allah applicable to nearly all aspects of life and social organization is a dead end in a changing, shrinking world where greater harmonization through commercial activity and communication among peoples is possible and desirable. The charcteristics of Islam, as practiced throughout history, are anti-human if freedom of conscience within a framework of ordered liberty and equality before the law are considered practical and desirable for all.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 26, 2006 2:42 PMAt least the Communists understood MAD. The Islamacists celebrate death and want to maximize it by any means possible.
Around 100 million were killed before Communism died. This time around it could be much, much worse.
Posted by: Gideon at February 26, 2006 2:48 PMFreedom of conscience is evil and is the enemy. Islam is an ally in that fight.
Christianity not only has the same coercive history but will impose itself on Islam in the future.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2006 2:49 PMFreedom within a framework of ordered liberty, while acknowledging the source of that liberty (which is all that ordered liberty means) is undesirable? Tolerance
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 26, 2006 3:09 PMOrder is the opposite of freedom of conscience.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2006 4:06 PMThe rule of law, free markets, representative governments, the free flow of people, money and energy, that's what the future of the world is all about.
With the advent of the neural network we call the internet it won't take (I hope)70 years for Islamicism to die. All of humanity will become one civilization participating in the globalization process.
The speed with which it dies, however is dependent upon the leadership of the USA to provide for the security needed for the flow of the "raw" materials of our modern world. Since we are alone in that leadership role the real test will be the will of the American People to persevere.
Posted by: morry at February 26, 2006 5:25 PMVery well done, gentlemen.
This thread makes me feel like St. Paul at a stoning: all I have to do is stand back and hold the coats.
Morry, in particular, has said everything which must be said.
Posted by: Lou Gots at February 26, 2006 8:02 PMWe assign some guilt to the German and Japanese peoples for the actions of their governments from 1933-1945. At what point does guilt expand from 'bad' actors like Osama, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and hundreds of nutjob clerics (including the Pakistani ISI and the Saudis) to a more general population?
Is it too soon to know the answer?
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 27, 2006 3:34 PM