Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:47:32 -0700 (MST) From: jammer To: Racial-Religious-EthnoNationalist Violence Studies Subject: Any comments!!!! This is an old review of a famous article..... If anyone has anything else on this issue, please forward it as some elaborate comments and analysis are required for a paper. Thanks Regards. Jamal Hashmi E-mail: ha2957ja@meteor.uscolo.edu Reply to: The Islamic Information & News Network Vol. 9 No. 2 Shawwal 14, 1416 Hijri March 4, 1996 ________________________________________________________________________________ Editor: Imran Mehdi Muslims@asuacad.bitnet ________________________________________________________________________________ 2. The Clash of civilisations or ......................... by Chandra Muzaffar ...... from Sanen Marshall from Sanen Marshall by Chandra Muzaffar The Clash of civilisations or camouflaging dominance ? The Clash of Civilisations or Camouflaging Dominance? by Chandra Muzaffar (Just World Trust - chandra@just.po.my) Like Francis Fukuyama's `End of History' published five years ago, Samuel Huntington's `The Clash of Civilisations?' (Foreign Affairs Summer 1993) is receiving a lot of publicity in the mainstream Western media. The reason is not hard to fathom. Both essays serve United States and Western foreign policy goals. TRIUMPH Sensing the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, Fukuyama predicted with exuberant confidence the inevitable triumph of Western liberal democracy and the free market. Their triumph would mark the acme of human achievement; after that there would be nothing else for civilisation to accomplish. Huntington, somewhat sobered by the ethnic turmoil in the old Yugoslavia and the economic crisis in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia, realises that Fukuyama's much heralded victory of the West is still some distance away. He has, therefore, chosen to warn his people of the threats, the challenges that loom on the horizon. The West should be prepared for the clash of civilisations, he says. REASONS The thesis he propounds is simple enough. "The Clash of Civilisations", he argues, "will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future". He cites six reasons - differences among civilisations are basic; cultural characteristics are less easily compromised; interactions among peoples of different civilisations are increasing in a negative way; modernisation is exacerbating religious fundamentalism; non-Western elites are becoming more indigenized; and economic regionalism is getting stronger through culture and religion - to explain why this is inevitable. In order to reinforce his argument, Huntington asserts that, "Over the centuries, differences among civilisations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts". He does not, however, provide empirical evidence to support his assertion. The truth is that cultural or religious or other civilisational differences have been one of many factors responsible for conflict in history. Territory and resources, wealth and property, power and status, individual personality and group interests have all contributed to war and violence. CRUSADES As a case in point, let us look at the crusades, often presented as a classic example of conflict between two religious civilisations. While the medieval Christian dream of crushing Moorish (Muslim) power and regaining control over Jerusalem was one of the main motivating forces behind the series of expeditions to the Holy Land, the desire to acquire the fabulous wealth of the Arab world, was also a major consideration. Intense rivalries among Christian princes who used the crusades to enhance their political power and manipulations of the crusades by the Church as it sought to maintain control over restive feudal principalities reveal that the crusades were not simple religious wars. Indeed, religion, culture and other such elements and symbols of what Huntington would regard as `civilisation identity' are sometimes manipulated to conceal and camouflage the naked pursuit of wealth or power - the real sources of many a conflict in human history. Huntington fails to take this obvious point into account. In his eagerness to emphasise the civilisational dimension, he ignores the complex web of causes which invariably influences any conflict. BOSNIAN CONFLICT A current conflict would further expose the superficiality of Huntington's analysis. Bosnia-Herzegovina - contrary to what Huntington suggests - is not a simple religious war among Orthodox Christian Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians supported by their respective co-religionists in other parts of the world. Among the underlying causes are unjust power-structures associated with the demised Yugoslavia. The Serbs dominated politics and the armed forces but the economic, industrial and scientific strength of the republic came from the provinces of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. This created tremendous resentment and antagonism among the non-Serb communities who saw themselves as second-class citizens. Serbian chauvinism which became more pronounced in the eighties aggravated the situation considerably. It was a combination of these and other factors which was largely responsible for the breakup of the republic and the conflagration which continues to this day. For outside powers too, like Britain, their response to the crisis has been shaped to a great extent by Machiavellian geopolitical and geoeconomic calculations. Britain is determined to ensure that Serbia is strong and powerful so that it can serve as a counterweight of sorts to Germany. A unified, economically robust Germany evokes deep-seated fears in London and, to a lesser extent, Paris about the balance of power in Europe. In the case of the United States, it is reluctant to put a stop to Serbian aggression because it has no special stake in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As it is often said, if Bosnia-Herzegovina had oil like Kuwait things would have been different. Besides, the US does not want to do anything that is inimical to the interests of Britain, its staunchest European ally. Though a variety of factors are at play in the Bosnian conflict, Serb leaders have tried to give the impression that Christianity, specifically Orthodox Christianity, is under siege from Islamic fundamentalism. Serbia, they say, is saving Christianity and Europe from Islam and the Muslims. Likewise, there are Muslims in other parts of Europe and elsewhere who oversimplify the conflict and present it as a `West versus Islam' war. It is a pity that Huntington does not realize that these attempts to interpret the Bosnian conflict in exclusive religious categories only serve to distort the truth. CREATIVE ENGAGEMENT But the problem is even more serious than that. By overplaying `the clash of civilisations' dimension, Huntington has, willy-nilly, ignored the creative, constructive interaction and engagement between civilisations. This is a much more perennial, more constant feature of civilisation than conflict per se. Civilisations adapt and adjust to one another. Absorption and synthesis, integration and assimilation are enduring characteristics in the interaction among civilisations. Nearly every civilisation which Huntington mentions in his analysis has engaged, most of the time, in peaceful intercourse - rather than violent confrontation - with other civilisations. Islam, for instance, through centuries of exchange with the West, laid the foundation for the growth of mathematics, science, medicine, agriculture, industry, architecture and so on in medieval Europe. Today, some of the leading ideas and institutions which have gained currency within the Muslim world whether in politics or in economics are imports from the West. Similarly, the interaction between Islam and Hinduism has not always been bloody. Islam impacted upon the architecture and law, the literature and attire of segments of the Hindu population just as Hinduism influenced Muslim mysticism, food and music. In fact, Muslim-Hindu exchanges produced a new, highly cosmopolitan language, Urdu, which for a long time was the main medium of communication within the upper classes of Northern Indian society. That different civilisations are not inherently prone to conflict is borne out by another salient feature which Huntington fails to highlight. Civilisations embody many similar values and ideals. At the philosophical level at least, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism and Taoism, among other world religions, share certain common perspectives on the relationship between the human being and his environment, the integrity of the community, the importance of the family, the significance of moral leadership and indeed the meaning and purpose of life. COMMON INTERESTS It is not just shared values and ideals. Civilisations, however different in certain respects, are quite capable of forging common interests and common aspirations. Huntington does not think so. He argues that "economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilisation" quoting the example of the European Community with its shared European culture and Western Christianity. And yet there is the Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) - a regional grouping which Huntington does not even mention in his essay. As a regional grouping, ASEAN encompasses at least 4 civilisation identities, to use Huntington's term - Buddhist (Thailand), Confucian (Singapore), Christian (The Philippines) and Muslim (Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia). The ability of the ASEAN states to stay together and evolve an identity of their own through twenty-five years of trial and tribulation is one of the great success stories in regional cooperation. ASEAN must surely baffle Huntington! UNIQUE Using the same irrational argument of culture and religion as the basis of economic cooperation, Huntington opines that, "Japan, in contrast, faces difficulties in creating a comparable economic entity in East Asia because Japan is a society and civilisation unique to itself. However strong the trade and investment links Japan may develop with other East Asian countries, its cultural differences with those countries inhibit and perhaps preclude its promoting regional economic integration like that in Europe and North America". This is sheer nonsense. It is not cultural differences which prevent Japan from taking the lead in forging a regional grouping in East Asia. Japan does not dare play such a role because that would anger the US. For a variety of reasons linked to its defeat in the Second World War, its post-war reconstruction, its security and political ties to the US and its economic relationship with that country, Japan has chosen to be subservient to the US in regional and global affairs. Japan knows that the US would regard any economic grouping which integrates the East Asian states as a direct challenge to its dominant power in the region. The United States' lukewarm, even hostile reaction to the proposed East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) is proof of this. Through economic integration, the EAEC or some such grouping could, in the future, develop into the world's most dynamic economic powerhouse. The US, to reiterate, will not tolerate such a development since it will jeopardise its position as the leader of each and every region of the world. It is this crucial point about the US and the West and their relationship to the rest of the world that Huntington refuses to focus upon, though he makes passing references to it. It is the US and Western dominance of the planet, and not the clash of civilisations, which is the root cause of global conflict. By magnifying this so-called `clash of civilisations', Huntington is trying to divert attention from Western dominance and control which has been disastrous for the whole of humankind. DOMINANCE Indeed, Huntington's mission is more than the mere diversion of attention; he wants to preserve, protect and perpetuate Western dominance. He sees a compelling reason for embarking upon this mission at this point in time. Western dominance is under threat from a "Confucian-Islam connection that has emerged to challenge Western interests, values and power". This, in fact, is the most mischievous - and the most dangerous - implication of Huntington's clash of civilisations. By evoking this fear of a Confucian-Islamic connection, he hopes to persuade the Western public, buffeted by unemployment and recession, to acquiesce with huge military budgets in the post cold-war era. He argues that China and certain Islamic countries are acquiring offensive and defensive weapons on a massive scale. Generally, it is the Islamic states which are buying weapons from China which in turn "is rapidly increasing its military spending". Huntington observes that, "A Confucian-Islamic military connection has thus come into being, designed to promote acquisition by its members of the weapons and weapons technology needed to counter the military power of the West". This is why the West, and the US in particular, should not, in Huntington's view, be "reducing its own military capabilities". FLAWS There are serious flaws in Huntington's argument. One, it is not true that the US has reduced its military capability. It may have cut down on foreign bases and conventional troops but it has, at the same time, enhanced its range of sophisticated weaponry. As a result, the US's armed might today is such that it enjoys total military hegemony over all nations and peoples. The Gulf War demonstrated the terrifying, devastating power of US weaponry. And, in the post cold war era, the US is the world's number one arms exporter. Arms sales to the South have increased compared to the late seventies and early eighties. In 1991 for instance, the US sold 59 billion dollars worth of arms to the South - a 25 billion increase from its 1989 sales. Two, though China is an important producer and exporter of arms, it is "the only major power whose military expenditure has consistently declined throughout the decade (the eighties)". This point is made by the highly respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in its 1990 yearbook. In fact, since 1985, defence spending as a percentage of GNP has dropped from 3.6% to 3.2%, though the Chinese economy has grown enormously in the last few years. There is no doubt at all that the Chinese government is giving much more attention to economic development than to military modernisation. Encouraging foreign investments and forging trade links with its neighbours are more important to China than acquiring or exporting weapons. Three, most Muslim countries from the United Arab Emirates to Indonesia, from Egypt to Bangladesh, buy their weapons not from China but from the United States. At the end of 1990 for instance, Saudi Arabia signed a 21 billion dollar contract with the US which will allow the former to buy a whole range of sophisticated weapons from the latter. In September 1991, Kuwait signed a 10-year defence treaty with the US. Contrast this with Iran, the country which according to Huntington has bought nuclear technology from China in order to make nuclear weapons. Iran has been reducing its military expenditure since the end of the Iraq-Iran war so much so that it has one of the lowest military budgets in that volatile part of the world. Four, even if a handful of Muslim states have been buying weapons from China, it is absurd to suggest that a Confucian-Islamic connection has been established. On many global issues of great import to the Muslim world, China has failed to endorse the Muslim position. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a case in point. Neither did China support Arab and Muslim states on the crucial US initiated UN general assembly vote on Zionism in December 1991. In fact, China chose to recognise Israel last year, much to the chagrin of Muslim states like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Pakistan - which incidentally are all part of Huntington's Confucian-Islamic connection! Indeed, as an overall trend in the last 15 years or so, China has been moving closer to the West. The desire to modernise its economy, with the help of Western technology and know-how, is partly responsible for pushing China in that direction. If China has, on occasions, refused to take the side of the US and the West against countries like Iraq (on the use of force against her in the Gulf War) and Libya (on the imposition of air sanctions against her) it is because China is concerned about the UN being used to undermine what it regards as `the sovereignty of its member-states'. It fears the UN may be manipulated in the same way against her. The Confucian-Islamic connection then is a myth propagated by people like Huntington to justify increased US military spending in the post cold war era. WHY CONFUCIAN? It is quite conceivable that Huntington has chosen to target the Confucian and Islamic civilisations for certain other reasons too which are not explicitly stated in his essay. Like many other Western academics, commentators and policy analysts, Huntington, it appears, is also concerned about the economic ascendancy of the so-called Confucian communities such as "the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and overseas Chinese communities in other Asian countries". He is of the view that, "If cultural commonality is a prerequisite for economic integration, the principal East Asian economic bloc of the future is likely to be centred on China. This bloc is, in fact, already coming into existence". The present dynamism and future potential of these `Confucian' economies has already set alarm bells ringing in various Western capitals. There are concerted attempts to thwart the economic growth and expansion of these economies. Huntington's warning to the West about the threat that Confucian China poses should be seen in that context - as yet another attempt to curb the rise of yet another non-Western economic competitor. WHY ISLAMIC? As far as the `Islamic threat' is concerned, it is something which Huntington and his kind would have no difficulty in selling to the West. For prejudice and antagonism towards Islam and Muslims is deeply embedded in the psyche of mainstream Western society. The rise of Islamic movements in different parts of the world determined to resist Western domination and control over Muslim territories and resources, Muslim cultures and communities, Muslim hearts and minds has provoked a new, powerful wave of negative emotions against the religion and its practitioners. That it is resistance to Western domination and control - and not some threat to the West as such - which is taking place within the Muslim world is a reality that is cleverly concealed from the general public. What Islamic movements are opposed to is the annexation and occupation of their lands (as in the case of Palestine and Lebanon), the usurpation of their rights over their own natural resource (as in the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sheikhdoms) and the denigration of their religion (as it often happens in the mainstream Western media) by the powerful force of Western imperialism sometimes abetted by local elites. Islamic groups and individuals see their struggle as part of the still unfulfilled quest for self-determination and for genuine independence and sovereignty. But most Western academics and journalists, in concert with their policy-makers, refuse to grant any legitimacy to their struggle. Muslim resistance is portrayed as `an Islamic threat'. The violence that those who resist are sometimes forced to resort to in order to protect their integrity is equated with the violence of the aggressor who annexes land and massacres people. The victim is put on the same plane as his victimiser. In fact, sometimes one gets the impression that it is the victim who is blamed. Huntington seems to suggest this when he says, "In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilisations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders". The implication is that in all these instances it is Islam, it is the Muslims who are responsible for the spilling of blood. And yet anyone who has even an elementary knowledge of the various conflicts Huntington mentions will readily admit that more often than not it is the Muslims who have been bullied, bludgeoned and butchered. The truth, however, means very little to Huntington. He is only interested in projecting Islam in a pejorative manner. In a recent interview he has described it as "a militant religion" (New Perspectives Quarterly Vol. 10 #3 Summer 1993). In fact, the title of his essay, 'The Clash of Civilisations?' is, taken from Bernard Lewis' `The Roots of Muslim Rage', an essay which distorts the current Islamic resurgence and depicts it as an irrational threat to the Western heritage. Both Huntington and Lewis are `Islam baiters' in the tradition of earlier academics who were part of the West's cold war propaganda arsenal. Their role is to camouflage the suffering of, and the injustice done to, the victims of US and Western domination and control by creating and concocting new theories and novel paradigms about the conflict of cultures and the clash of civilisations. No, Huntington's `Clash of Civilisations?' will not conceal the real nature of the conflict. The victims - or at least some of the victims - know the truth.