The clash of civilizations thesis in the light of Muslim

cum West Relations

By
Stanley C. Igwe
 Abstract
This review, aims at revisiting the clash of civilizations thesis in the light of Islamic cum West
relations especially in regards to whether the Clash of Civilizations’ thesis is Western in its
orientation and content? How the Clash’ thesis is a vindication and basis for post-Cold War U.S
foreign policy goals and strategies? To ascertain the prime responses of the thesis from the
perspectives of the non Western world and to assess the view of Muslim scholars on
Huntington‘s thesis. It further attempts to explore the nature of Western cum Islamic relations in
the light of clash of civilizations thesis. The analysis reveals that several problems are ingrained
in Huntington’s argument. First, Huntington’s classification of civilizations is difficult to
operationalize. Secondly, civilizational conflicts constitute a minority of ethnic and international
conflicts. Thirdly, conflicts between the West and both the Confucian and Islamic civilizations,
which Huntington predicts will be the major conflicts in the post-Cold War era, constitute a
small minority of civilizational conflicts. Finally, there is no statistically significant evidence that
the intensity of civilizational conflicts have risen relative to other types of ethnic conflicts since
the end of the Cold War. Thus the clash’ thesis is essentially a policy advice by one of America’s
policy makers to the American government. Following the collapse of Communism, Islam lingers
as the only vital opposing ideology which could pose a serious threat to Western secularism
especially its spread of degenerate social ills like gay marriage; man-animal marriage and their
like in the name of freedom and liberalism. The world does not live in the shadows of any
impending civilization clash rather it is hunted by a voracious hope of the empire state of
America to economically recolonise the entire human race and it does that under the guise of
promoting promoting democratic ideals. The West does not actually spread a gospel of liberty
but plots to extend its political and economic hegemony. The Muslim and non-Western world
must sustain the use of dialogue in taming the imperialist West.

Introduction

The dominant paradigm of international politics during the years of the Cold War was the
simplistic geo-political bloc formula of a world divided along the lines of Communist and
Capitalist spheres of influence. With the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall, a whole world
order fell apart, and with that, a whole new way of viewing and understanding the world. There
was, subsequently, the search for new paradigms and hence a new, vital role for thinkers, policy
makers and strategists in laying down the scheme for a new order of things. This redefinition of
world order after the Cold War led to what has been described as the proliferation of contending
images of world politics. 1
The Clash of Civilizations is a theory that people's cultural and religious identities will be the
primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. This proposition was made by the late
Harvard Professor of Government and Political Science, Samuel Huntington (1927- 2008) in a

1 Fry, G., and O'Hagan,j.,2001, Contending Images of World Politics, New York: St.Martin’s Press
1992 lecture at the American Enterprise Institute, which was then developed in a 1993 Foreign
Affairs article.2 Huntington made a prediction for the 21st century that would go on to be both
disputed and supported by experts around the globe. As the Iron Curtain of ideology of the Cold
War fell, Huntington theorised that a new Velvet Curtain of culture would rise.
While the Cold War divided the world up into communist and democratic societies, the 21st
century would feature conflicts between clashing civilisations, whose disputes would be rooted
in various ethnic, cultural, and/or religious differences. Huntington expanded The Clash of
Civilizations? to book length and published it as The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order 3 in 1996. The article and the book posit that post-Cold War conflict would most
frequently and violently occur because of cultural rather than ideological differences. That,
whilst in the Cold War, conflict occurred between the Capitalist West and the Communist Bloc,
it now was most likely to occur between the world's major civilizations.
The Clash of Civilizations is Huntington’s response to an essay (The End of History?) by his
former student Francis Fukuyama, which the latter expanded to a book tagged, The End of
History and the Last Man, published in 1992. Its description of post-Cold War geopolitics and
the inevitability of instability seemingly contrasted with the influential End of History thesis
advocated by Francis Fukuyama.
The Clash of Civilizations phrase itself was earlier used by Bernard Lewis in an article in the
September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled The Roots of Muslim Rage… 4 Even earlier,
the phrase appears in a 1926 book regarding the Middle East by Basil Mathews: Young Islam on
Trek: a Study in the Clash of Civilizations5.
Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of
humanity's socio-cultural evolution and the final form of human government. Huntington on his
part feels the end of the Cold War would rather open a new page of contradictions based on
culture and religion.
Fukuyama suggests that following the demise of Communism, Western liberal democracy had
triumphed and had proven to be a universally ascendant system. Mankind had reached the end of
socio-political evolution and what remained to be done was to universally apply the triumphant

2 Huntington, S., The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs 72 (Summer 1992-1993): 22-49.
3 Huntington, S., 1996, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster
4 Lewis, B., The Roots of Muslim Rage: Why So Many Muslims Deeply Resent the West, and Why Their Bitterness Will Not Be Easily Mollified,

The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 266, No.3, September 1990,

5 Mathews, B., 1926, Young Islam on trek : a study in the clash of civilizations, London : Edinburgh House Press
system of the West. Fukuyama stands for universalizing Western democracy and gives in his
book policy prescriptions to make that possible, and to export liberal democracy to non Western
societies. Fukuyama concludes that conflicts in future will be over with the universalization of
Western liberal democracy, and that the West must resolutely carry out this mission6. Deriving
from Hegelian dialectic of the evolution of history the former believed that achievement of
liberal democracy was the synthesis effectively putting an end to man‘s age-old struggle for the
perfect system. What remained to be done was to universalize this system, which too was
naturally predetermined owing to its intrinsic superiority over all other values and systems.
Interesting insights may be drawn from Fukuyama’s and Huntington’s seemingly contending
paradigms. For one, both theses though responses to a changing global scenario do not really
offer fresh perspectives. They are both, status-quo oriented ideological formulations concocted to
justify the foreign policy direction of the United States in order for it to maintain its preponderant
role in the international showground. 7
Fukuyama held an unshakable belief in the moral superiority and ultimately predestined
ascendancy of Western values of liberalism and democracy while Huntington entered not only to
lend credence but give direction as to how the burgeoning empire need continue its expansion.
Resistance to this universal establishment of Western democracy or delusion could come from
resistant cultures especially Islam, hence, Huntington advocated a way forward as to conquering
such resistance. In simple terms, Fukuyama had said -
We are victorious communism is down! And his master and teacher Huntington responded -
Not over yet boy; there are still battles to be fought! We must take them all down! All of them!
Thus, not in absolute contrast to Fukayama's optimistic vision of the future, Huntington called
forth a World War III that stems from clash of civilizations to give a new definition of post-Cold
War conflict. He predicts that differences among the seven or eight major civilizations will more
likely pave way to global turmoil in years to come.
He further argues that the end of ideological confrontation between liberal democracy and
communism will see future conflict occurring along the borders between civilizations at a micro
level. At a macro level he predicts conflict occurring between states from different civilizations

6 Sajjad, M., A ‘Non Western’ Reading of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Theory: Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’
International Journal of Political Science and Development, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42-104, October 2013
7 ibid.
for control of international institutions and for economic and military power (Huntington
1993:29) 8.
Huntington's thesis outlines a future where the great divisions among humankind and the
dominating source of conflict will be cultural (Huntington 1993:22).
According to Huntington, civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and
the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among major civilizations.
Huntington defines a civilization as the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level
of cultural identity. He divides the world's cultures into seven, and a possible eighth: (i) Western,
(ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v) Hindu, (vi) Slavic-Orthodox, (vii)
Japanese, and (viii) the African (Huntington 1993:26). 9 In addition he judged Africa only as a
possible civilization depending on how far the development of an African consciousness had
developed. These civilizations seem to be defined primarily by religion with a number of ad hoc
exceptions. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines
separating these civilizations from one another. These civilizational conflicts are divided by
Huntington into three categories: core state conflicts, which are between the dominant states of
different civilizations; fault-line conflicts between states of different civilizations that border
each other; and fault-line conflicts within states that contain groups of different civilizations.
Thus, the civilization of Sub-Saharan Africa located in Southern Africa, Middle Africa
(excluding Chad), East Africa (excluding Ethiopia, Comoros, Kenya, Mauritius, and Tanzania),
Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are considered as a possible 8th
civilization by Huntington.

Rationale for Research

The need to facilitate a transitional metamorphosis of the non West from a subject to the object
of discourse in the light of Islamic cum West Relations is the rationale of this research work.
It is important to lend voice to the non West in order to obtain a more balanced, judicious and
comprehensive understanding of the Clash’ thesis, its nature, credibility and impact.
Huntington‘s position as advisor to the Pentagon tells quite easily the lines along which the
United States policy makers would be thinking. This makes the need for adequate response
imperative.
8 Huntington, S., The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs 72 (Summer 1992-1993): 22-49.
9 ibid
With prophets of doom fanning embers of war talking of clashing civilizations and bloody
borders, mankind stands at the crossroads mapping out the way ahead, beyond the Clash of
Civilizations. To ensure a better tomorrow that gives peace a chance, the human race needs to
look beyond this, to look for elements of commonality, identify the sameness of human natures
beneath the trappings of skin and learn to rise above distinctions, towards plurality and
multiculturalism. Hence, the dire need to understand whether there really is bound to be a clash
of civilizations, the need to look for a way beyond a foredoomed clash and the need to set the
record straight regarding the position of non Western and particularly Muslim civilizations
within the context is the rationale for undertaking this review.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In what ways can the Clash of Civilizations’ thesis be characterized as Western in its orientation
and content?
How does the Clash of Civilizations thesis become a vindication and basis for post-Cold War
U.S foreign policy goals and strategies?
What are the prime responses to the theory of the Clash of Civilizations from the non Western
world?
How does the thesis affect the future of Western cum Muslim relations?

METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES

The research, owing to its fundamental orientation and content, incorporates the Analytical
research method, studying Huntington’s work to identify Orientalist strains and essentially
subjective observations that undermine its credibility. The Descriptive approach is utilized in the
discussion of both the salient points of Huntington’s stance and the key aspects of the large body
of criticism of it emerging from the non Western world.
Both primary and secondary sources have been used to substantiate the research. As far as the
primary sources are concerned, Huntington‘s Foreign Affairs article and his subsequent book on
the Clash of Civilizations have been exhaustively studied and analyzed. Francis Fukuyama‘s
monumental work preceding Huntington has been studied and referred to as a prime influence.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Huntington defines a civilization as the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level
of cultural identity people have short of which distinguishes humans from other species.
He used broad concepts – language, history, religion, customs and institutions – that define and
categorize these civilizations and especially religion as the most important differentiator between
civilizations.
He 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. . In this new world, local politics
is the politics of ethnicity; global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the
superpowers is replaced by the clash of civilizations giving rise to the question turning from
whose side are you on? to what are you?
Peoples and nations are attempting to answer this most basic identity question and they are
answering that question in the traditional way human beings have answered it, by reference to
the things that mean most to them. People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion,
language, history, values, customs, and institutions. They identify with cultural groups: tribes,
ethnic groups, religious communities, nations, and, at the broadest level, civilizations. People use
politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity. We know who we are
only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.
The only way the West can survive is to get stronger both militarily and economically and align
with civilizations sympathetic to itself to fight against the rise of Islamic and Confucian countries
(China).
Central theme of the book is that culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are
civilization identities are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the
post-Cold War era. The five parts of the book elaborate corollaries to this main proposition.

Part I: how global politics have become both multi-polar and multi-civilizational, how the
balance of power is shifting and possible ramifications of that shift; modernization is distinct
from Westernization and is producing neither a universal civilization in any meaningful sense
nor the Westernization of non-Western societies. The principal civilizations that make up the
world are identified.
Part II: The balance of power among civilizations is shifting: the West is declining in relative
influence; Asian civilizations are expanding their economic, military, and political strength;
Islam is exploding demographically with destabilizing consequences for Muslim countries and
their neighbours; and non-Western civilizations generally are reaffirming the value of their own
cultures.

Part III: conflict has become contingent upon cultural affinities. A civilization-based world order
is emerging: societies sharing cultural affinities cooperate with each other; efforts to shift
societies from one civilization to another are unsuccessful; and countries group themselves
around the lead or core states of their civilization.

Part IV: the pretensions of the West, and their desire to impress liberal values on other cultures,
have in the past and will in the future, bring it into conflict with other civilizations especially
with Islam and China; at the local level fault line wars, largely between Muslims and non-
Muslims, generate kin-country rallying, the threat of broader escalation, and hence efforts by
core states to halt these wars.

Part V: the West must not see their culture as universal as a means to preserving it against non-
Western societies. The survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western
identity and Westerners accepting their civilization as unique. Avoidance of a global war of
civilizations depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multi-
civilizational character of global politics.

For the West to mollify conflict or at best avoid it, it must abstain from intervening in the affairs
of other civilizations, work with other civilization to mitigate and contain fault-line conflict and
they must reject the universalism of Western culture otherwise, it will lead to resentment in non-
Western world since universalism is perceived as imperialism by the rest. Instead, they must
focus on commonalities between civilizations.

Core State and fault line Conflicts

In Huntington's view, inter-civilizational conflict manifests itself in two forms: fault line
conflicts and core state conflicts.
Fault line conflicts are on a local level and occur between adjacent states belonging to different
civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations.
Core state conflicts are on a global level between the major states of different civilizations. Core
state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved.
These conflicts may result from a number of causes, such as: relative influence or power
(military or economic), discrimination against people from different civilization, intervention to
protect kinsmen in a different civilization, or different values and culture, particularly when one
civilization attempts to impose its values on people of a different civilization.

Huntington offers six main explanations for why civilizations will clash10:

1. Differences among civilizations are fundamental in that civilizations are differentiated

from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religion.
These fundamental differences are the products of centuries, so they will not soon
disappear.
2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, the interactions across the world are
increasing, and they intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences
between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
3. Due to the economic modernization and social change, people are separated from
longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a
basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites
civilizations.
4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the
one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots
phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its
power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the
resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily
compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations
 6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce
civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in
a common civilization

The West versus the Rest

Huntington suggests that in the future the central axis of world politics would tend towards
conflict between Western and non-Western civilizations. He offers three forms of general actions
that non-Western civilization can take in response to Western countries. 11

1. Non-Western countries can attempt to achieve isolation in order to preserve their own
values and protect themselves from Western invasion. However, Huntington argues that
the cost of such action is high and only a few states can pursue it.
2. According to the theory of band-wagoning non-Western countries can join and accept
Western values.
3. Non-Western countries can make effort to balance Western power through
modernization. They can develop economic, military power and cooperate with other
non-Western countries against the West while still preserving their own values and
institutions. Huntington believes that the increasing power of non-Western civilizations
in international society will make the West begin to develop a better understanding of the
cultural fundamentals underlying other civilizations. Therefore, Western civilization will
cease to be regarded as universal but different civilizations will learn to coexist and join
to shape the future world.

OBJECTIVE CRITIQUE OF THE CLASH THESIS

Samuel Huntington’s publication has been both widely disparaged and criticized because his
suppositions are theoretically eclectic to say the least in the light of the overgeneralizations that
characterize most of his assumptions about the new phase of world politics. Little wonder, he
declared in a later article that a clash’ is not inevitable and that political policy more than cultural

11 Hungtington S.P., The Clash of Civilzations? In: Lechner FJ, Boli J, editors. The Globalization Reader. 4th ed.
West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. 37–44
differences lead to conflict. To many, this implies Huntington‘s rejection of his own earlier
argument. 12
The methodological flaws of the thesis as well Huntington’s reading of history and selective
perception13 has been brought to the fore. For instance, Huntington utterly failed to highlight the
numerous commonalities and essential similarities between civilizations. He refused to see the
interacting, overlapping, mingling and merging of cultures and the evolution of civilizations
through the debt they owe to each other. This is particularly so for his superficial analysis of the
relationship between Islam and the West. 14 The author further understates the importance of
states in favour of civilizations. The international system is about struggle for survival among
states, not civilizations. Furthermore, civilizations do not control states, but rather, states control
civilizations.
Again defining civilization as an all-encompassing and monolithic concept that ignores all the
interaction and diversity within one culture is totally erroneous. Besides culture and tradition are
ebbing away due from Western imperialism and the activities of trans-national globalizations
specially in formerly colonized territories whose cultures have been largely diluted religiously
and socially.
The article also predicts future conflicts will be started by non-Western civilizations reacting to
Western powers and values ignoring the equally plausible situation where Western states use
their military superiority to maintain their superior positions.
Marc Gopin regrets that at the heart of the Clash’ thesis is the idea that religion is divisive and
conflictual. It is ignored that religion has played an equally important role in human patterns of
reconciliation. 15
Several scholars suggest that Huntington's civilizational conflict paradigm is reductionist and
deterministic since there are multiple causes of conflict, in which civilizational factors do not
play significant role.16 Besides conflicts are always about the conqueror and the dominated,
about power and oppression, never so much about ideology or ethnic hatred. And if there be an

12 Huntington, S., The Age of Muslim Wars, Newsweek, December 2001

13 Mahmood Monshipouri and Gina Petonito, Constructing The Enemy in the Post-Cold War Era: The Flaws of the Islamic Conspiracy Theory,
Journal of Church & State, (Autumn 1995), Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 773-792
14 Sajjad, M., A ‘NON WESTERN’ READING OF THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ THEORY: Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’

International Journal of Political Science and Development, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42-104, October 2013
15 Gopin,M., Religion and International Relations at the Crossroads, International Studies Review , vol. 3 issue 3, Fall 2001.
16 Gopin,M.,Foreword, in Shireen T. Hunter, The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence,

(Westport, CT: Preager and CSIS, 1998) and Fouad Ajami, The Summoning,
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No.4 (September-October 1993), p.7
element of ethnic hatred, it often has a lot to do with the way the power structure was distorted to
favour a group or oppress another. Many further argue that clash of interests rather than clash of
civilizations will continue to be real cause of conflict17.
The policy prescriptions he suggests to counter this perceived threat equate to increasing the
power of the West to forestall any loss of the West's pre-eminence. It is a grievous error to treat
every culture as homogeneous the world is full of cultures, sub-cultures and counter-cultures
within each civilization a Huntington's thesis argues that Muslim culture is the most prone to
violence and thus the most dangerous.
Edward Said18 argues that Huntington's categorization of the world in fixed civilizations omits
the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. In a later publication, Said (2004: 293)19
further argued that the clash of civilizations thesis is an example of the purest invidious racism, a
sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims.
Noam Chomsky on his part observes that the concept of the clash of civilizations is a new
justification for the United States to carry out any atrocities that they wanted to carry out, as the
Soviet Union no longer seems a viable threat. 20
From another angle, Robert Marks argues that Huntington mostly uses secondary sources in his
book besides his weak scholarship of Islam, China and Japan.21 Marks also suggests that
Huntington's theory is methodologically flawed because of his frequent overgeneralizations and
inconsistencies in the analysis of civilizations. For example, he mentions both Arab and Islamic
civilizations. 22
Many have also criticized the cases, which Huntington uses to support his thesis. Fouad Ajami,
for instance, contends that the Gulf War is a case for clash of state interests par excellence not a
case of clash of civilizations.23 For instance, the coalition that formed against Saddam Hussein
during the Gulf War was composed of several Muslim states including Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

17 Shireen T. Hunter, S., T., The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?, Fouad Ajami, M.E Ahrari, The
Clash of Civilizations: An Old Story or New Truth?, Yuksel Sezgin, Does Islam Pose A Threat to the West? Perceptions: Journal of
International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June-August 2000)
18 Said, E., The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation, October 2001
19 Said, E. W., 2004, From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map. New York: Pantheon
20 Chomsky, N., Clash of civilizations?

http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509 noam chomsky.htm

21 Marks, R., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (Book Review)
22 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, pp.24-25
23 Fouad Ajami, The Summoning, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No.4 (September-October 1993),p. 7-8
Similar to Ajami's criticism of the Gulf War case, Hunter criticizes Huntington's use of
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict as civilizational clash since she argues that Muslim Iran had more
friendly relations with Christian Armenians than Muslim Azerbaijan. 24
There is also disagreement on Huntington’s proposal that nation states shall remain the most
powerful actors in world affairs. Huntington's first failed articulation is the unexplained, well-
funded global terrorists, armed with modern tanks and artillery. Terrorist organizations have
forced increased spending on international domestic security. (Richelson, 2008) 25 As Arundhati
Roy points out, terrorism has no country, it’s transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke, Pepsi
or Nike. (Roy, 2001) 26
The very existences of capable trans-national terrorist organizations
negate a primary postulation of Huntington’s hypothesis.
Again is glaring that in the contemporary, monopoly capitalism has adopted a supra-territorial
spread in the rise of trans-border corporations, global strategic alliances, and trans-world
business associations. As a consequence states are fast losing their core attribute – sovereignty -
which put together is gradually informing a withering away of the state as a sovereign entity.
In a word globalization which also suffices as the new phase of industrial capitalism stands
behind this present challenge to the continued existence of the nation-state in the face of growing
supra-territorial space, and of which Charles Derber (2002) argued,

these interacting institutions create a new global power system where sovereignty is globalized,
taking power and constitutional authority away from nations and giving it to global markets and
international bodies. 27

These taken together brings to the fore perhaps the most dominant claim of the globalists that
globalization entails the demise of the nation-state, summarized in notions such as an emerging
borderless world and a hollow state (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000). 28
Waters (1999), for instance, noted the following sorts of factors as exerting pressure on states
today.29 These factors lead in the direction of what Hedley Bull (1977)30 describes as new
Medievalism

24 Shireen T. Hunter, 1998, The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?
Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998
25 Richelson, J. T. (2008). The U.S. Intelligence Community . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
26 Roy, A. (2001). The Algebra of Infinite Justice. The Guardian.
27 Derber, C., (2002). People before Profit. New York: Picador.
28 Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. M.(2000) Global Sociology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
29 Waters, M. 1999, Globalization, 2nd edn. London: Routledge
30 Bull, H., (1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London:

Macmillan
 1. The regional amalgamation of states
2. The near collapse of states provoked by ethnic conflicts and international terrorism
3. Decreased capacity of states to deal with problems on a national basis global technological unification
4. Spreading consciousness of deepening environmental problems that single states are unable to solve
5. A growing level of expertise, education and reflexive empowerment in the adult citizenry that makes
them less susceptible to state authority

The new medievalism thus refers to the blurring of lines between inside/outside, the diffusion of
state power, and a system of overlapping authority and multiple loyalties (Bull, 1977).31
In this vein, Held (1995) argues that a new mode of global governance is emerging, as
governments struggle to control the flows of ideas and commodities, as transnational processes
expand, and as multilateral treaties and international organizations increase in number.32
For Marxists globalization is not unexpected as Marx had earlier predicted the boundless rise of
capitalism thus

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and
thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society…. The need of a
constantly expanding market for its produce chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the
globe… (Marx, 1987)33

Thus, corporatocracy is fast championing the end of the national system as the central nucleus
for organized human activities and civil existence.
For Giddens (1990), it is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant
localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away
and vice versa, he thus, accuses sociologists of an undue attachment to the idea of society as a
closed system. 34
Similarly, Featherstone (1990) challenges sociology to both theorize and work out modes of
systematic investigation which can clarify these globalizing processes and destructive forms of
social life which render problematic what has long been regarded as the basic subject matter of
sociology: society conceived almost exclusively as a bounded nation-state.35
Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization-
characterized especially by the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely

31 ibid
32 Held, D.1995, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity.
33 Marx, K. (Karl Marx: Selected Writings, (ed.) D.McLellan.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

34 Giddens, A., (1990), Sociology. Oxford: Polity Press
35 Featherstone, M.1990 (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity

London: Sage, 1990.

budge operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs. Hence, the
ploy by corporatists to influence passage of legislations and treaties that would limit the abilities
of states to restrict their activities; while giving them leverage to sue nations over restrictive
policies.36
It is within this line of thought that John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best
described as corporatist states, run by small elite of professional and interest groups that exclude
political participation from the citizenry 37 owing especially to increasing concentration of global
wealth in fewer and fewer hands also expressed as corporate globalism.
Another issue leading to conflict by Huntington’s estimation is that cultural characteristics are
less malleable and less easily compromised than the political or economic. Stephen Walt
identifies this sentiment as false -
What was world politics like prior to the end of the Cold War, which Huntington identifies as the
starting point for the new era of cultural competition? For the past 200 years or so, states--and
especially the great powers--have been the key actors in world affairs. It was generally recognized
that some of these states belonged to different civilizations, but nobody argued that these
differences mattered very much for understanding international politics. Cultural differences did
matter, but their main political expression took the form of nationalism.
Among other things, this error casts doubt on Huntington’s claim that the end of the Cold War
constitutes a radical historical watershed. It also means that he cannot use past inter-civilizational
wars as support for his own thesis, because these various conflicts did not arise from the cultural
or civilizational differences that Huntington now sees as central to world politics. 38

Critics further suggest that Huntington's civilizational conflict paradigm is reductionist and
deterministic since there are multiple causes of conflict, in which civilizational factors do not
play significant role. 39 For instance, Shireen T. Hunter argues that problematic relations between
the West and the Muslim World hardly stemmed from civilizational differences as Huntington
argues but from structural-political and economic- inequalities between the two worlds of haves
and have-nots. 40 On yet another note, Fouad Ajami contends that Huntington overestimates
cultural differences between civilizations while he underestimates the influence of the West in
the hostile relations with the Muslim World.41

36 http://corporatism.askdefine.com/
37 ibid
38 Walt, Stephen M., Building Up New Bogeymen: The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking of World Order

Foreign Policy, Spring 97, Issue 106

39 Gopin,M., Foreword, in Hunter, S., 1998, The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence,

Ajami, F., The Summoning, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No.4 (September-October 1993), p.7
40 Hunter, S., 1998, The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence, Westport, CT: Preager

and CSIS,pp.19-20
41 Ajami, F., ibid
Again some scholars argue that Huntington does not come up with a new paradigm since his
thesis fits into political realism. They contend that Huntington is basically concerned with the
West's technological and military superiority in following bloc based Cold War mentality. 42 They
also suggest that Huntington's Machivellian advice of exploiting differences between Islamic and
Confucian civilizations can only be considered within the realist realm,43 all leading, G. John
Ikenberry to affirm that Huntington calls forth a new Cold War.44
Critics further contend that Huntington ignores internal dynamics, plurality and myriad
complexities45 of Islam/the Muslim World. 46 They argue that there is no single Islamic culture as
Huntington implies but there are multiple centres of Islam and various types of political Islam
and Islamism in the Muslim World. 47 For this reason, some call for de-constructing monolithic
perceptions of Islam and the West. 48 Furthermore, there are numerous conflicts within
civilizations. For instance, Ahrari and Hunter confront Huntington on how Iraqi and Turkish
treatment of Kurds can demonstrate civilizational unity and coherence. 49 Besides, it may happen
that cooperation may occur between two countries that come from different civilizations than
those of the same civilization. Hunter gives the example of Turkey's strategic relations with
Israel in the 1990s when a time its relations with the Arab World and Iran were generally

42 Hans Kung, Inter-Cultural Dialogue Versus Confrontation p.102 and Mahmood Monshipouri and Gina Petonito, Constructing
The Enemy in the Post-Cold War Era…
43 Seifudein Adem Hussien, On the End of History and the Clash of Civilization: A Dissenter's View,

Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2001), p. 32

44 G. John Ikenberry, Just Like the Rest, Foreign Affairs (March-April 1997), p. 163, Richard E. Rubenstein and Jarle Crocker,

Challenging Huntington, Foreign Policy, No. 96 (Fall 1994), p.117

45 Halliday, F., Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion, and Politics in the Middle East (New York: St. Martin's Press,

1996), p. 217 cited in Mahmood Monshipouri, The West's Modern Encounter With Islam: From Discourse to Reality, Journal of Church and
State, Vol. 40, No.1 (Winter 1998), pp. 25-56
46 Said, E., The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation, October 22 2001 and Mahmood Monshipouri, The West's Modern Encounter With Islam:

From Discourse to Reality.

47 John L. Esposito, Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism or Reform, (Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1997);

Hunter, S., 1998, The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence, Westport, CT: Preager and CSIS, Robert
Marks, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Book Review), Journal of World History, Vol.11, No. 1 (Spring 2000),
pp. 101-104, Richard Rosecrance, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (Book Review), American Political Science
Review, Vol.92, No.4 (December 1998), p978-980, John C. Raines, The Politics of Religious Correctness: Islam and the West, Cross Currents,
Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp.39-49 (It is available at: http://www.crosscurrents.org/Raines2.htm) On conceptions of 'West' and
'Islam', especially see; Mohammed Arkoun and John Bowden, Is Islam Threatened by Christianity, Cross Currents, Vol. 45 No. 4 (Winter
1995-96), pp. 469-478, and Mohammed Arkoun, Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers, Translated and edited
by Robert D. Lee, (Oxford: Westview Press, 1994)
48 Kalin, I., Islam and the West: Deconstructing Monolithic Perceptions- A Conversation with Professor John Esposito,

Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2001), pp. 155-163
49 Ahrari, M. E., The Clash of Civilizations: An Old Story or New Truth?, New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 14, No.2 (Spring 1997), pp.56-

61; Hunter, Shireen T., The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful
Coexistence?, Perceptions:Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June - August 2000)
problematic.50 Hence Huntington fails to realize the character of the diversity and dynamics of
civilizations.
Robert Marks on his part argues that Huntington mostly uses secondary sources in his book and
he has weak scholarship of Islam, China and Japan. 51 Marks also suggest that Huntington's
theory is methodologically flawed because of his frequent overgeneralizations in the analysis of
civilizations. For example, he mentions both Arab and Islamic civilizations. 52 Moreover, many
have also criticized the cases, which Huntington uses to support his thesis. Fouad Ajami, for
instance, contends that the Gulf War is a case for clash of state interests par excellence not a case
for clash of civilizations. 53
Huntington probably forgot that the coalition that formed against
Saddam Hussein was composed of several Muslim states including Turkey and Saudi Arabia,
and similar to Ajami's criticism of the Gulf War case, Hunter criticizes Huntington's use of
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict as civilizational clash since she argues that Muslim Iran had more
friendly relations with Christian Armenians than Muslim Azerbaijan. 54 Furthermore, Seizaburo
Sato faults Huntington’s suggestion that the West should rally Japan against potential Islamic-
Confucian alignment when he had earlier defined Japan as economic threat to the West. Sato also
questions Huntington's advice to get Russia into the EU since he also puts Russia as the core
state of Slavic-Orthodox civilization. 55
On yet another note, Manochehr Dorraj, argues that the clash thesis reifies, distorts, and de-
humanizes the Muslims. 56 Finally, the critics argue that perceiving the other as a threat instead a
challenge57, leads to siege mentality, which originate from Western hubris. 58
Another category of criticisms is about Huntington's policy recommendations stems from the
basis of his interpretation of post-Cold War global politics.
Huntington's enemy discourse, in which Islamic and Confucian civilizations are perceived as a
threat to the West has been contentious. Monshipouri, Petonito and Battistella perceive that

50 Hunter, S., The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence, Perceptions:Journal of International Affairs, Vol.
5, No. 2, (June - August 2000)
Engin I. Erdem, From Rapprochement to Strategic Partnership: Turkish-Israeli Relations in the 1990s,
Unpublished Master's Thesis, (Istanbul: Fatih University, 2001)
51 Marks, R., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Book Review)
52 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations?, pp.24-25
53 Fouad Ajami, p. 7-8
54 Hunter, S. T., ibid
55 Seizaburo Sato, The Clash of Civilizations: A View from Japan, Asia Pacific Review (October 1997)

http://sbpark.com/inn60.html.
56 Dorraj, M., In The Throes of Civilizational Conflict, Peace Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (December 1998), pp. 633-637
57 Ibrahim Kalin, ibid, p.155
58 Kishore Mahbubani, The West and the Rest, National Interest, Issue 28, (Summer 1992), pp.10-14
Huntington looks for new enemies, to replace the adversary of the Cold War, the Soviet Union. 59
Said and Wasim, on the other hand, argue that Huntington's theory is an ideological and strategic
theory that aims at influencing the US foreign and defense policy. 60 In this regard, Hans Kung
pinpoints the fact that Huntington was an advisor to Pentagon in 1994 and suggests that
Huntington's scenario of World War III that stems from clash of civilizations interestingly fits
best into military and representative of arms industry. 61 In this respect, the clash of civilizations
is considered as purposeful thesis as it aims at guiding the US foreign and security policy.
Moreover, some scholars criticize Huntington's advice to pursue Atlanticist policy, by increasing
the relations with Europe against Islamic-Confucian connection. According to John Ikenberry,
Huntington's vision originates from bloc mentality and his approach is significantly dangerous
for the United States and international peace.
Huntington's article has produced fruitful debates within the discipline of international relations.
Of these empirical studies, those of Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart are especially remarkable.
They compared political and social values of the Western and Muslim societies by using World
Values Survey database and found that Muslims have no less democratic ideals than the West. 62
In this respect, their study considerably falsified Huntington's assumption that Islam and the
West have fundamentally different political values based on predominant religious cultures. The
study demonstrates the existence of similar political attitudes in the Muslim World and the West.
Manus Midlarsky's empirical study has also produced a similar conclusion that there is no
negative association between Islam and democracy, which Huntington assumes to lead to
civilizational conflict. 63
More so, Bruce Russett, John Oneal and Michaelene Cox have looked for the significance of
cultural/civilizational variables in causing international conflict. Their study is based on
University of Michigan's Correlates of War Project, which keeps data of all militarized inter-

59 Mahmood Monshipouri and Gina Petonito, ibid, Dario Battistella, "Recherche Ennemi Desesperement… Response a Samuel P.
Huntington a propos d'un affrontement a venir entre l'Occident et l'Islam", Confluences Mediterranee, No. 40 (Winter 2001-2002)
60 Said, E., The Clash of Ignorance, Naz Wasim, Challenging Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations': The Shared Tradition of Europe and

Islam in International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations, 31 July to 3 August 2001, Tokyo and Kyoto,
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/conf-report.pdf, For the UNU Project on the Dialogue of Civilizations, see also
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue
61 Kung, H., Inter-Cultural Dialogue Versus Confrontation, p.102
62 Inglehart, Ronald and Norris, Pippa, ―The True Clash of Civilizations,

Foreign Policy, March-April 2003p.11-12

63 Midlarsky, M., Democracy and Islam: Implications for Civilizational Conflict and the Democratic Peace,

International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No.3, 1998, pp.485-511

state disputes from 1885 to 1994. They found that realist and liberal variables of conflict not
civilizations matter most in international conflict and cooperation. 64
Again Huntington's prophecy has been calculated by John Ikenberry to lead to the equivalent of a
security dilemma, in which misperceptions about the other eventually increases the tension and
then lead to conflict65 . He also suggests if ideas by prominent thinkers have any impact on the
real world the clash thesis is potentially dangerous.66 On the other hand, both Mahbubani and
Sato contend that Huntington's policy recommendations, if applied, will be so dangerous that
they will cause a disaster for international peace and security. 67 Furthermore, many have
criticized Huntington for his pessimistic vision of future and ignorance given the fact that
cooperation and dialogue among civilizations is possible. For this reason, it is not coincidental
that several conferences on civilizational dialogue have been organized, probably as a response
to the clash of civilizations. 68
In recent years, the theory of Dialogue among Civilizations, a response to Huntington's Clash of
Civilizations, has become the centre of some international attention. The concept, which was
introduced by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, was the basis for United Nations'
resolution to name the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. 69 The year 2001
was proclaimed as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. 70
The Alliance of Civilizations (AOC) initiative was proposed at the 59th General Assembly of the
United Nations in 2005 by the President of the Spanish Government, José Luis Rodríguez
Zapatero and co-sponsored by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The initiative
is intended to galvanize collective action across diverse societies to combat extremism, to
overcome cultural and social barriers between mainly the Western and predominantly Muslim

64 Bruce M. Russett, John R. Oneal, Michaelene Cox, Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Deju Vu? Some evidence,
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No.5 (September 2000), pp.583-608 and
Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Deju Vu?' in
Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, , 2001, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations,
New York: W.W.Norton
65 John Hertz and Robert Jervis has first brought 'security dilemma' into the disciplinary
66 G. John Ikenberry, Just Like the Rest, p.162-163
67 Kishore Mahbubani, ibid, and Seizaburo Sato, ibid
68 For example; International Conference on Dialogue of Civilizations, London 27-28 October 2000, http://www.islamic-

studies.org/dialconfer, International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations, 31 July to 3 August 2001, Tokyo and Kyoto,
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/conf-report.pdf, For the UNU Project on the Dialogue of Civilizations, see also
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue, Okinawa Declaration, The International Conference on Dialogue of Civilizations: A New peace
Agenda for a New Millennium (Okinawa, February 11-13, 2000), http://www.dialoguecentre.org/PDF/Okinawa%20Declaration.pdf,
and OIC-EU Joint Forum (Istanbul, February 12-13, 2002) For a brief summary of the proceedings of the forum see;
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/OIC-EU-Forum/summary.htm
69 http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm Unesco.org
70 Dialogue Among Civilizations United Nations University Centre http://archive.unu.edu/dialogue
worlds, and to reduce the tensions and polarization between societies which differ in religious
and cultural values.

Implications for Islamic cum West Relations

When the Twin Towers fell on the morning of September 11 2001, the much contended Clash of
Civilizations’ thesis seemed to have won instantaneous acceptance. The falling towers seemed to
be clashing civilizations materialized. Huntington was considered almost prescient as his thesis
fell right into place, vindicated. Instantly, the jargon of us and them, wars between our way of life
and theirs went mainstream.
The fatal day marked a paradigm shift in international politics on the one hand and domestic
policy in the US on the other. Fear and insecurity were on an all-time high following the attacks
and rhetoric built around Huntington’s thesis. As the Clash’ thesis entered the discourse, the
Islam-West debate was widenend and intensified. It received greater attention in the media, as
Engin I Erdem writes, Not unexpectedly, the Western media looked at Islamic roots of the
terrible attacks. Thereafter, Islam, Islamism, political Islam and Islamic fundamentalism became
the most frequently used terms in the media. 71
Memoona Sajjad rightly reasons that the Clash of Civilizations theory is thoroughly rooted in its
context, which makes it a post Cold War paradigm giving a theoretical vindication to the course
of Western policy after the Cold War. The fact that Huntington was a deeply influential
personage in the highest policymaking echelons in the United States both lends importance to his
thesis as an instrument of American foreign policy as well as removes the credibility required for
genuine scholarship from his work. 72
Still according to Sajjad, the real agenda underlying the thesis presented by Huntington is
perpetuating Western dominance and hegemony on the globe after the Communist enemy had
been vanquished, through the creation of a new enemy and the generation of fear and hatred
against it in the public mind. Broadening contemporary conflict into a civilizational clash
magnifies it, garners public support, intensifies security compulsions and eclipses the real
agendas of national interest and monopolization of resources. The Clash’ theory thus, fits well

71 Engin I. E., The 'Clash of Civilizations': Revisited after September 11,

Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations;Summer2002, Vol. 1 Issue 2, p81
72 Sajjad, M., A ‘NON WESTERN’ READING OF THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ THEORY: Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’

International Journal of Political Science and Development, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42-104, October 2013
with the growing needs of America‘s powerful and expansive military-industrial complex
defined by its Capitalist ideology. The conflict with the Muslim world is about geopolitical
interests of the West. The rhetoric of the Clash of Civilizations works well to disguise these and
divert criticism of Western policy. September 11 apparently vindicated Huntington‘s thesis.
Western policy and rhetoric after September 11 seems to have officially adopted the Clash of
Civilizations theory. Despite refutations of it, policy and rhetoric from the White House has only
served to lend credence to it. Islamophobia in the West has gone mainstream and has generated
an understandably militant response from the Muslim world creating a vicious cycle of hostility.
If the trend continues, the Clash of Civilizations might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 73
Samuel P. Huntington's clash of civilizations paradigm unquestionably has menacing
implications for Islam cum West relations. 74 As mentioned earlier, Huntington's understanding of
Islam essentially rests upon orientalist scholarship of Islam, in which Islam- the other is being
depicted as a threat and even an enemy of the West. It also fosters and/or justifies negative
images and stereotypes of Islam/Muslims as violent, terroristic, backward, and immoral. 75 The
negative stereotypes eventually distract the West from the search for critical understanding and
dialogue with Islam/the Muslim World. In this respect, Huntington's perspective of Islam is
considerably a story of conflict rather than dialogue or at least peaceful coexistence between the
two worlds. Anti-orientalist scholars, like John Esposito emphasize diversity and plurality of the
Muslim World by drawing attention towards various Islams, and Islamisms. 76 Essentially,
dialogue between the two sides is of crucial importance especially in the increasingly
transnational and interdependent world. 77
The mentioned differences between orientalist and anti-orientalist scholarship of Islam also
appear in regard to divergent views of political Islam, Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. 78
The divergence between orientalist and anti-orientalist scholarship of Islam also appears on
Islam vs. democracy debate; whether Islam and democracy is compatible. Expectedly, orientalist

73 Ibid.
74 For instance, after the September 11 events American president George W. Bush expressed that Islam is a religion of peace. Cited in
Richard W. Bulliet, The Crisis Within Islam, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.1 (Winter 2002), pp. 11-19 On this issue see also; James
A. Beverley, Is Islam a Religion of Peace, Christianity Today, January 7, 2002 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/001/1.32.html)
75 Suleiman, M., Islam, Muslims and Arabs in America: The Other of the Other of the Other…,

Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1999), p.37-44

76 Esposito, J., 1997, Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism or Reform, Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, Co
77 M.E Ahrari, ibid
78 Tibi, B., 1998, The Challenge of Fundamentalism? Political Islam and the New World Disorder

Berkeley: University of California Press

scholarship underscores the inherent incompatibility while the other side argues that Islam and
democracy are compatible. 79
The clash of civilizations thesis, no doubt, has considerable negative implications for Islam cum
West relations. This is especially because it creates a great setback for the West to recognize
diversity and plurality of the Muslim World and various interpretations of Islam. It also closes all
avenues for dialogue with the other. Moreover, it draws a very pessimistic outlook for future
relations, as Huntington foresees, Islam and the West will inevitably clash though it may not be
violent. 80 Keeping Huntington's confrontational vision in mind, September 11 might at first be
seen as a case to validate the thesis as Sajjad pointed out. Yet, the reality is hardly like that
because of two major reasons:
First, American campaign against Al Qaeda terrorist organization has received full support from
the Muslim World including Iran, that has a very hostile and problematic relations with the
United States. Yet, it does not necessarily mean that the whole Muslim World supports the
United States manner of war against terrorism and axis of evil discourse. The criticisms,
however, are hardly related with civilizational differences but they are mostly about American
unilateralism. 81 Besides, as mentioned above, these criticisms are not restricted to the Muslim
world. For instance, Shibley Telhami suggests that anti-Americanism in the Muslim World in the
aftermath of September 11 is also almost an equal reality in other parts of the world. 82 European
elites and people considerably criticized the Bush administration before and after September 11
as well. 83 In this respect, it is wrong to say that American campaign against Al Qaeda and the
growing anti-American sentiments in the Muslim World after September 11 validates the clash
of civilizations thesis.
On another note, there was widespread condemnation of United States’ excesses and its pro-
Israeli stance in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its cooperation with authoritarian-repressive

79For arguments, which see Islam and democracy as compatible see Abdulaziz Sachedina,2001, Islamic Roots of Democratic
Pluralism New York: Oxford University Press; Gudrun Kramer, Islam and Pluralism in Rex Brynen Bahgat Korany, Paul Noble eds,
Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World: Theoretical Perspectives (Boulder Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995),
pp. 113-128,
80 As mentioned before, Huntington has made fundamental even revolutionary changes in his Newsweek article of December 2001, in

which he says here the conflict is possible but not inevitable.

81 Nye, J. S., 2002; The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone

New York: Oxford University Press

82 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) May 15, 2002, Conference, The United States, Europe, and the Muslim World:

Revitalizing Relations After September 11. http://csis.org/event/revitalizing-relations-after-september-11

83 On European criticisms of the U.S unilateralism, for instance, see William Pfaff, The Coming Clash of Europe with America, World Policy

Journal, 15 (Winter 1998), pp. 1-9, Pascal Boniface, The Specter of Unilateralism, The Washington Quarterly, 24 (Summer 2001), pp.155-
162, William Wallace, Europe, The Necessary Partner (American Foreign Relations), Foreign Affairs, 80 (May-June 2001), pp.16-34
regimes of the Middle East for the sake of the strategic interests consequent upon which anti-
Americanism was rife in aftermath of September 11. Though many- including Huntington84 -
argue that, the U.S may alleviate the negative sentiments if she revises its policy toward the
region. 85 In this respect, Muslim anxiety towards the United States is deeply related to clash of
policies-interests not clash of civilizations.
Along these lines Graham Fuller reasons thus -
under such conditions, it should not be surprising that these frustrated populations perceive the
current war against terrorism as functionally a war against Islam. Muslim countries are the chief
target, they contend, Muslims everywhere are singled out for censure and police attention, and U.S
power works its way across the region with little regard for deeper Muslim concerns. A vicious
circle exists: dissatisfaction leads to anti-regime action, which leads to repression, which in turn
leads to terrorism, U.S military intervention, and finally further dissatisfaction. Samuel
Huntington's theory of a clash of civilizations is seemingly vindicated before the eyes of the
Muslim world. 86

Thus, anti-Americanism was especially rife during the Bush administration. And its axis of evil
rhetoric attracted serious criticisms not only from the Muslim world but also from Europe. 87

Today, United States’ drive for hegemony and unilateralism not Western-Christian- values may
be considered the cause of growing anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world.
Sajjad conclusively reasons that as far as criticism from the Muslim world is concerned, there are
two contrasting views: The first is a rejection of the Clash thesis as a fabricated myth for
perpetuating Western dominance and justifying its aggrandizing policies. The other opinion is of
a Clash being inevitable due to the essentially and radically different ethos of Islam which makes
it impossible to reconcile with the West. With this realization, the Muslims need to prepare for
the approaching Clash. On a deeper study, however, these apparently conflicting viewpoints can
be reconciled. While Islam is a distinct ideology fundamentally different from other cultures,
particularly Western Secular-Materialism, coexistence and pluralism are a hallmark asserted by
its history. Although the Clash’ thesis is not inevitable, not working to throw it overboard can
bring it closer. Such a Clash of Civilizations must actively be prevented through the following
measures: History and culture must be reinterpreted in an inclusive, integrative way and the
pattern of sharing, interaction and intercultural communication must be brought out. Education

84 Samuel P. Huntington, The Age of Muslim Wars

85 ibid
86. Graham E. Fuller, The Future of Political Islam, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002, p.54
87 On the protests see, for instance; USA Today, Amid protests, Bush arrives in Europe, May 22, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/22/bush-europe.htm
must be denationalized’ and cleansed of embedded prejudice and bias. The West needs to realize
its responsibility in eliminating the root causes of militancy in the Muslim world. The Middle
East conflict must be seriously addressed and resolved according to the aspirations of the
Palestinian people. Confidence building through conflict resolution and cessation/reversal of
interventionist policy needs to be undertaken. The role of religion as a means for peacemaking
and reconciliation must be acknowledged and religion be allowed to begin a healing process’.
Interpretation of religious texts by credible authorities to emphasize on peace and tolerance must
be disseminated and strongly encouraged. The West must stop viewing the non West from the
Orientalist lens and acknowledge its debt to the Orient and to Islam’ to overcome its self-
absorbed profile-essentialism. A process of dialogue between civilizations must be seriously
undertaken on a global scale, with representatives from all communities and civilizations having
a say to represent their points of view and develop understanding of each other. The United
Nations’ initiative in this regard sponsored by the Turkish premier should be supported and
expanded. Former Iranian president Khatami’s brainchild of interfaith and intercommunal
dialogue must be developed and actively pursued. 88
No doubts Orientalists believe that the Islamic religion is fabricated but it is insufficient reason
not to let adherents be. The values of liberty and freedom is welcome everywhere in the world
but to impose it on the world would imply infringement on the freedom and liberty of would-be
victims, yet the Islamic world must redress its tolerance on non adherents living in their midst as
it was from the beginning.
No doubts Orientalists believe that the Islamic religion is fabricated89 but it is insufficient reason not to let
adherents be. The values of liberty and freedom is welcome everywhere in the world but to impose it on
the world would imply infringement on the very freedom and liberty of would-be victims, yet the Islamic
world must redress its tolerance on non adherents living in their midst as it was from the beginning.90
Sajjad concludes that for such a dialogue to be successful, it must involve credible, popular and
genuine representatives from all civilizations. A dialogue must be carried out on the basis of
absolute parity of all parties. The Western participants must realize that imposition of their
version of modernity or choosing moderate’ representatives from the Muslim world who are
merely on the fringes of mainstream Muslim society will not work. The Muslim world must

88 Sajjad, M., A ‘NON WESTERN’ READING OF THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ THEORY: Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’
International Journal of Political Science and Development, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42-104, October 2013
89 Jameelah, M., 1981, Islam and Orientalism, Lahore: M. Yusuf Khan and Sons, pp 23-24.
90 Quoted in Setting the Record Straight: A Rejoinder, Memoona Sajjad (Ed.), EPIC Publications, Lahore, 2008. P. 29.
seriously undertake a tremendous, multi-pronged effort to inform the Western mind about
quintessential Islam and its contemporary interpretation. Muslims, both at the individual,
communal and state level, should give intellectual, moral and material support to all those who
are engaged in such an effort. Muslims must devise strategies and channelize resources to
establish links with and gain access into the academia, the mass media and policy makers in the
West. Muslim minorities in the West have a huge responsibility for the establishment of cultural
bridges and the promotion of the Muslim image in the West. Lastly, the extraordinary potential
of Islam as an arbiter between civilizations owing to its universalism and egalitarianism which is
also attested by its history must be recognized and put to use both by the Muslim world (in order
to reject exclusivist interpretation) and the West (to be able to initiate genuinely constructive,
conciliatory engagement with the Muslim world). 91

Conclusion
The Clash of Civilizations thesis is a classic example of othering: polarizing the parties involved
into us and them. This is clear when he chooses to divide civilizations into two hostile,
adversarial camps the West and the Rest. Civilizational conflicts constitute a minority of ethnic
conflicts both during and after the Cold War. Additionally, conflicts between the West and both
the Confucian and Islamic civilizations, which Huntington predicts will be the major conflicts in
the post-Cold War era, constitute a small minority of civilizational conflicts. The fact of the
matter is that conflicts take place more out of economic and socio-political injustice, deprivation,
disempowerment, not between ethnic groups or civilizations, lending support to the premise of
scholars who argue that many ethnic conflicts will be at a level more micro than the civilizational
level.
Richard E. Rubenstein and Jarle Crocker concluded that

the Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order describes the theoretical
legitimization of American-led Western aggression against China and the world's Islamic and
Orthodox cultures. Other critics argue that Huntington's taxonomy is simplistic and arbitrary, and
does not take account of the internal dynamics and partisan tensions within civilizations.
Furthermore, critics argue that Huntington neglects ideological mobilization by elites and
unfulfilled socioeconomic needs of the population as the real causal factors driving conflict, that
he ignores conflicts that do not fit well with the civilizational fault lines identified by him, and
they charge that his new paradigm is nothing but realist thinking in which states became replaced
by civilizations. 92

91 ibid
92. Richard E. Rubenstein and Jarle Crocker (1994): Challenging Huntington, Foreign Policy, No. 96 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 113-128
Following the end of the Cold War, America emerged as sole superpower leading some patriotic
Americans ask: now the Russians are gone, why don’t we reduce our military budget and invest
more in education, healthcare, aid to the third world, technology, and infrastructure?
Why do we need this half a trillion dollar military budget when we have massive social problems
at home in this most advanced industrialized country?
Hence, American corporatocracy needed to invent something to replace the Russians to justify
all that. America is perpetually at war with virtually all countries and rival civilizations,
especially Islam. The paradigm of the West vs. the Rest has never changed. Today it is - gone
with the Russians, in with the Muslims. That’s why the United States needs $500b in military
spending and 700 military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Djibouti, Jordan,
Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the list goes on. Little wonder when the United States
invaded South Vietnam in the early 1960s, Kennedy said we were defending ourselves from
what he called the assault from within. The leading liberal light Adlai Stevenson described it as
internal aggression.93
From his title Al-Qaeda: the True Story of Radical Islam, Jason Burke, makes a similar attempt
at exploring the genesis and evolution of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and focuses on the role and
responsibility of the West in creating this new danger. The West needs to take the responsibility
of this and re-evaluate its counter terrorism policies. 94
Robert Wright, in his article Highbrow Tribalism, takes aim at Huntington‘s thesis as the outcrop
of a prejudiced, tribalist mentality in modern jargon. He terms Huntington‘s arbitrary division of
the world into rigid civilizations as inaccurate and erroneous and brings to the fore the real
agenda of global hegemony and monopolization of resources which the Clash thesis justifies.
Wright terms Huntington‘s thesis arrogant and dangerous. 95 Similar to this is Said Shirazi‘s Your
New Enemies where Shirazi scathingly criticizes Huntington’s thesis as being a post Cold War
attempt to present a new enemy to the West and instil fear and hatred of the enemy figure in the

93Chomsky, N., tagged Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond
From a talk given at Boston University, April 2008,
94Burke, J., 2004, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, London: Penguin
95 Wright, R., Highbrow Tribalism, Slate Magazine, Saturday, Nov. 2, 1996
Western mind. Shirazi discredits Huntington‘s thesis as prejudiced and calls for going beyond a
clash towards communication across cultures. 96
As a burgeoning empire state the Middle East is just one area under United States imperialism.
In Latin America the situation is no less the same as John Beacham explains

With the weakening and collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, Washington attempted to
strengthen its control over Latin America. Among many other interventions, in 1989, the U.S.
invaded Panama in a brutal midnight attack that killed 4,000 civilians and destroyed the
Panamanian military. The attack assured that the U.S. military would remain in control of the
Panama Canal, a vital point of trade in the Americas.
U.S.-backed coups and assassinations, U.S.-trained death squads, U.S.-backed dictators and all
kinds of subversions were and are part of a wider strategy to protect and promote U.S. business
interests in the region and to destroy independence movements and leftist movements that dare to
struggle against Washington’s dictates. 97

From Michael Parenti we learn thus -

Today, the United States is the foremost proponent of recolonization and leading antagonist of
revolutionary change throughout the world. Emerging from World War II relatively unscathed
and superior to all other industrial countries in wealth, productive capacity, and armed might, the
United States became the prime purveyor and guardian of global capitalism. Judging by the size
of its financial investments and military force, judging by every imperialist standard except
direct colonization, the U.S. empire is the most formidable in history, far greater than Great
Britain in the nineteenth century or Rome during antiquity.
The exercise of U.S. power is intended to preserve not only the international capitalist system but
U.S. hegemony of that system. The Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance draft (1992) urges
the United States to continue to dominate the international system by

discouraging the advanced industrialized nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a
larger global or regional role

By maintaining this dominance, the Pentagon analysts assert, the United States can ensure

a market-oriented zone of peace and prosperity that encompasses more than two-thirds of the world's
economy

96 Shirazi, S., Your New Enemies, Dissident Voice, November 3, 2002, www.dissidentvoice.org.
97 Beacham, J., 2010, Socialism and the Latin American revolution at the Nov. 13-14, 2010, National Conference on Socialism
http://www.pslweb.org/party/socialism-conference-2010/panel-latinamerica-02-revolutionary-tide.html
Today, the United States spends more on military arms and other forms of national security than
the rest of the world combined. U.S. leaders preside over a global military apparatus of a
magnitude never before seen in human history. In 1993 it included almost a half-million troops
stationed at over 395 major military bases and hundreds of minor installations in thirty-five
foreign countries, and a fleet larger in total tonnage and firepower than all the other navies of the
world combined, consisting of missile cruisers, nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers,
destroyers, and spy ships that sail every ocean and make port on every continent.
U.S. bomber squadrons and long-missiles can reach any target, carrying enough explosive force
to destroy entire countries with an overkill capacity of more than 8,000 strategic nuclear
weapons and 22,000 tactical ones. U.S. rapid deployment forces have firepower in conventional
weaponry vastly superior to that of any other nation, with an ability to slaughter with impunity,
as the massacre of Iraq demonstrated in 1990-91.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has given over $200 billion in military aid to train,
equip, and subsidize more than 2.3 million troops and internal security forces in some eighty
countries, the purpose being not to defend them from outside invasions but to protect ruling
oligarchs and multinational corporate investors from the dangers of domestic anti-capitalist
insurgency. Among the recipients have been some of the most notorious military autocracies in
history, countries that have tortured, killed, or otherwise maltreated large numbers of their
citizens because of their dissenting political views, as in Turkey, Zaire, Chad, Pakistan,
Morocco, Indonesia, Honduras, Peru, Colombia, El Salvador, Haiti, Cuba (under Batista),
Nicaragua (under Somoza), Iran (under the Shah), the Philippines (under Marcos), and Portugal
(under Salazar).
U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically
elected reformist governments in Guatemala, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile,
Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Greece, Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, and numerous
other nations were overthrown by pro-capitalist militaries that were funded and aided by the U.S.
national security state.
The U.S. national security state has participated in covert actions or proxy mercenary wars
against revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Portugal,
Nicaragua, Cambodia, East Timor, Western Sahara, and elsewhere, usually with dreadful
devastation and loss of life for the indigenous populations. Hostile actions also have been
directed against reformist governments in Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Syria, Zaire, Jamaica,
South Yemen, the Fiji Islands, and elsewhere.
Since World War II, U.S. forces have directly invaded or launched aerial attacks against
Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama,
Libya, Iraq, and Somalia, sowing varying degrees of death and destruction.
Before World War II, U.S. military forces waged a bloody and protracted war of conquest in the
Philippines from 1899 to 1903. Along with fourteen other capitalist nations, the United States
invaded and occupied parts of socialist Russia from 1918 to 1921. U.S. expeditionary forces
fought in China along with other Western armies to suppress the Boxer Rebellion and keep the
Chinese under the heel of European and North American colonizers. U.S. Marines invaded and
occupied Nicaragua in 1912 and again from 1926 to 1933; Haiti, from 1915 to 1934; Cuba from
1898 to 1902; Mexico, in 1914 and 1916.
There were six invasions of Honduras between 1911 and 1925; Panama was occupied between
1903 and 1914.98
In the light the growing character of Western imperialism vigilance must be the watchword of
the rest as the United States very easily sponsors insurrections to overthrow governments who
refuse to follow instructions. Constant and regular dialogue is also strategic for taming the
enemy.

98 Parenti, M., 1995, Against Empire, City Light Press: San Francisco
 References
Books
Arkoun, M., 1994, Rethinking Islam: Common Questions, Uncommon Answers, Translated and
edited by Robert D. Lee, Oxford: Westview Press
Bruce Russett and John R. Oneal, 2001, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and
International Organizations, New York: W.W.Norton
Bull, H., (1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan
Burke, J., 2004, Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, London: Penguin
Brynen, R., Korany, B., Noble, P., eds, 1995, Political Liberalization and Democratization in
the Arab World: Theoretical Perspectives, Boulder, Co.:Lynne Rienner Publishers
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. M.(2000) Global Sociology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Derber, C., 2002, People before Profit, New York: Picador
Esposito, J., 1997, Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism or Reform,
Boulder, Co: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Featherstone, M.1990 (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity
London: Sage
Fry, G., and O'Hagan,j.,2001, Contending Images of World Politics, New York: St. Martin’s Press
Giddens, A., (1990), Sociology Oxford: Polity Press
Halliday, F., 1996 Islam and the Myth of Confrontation: Religion, and Politics in the Middle East
New York: St. Martin's Press
Held, D.1995, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity.
Huntington, S., 1996, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order,
New York: Simon and Schuster
Jameelah, M., 1981, Islam and Orientalism, Lahore: M. Yusuf Khan and Sons

Lechner, F. J., and Boli J., editors. 2012, The Globalization Reader. 4th ed.
West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell
Marx, K., 1987, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, (ed.) D.McLellan, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Mathews, B., 1926, Young Islam on trek : a study in the clash of civilizations,
London: Edinburgh House Press
Nye, J., S., 2002, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go
It Alone New York: Oxford University Press
Parenti, M., 1995, Against Empire, City Light Press: San Francisco
Richelson, J. T. 2008, The U.S. Intelligence Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Sachedina, A., 2001, Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism New York: Oxford University Press
Said, E. W., 2004, From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map. New York: Pantheon
Tibi, B., 1998, The Challenge of Fundamentalism? Political Islam and the New World Disorder
Berkeley: University of California Press
Waters, M. ,1999, Globalization, 2nd edn. London: Routledge

Journals
Arkoun, M., and Bowden, J., Is Islam Threatened by Christianity,
Cross Currents,Vol. 45 No. 4 (Winter 1995-96),
Ajami, F., The Summoning, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No.4 (September-October 1993)
Ajami, Fouad and Ahrari, M.E, The Clash of Civilizations: An Old Story or New Truth?,
Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June August 2000),
Beverley, J., Is Islam a Religion of Peace, Christianity Today, January 7, 2002
Boniface, P., The Specter of Unilateralism, The Washington Quarterly, 24 (Summer 2001),
Bruce M. Russett, John R. Oneal, Michaelene Cox, Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and
Liberalism Deja Vu? Some evidence, Journal of Peace Research,
Vol. 37, No.5 (September 2000)
Dorraj, M., In The Throes of Civilizational Conflict,
Peace Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (December 1998),
Erdem,Engin I., The Clash of Civilizations Revisited After September 11,
Alternatives Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, no.2, Summer 2002.
Fuller, G. E., The Future of Political Islam, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002
Hunter, Shireen T., The Future of Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful
Coexistence?, Perceptions:Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June - August 2000)
Huntington, S., The Age of Muslim Wars, Newsweek, December 2001
Huntington, S., The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs 72 (Summer 1992-1993)
Ikenberry, J., G., Just Like the Rest, Foreign Affairs (March-April 1997)
Inglehart, Ronald and Norris, Pippa, ―The True Clash of Civilizations,
Foreign Policy, March-April 2003
Kalin, I., Islam and the West: Deconstructing Monolithic Perceptions- A Conversation with
Professor John Esposito, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2001)
Kung, H., Inter-Cultural Dialogue Versus Confrontation p.102
Lewis, B., The Roots of Muslim Rage The Atlantic Monthly, September 1990
Mahbubani, K., The West and the Rest, National Interest, Issue 28, (Summer 1992)
Monshipouri, M., and Petonito,G., Constructing The Enemy in the Post-Cold War Era:
The Flaws of the Islamic Conspiracy Theory, Journal of Church & State,
(Autumn 1995), Vol. 37, No. 4,
Marks, R., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Book Review),
Journal of World History, Vol.11, No. 1 (Spring 2000), pp. 101-104
Midlarsky, M., Democracy and Islam: Implications for Civilizational Conflict and the
Democratic Peace, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No.3, 1998, pp.485-511
Monshipouri, M., The West's Modern Encounter With Islam: From Discourse to Reality,
Journal of Church and State, Vol. 40, No.1 (Winter 1998), pp. 25-56
Raines, J., C., The Politics of Religious Correctness: Islam and the West,
Cross Currents, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Spring 1996)
Richard W. Bulliet, The Crisis Within Islam, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.1 (Winter 2002)
Rosecrance, R., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
(Book Review), American Political Science Review, Vol.92, No.4 (December 1998)
Roy, A. (2001). The Algebra of Infinite Justice. The Guardian.
Rubenstein, R. E., and Crocker, J., Challenging Huntington, Foreign Policy, No. 96 (Fall 1994)
Said, E., The Clash of Ignorance, The Nation, October 22, 2001
Sajjad, M., A ‘Non Western’ Reading of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Theory:
Through the Eyes of ‘The Rest’
International Journal of Political Science and Development, Vol. 1(2), pp. 42-104, October 2013
Sato, S., The Clash of Civilizations: A View from Japan, Asia Pacific Review (October 1997)
Seizaburo, S., 2001, A Critical Approach towards Clash of Civilizations,
Tokyo University publishers, Asia Pacific Review, October 1997
Seifudein Adem Hussien, On the End of History and the Clash of Civilization: A Dissenter's
View, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2001), p. 32
Suleiman, M., Islam, Muslims and Arabs in America: The Other of the Other of the Other…,
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1999), p.37-44
Walt, Stephen M., Building Up New Bogeymen: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, Foreign Policy, Spring 97, Issue 106
William Wallace, Europe, The Necessary Partner (American Foreign Relations),
Foreign Affairs, 80 (May-June 2001), pp.16-34
William Pfaff, The Coming Clash of Europe with America,
World Policy Journal, 15 (Winter 1998),
Yuksel S., Does Islam Pose A Threat to the West?
Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, (June-August 2000)

Online Sources
Chomsky, N., Clash of civilizations?
http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/509/509 noam chomsky.htm
OIC-EU Joint Forum (Istanbul, February 12-13, 2002)
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/OIC-EU-Forum/summary.htm
http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/en/khatami.htm Unesco.org
Okinawa Declaration, The International Conference on Dialogue of Civilizations: A New
peace Agenda for a New Millennium (Okinawa, February 11-13, 2000),
http://www.dialoguecentre.org/PDF/Okinawa%20Declaration.pdf,
Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Clash of Civilizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations,
Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, Alliance of Civilizations, www.wikipedia.com
http://corporatism.askdefine.com/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/22/bush-europe.htm
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue

Others
Beacham, J., 2010, Socialism and the Latin American revolution at the Nov. 13-14, 2010,
National Conference on Socialism
http://www.pslweb.org/party/socialism-conference-2010/panel-latinamerica-02-revolutionary-
tide.html

Chomsky, N., tagged Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond
From a talk given at Boston University, April 2008,

Erdem,E., I., From Rapprochement to Strategic Partnership: Turkish-Israeli Relations

in the 1990s,Unpublished Master's Thesis, (Istanbul: Fatih University, 2001)
Naz Wasim, Challenging Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations': The Shared
Tradition of Europe and Islam in International Conference on the Dialogue of Civilizations,
31 July to 3 August 2001, Tokyo and Kyoto, http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/conf-report.pdf,

International Conference on Dialogue of Civilizations, London 27-28 October 2000,

http://www.islamic-studies.org/dialconfer, International Conference on the Dialogue of
Civilizations, 31 July to 3 August 2001, Tokyo and Kyoto,
http://www.unu.edu/dialogue/conf-report.pdf,

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) May 15, 2002, Conference, The United
States, Europe, and the Muslim World: Revitalizing Relations After September 11.
http://csis.org/event/revitalizing-relations-after-september-11