Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
SAMUEL PHILIP HUNTINGTON’S ‘CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS’ AND PRESIDENT G. W. BUSH’S
FOREIGN POLICY
Par
BAGINAMA Dombi1
ABSTRACT
Cet article est le résumé de Mémoire que j’ai présenté pour obtenir le
diplôme de Maîtrise ou Master 1 à l'Université de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle
(Paris III) en 2011. La question de relations entre les différentes civilisations
du monde est un sujet très sensible de nos jours et d’actualité. Huntington l'a
traité d'une façon très particulière à un tel point qu'il a reçu non seulement
d’éloges mais il s’est aussi attiré de vives critiques à travers le monde entier.
Ces critiques de son article « The Clash of Civilisations ? » paru aux
Foreign Affairs en 1993, l'ont encouragé à approfondir davantage ce sujet
controversé. En réponse aux observations reçues, il avait décidé d'écrire
l’ouvrage intitulé The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order paru en 1996. Il argue qu’après l’effondrement du bloc soviétique, la
configuration géopolitique internationale a cessé d’être bipolaire pour
devenir unipolaire. Les Etats-Unis étaient restés la seule superpuissance au
Monde. C’était la jubilation à travers le monde entier qui se sentait libéré de
la peur de la guerre nucléaire. La chute du mur de Berlin a renforcé la
sensation de paix et de fraternité entre les nations et les hommes. Beaucoup
croyait que c’était la fin de l’histoire pour paraphraser le Professeur Francis
Fukuyama. Ce n’était nullement pas la fin l’Histoire car les conflits et les
oppositions ne seront plus idéologiques, économiques et politiques, mais
culturelles et inter civilisationnels. Les historiens suivants : le français
Fernand Braudel (‘Huntington’s Biography’ : 2000, para.5), l’anglais
Arnold J. Toynbee et l’allemand Oswald Spengler ont constitué une grande
source d’inspiration pour Samuel P. Huntington.
Le gouvernement du Président Georges W. Bush a adhéré à la thèse
de Huntington et l’appliqué dans sa politique étrangère. Les attentats
terroristes du 11 septembre 2001 sur les Tours jumelles de World Trade
Center à New York City ont donné aux Néo-Conservateurs une occasion
magnifique pour l'exécution de leur plan belliqueux aux visés pétroliers
dans le monde. Les Néo-Conservateurs ont soutenu l'élection de G.W. Bush,
ont élaboré sa politique étrangère connue sous le nom de la « doctrine de
Bush » et l'ont mise en application. Pour l'Administration Bush les
Extrémistes islamiques détestent la démocratie, les Chrétiens et les Juifs.
1
Assistant à l’Université de l’Uélé/Isiro
1
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
C’est le choc de civilisations entre la civilisation Judéo-Chrétienne et les
autres civilisations. Soutenu par son indéfectible allié la Grande Bretagne, il
a unilatéralement lancé la guerre globale contre le terrorisme pour le
triomphe du « Rêve américain ». Pour lui, c’était une mission divine contre
l’axe du mal : l’Afghanistan, l’Irak, l’Iran, et la Corée Du Nord. De son
côté, Oussama Ben Laden, chef d’Al – qaida, se considérait aussi comme
étant l’envoyé de Dieu pour libérer le Monde des mains des infidèles et de
l'Impérialisme Judéo-Chrétien. Il a constamment appelé les Musulmans au
Jihad (guerre sainte). Huntington était considéré comme un prophète et
David Frum (‘Held Prophet’ : 2011, para.3), un ancien néo-conservateur, a
déclaré que Paul Wolfowitz a perdu mais Samuel Huntington a gagné.
INTRODUCTION
In the dissertation, my effort consisted in demonstrating to what
extent the Bush Administration foreign policy was influenced by
Huntington’s thesis of ‘The Clash of Civilizations.’ What was the degree of
influence that Neo-conservative movement had upon the Bush
Administration foreign policy? What role did International Organizations,
such as the United Nations played during George W. Bush’s mandate? To
what extent can 9/11 attacks and war on terrorism could be considered being
evidences of the clash of civilizations? So, this article is divided into three
major sections. The first section explores Huntington’s life and ideas
followed by G.W. Bush’s life and ideas. The second section compares
Huntington’s thesis to G.W. Bush’s Foreign policy and then the conclusion.
The purpose of this work is to raise the reader awareness and
reinforce his capacities in conflict resolution concerning issues related to the
encounter of cultures at a local level and at broad level civilizations.
Differences among civilizations constitute a major source of conflict. They
stir up intolerance, fuel extremism and prevent the establishment of peaceful
coexistence among civilizations. However, differences are also
opportunities of fruitful exchange of experiences for a balanced
development. However, Huntington emphasized more on conflicts or
clashes. This fact justifies, to some extent, the comparison between his
thesis and G. W. Bush’s Administration.
S. P. Huntington’s Biography and ideas
Born on April 18th, 1927 in New York, U.S.A, Samuel Philip
Huntington was American political commentator in national debates on U.S.
foreign policy in the late 20th and early 21st century. He attended the
University of Chicago, where he received a master's degree in 1948, and
Harvard University, where he earned a doctorate in 1951 and joined the
2
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
faculty. He became a specialist in American politics and his research and
analysis were focused on comparative politics, foreign policy, international
relations, civilizations and modernization. He published many books and
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) is the most
controversial one. He died on December 24th, 2008 in Martha’s Vineyard,
Massachusetts (Huntington’s Biography: 2011, para.6, cited).
Samuel P. Huntington (1996: 21) asserted that it is the first time in
history that Global Politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational, that is
to say the cultural identities, which at the broadest level become
civilizations, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and
conflict in the post-Cold War world. 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 and affirm their identity at any
cost, “Who are We?”, “Us versus Them”. In order to be explicit, Huntington
identified 8 major contemporary civilizations, which are: Western
civilization (Europe, North America and Latin America and also other
European settler countries such as Australian and New Zealand.), Latin
America, the Orthodox world, Sinic or Confucian civilization, Japanese,
Hindu or Indian civilization, Islamic civilization in Great Middle East, the
civilization of sub-Sahara Africa.
Moreover, Huntington (Op. Cit.: 68-78) distinguished Modernization
from Westernization of non-Western societies and argued that none of them
is producing a universal civilization. Modernization of non-Western
societies, implicates industrialization, urbanization, increasing levels of
literacy, education, wealth production, social mobilization, and more
complex and diversified occupational structures. Modernization is a
revolutionary process comparable only to the shift from primitive mentality
to civilized societies. The attitudes, values, knowledge, in short, the culture
of people in a modern society differ greatly from those in a traditional
society. As the first civilization to modernize, the West leads in the
acquisition of the culture of modernity. Nevertheless, even though modern
societies may resemble each other because they have much in common, they
are far from becoming homogeneous or uniformed. The West was the West
long before it was modern.
About universalism, Huntington stressed the fact that the concept of
universal civilization is a distinctive product of the western civilization. At
the end of the twentieth century the concept of a universal civilization helps
justify western cultural dominance of other societies and the need for those
3
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
societies to imitate western practices and institutions. So, universalism is the
ideology of the West for confrontations with non-western cultures. The idea
has been supported by many intellectual migrants to the West, such as
Naipaul and Fouad Ajami. However, Huntington disagrees with them and
declares that a universal civilization implies the coming together of
humanity and the increasing acceptance of common values, beliefs,
orientations, practices, and institutions by peoples throughout the world.
People have shared and still share few fundamental values and institutions;
this may explain some constants in human behaviour but cannot explain
history which consists of changes in human behaviour. In addition,
Huntington noted the existence of some factors that cannot facilitate the
realisation of a universal civilization, such as:
 The fact that humanity is divided into broader cultural entities called
civilizations; the use of the term civilization to mean the largest cultural
entity will create semantic confusion for the identification of different
civilizations.
 The term “universal civilization” could be used to refer to what civilized
societies have in common, such as cities and literacy, which distinguish
them from primitive societies and barbarians. In this sense the universal
civilization is emerging or expanding.
 The term “universal civilization” may refer to the Davos Culture which is
the meeting of the planet wealthier people; even this is far from a
universal culture because it is limited only at the elite level.
 The idea is advanced that the spread of Western consumption patterns
and popular culture around the world is creating a universal civilization.
Huntington affirms that this argument is neither profound nor relevant
because culture fads and other innovations have always been transmitted
from civilization to civilization throughout history. These imports don’t
have implications in the recipient civilizations, neither on their attitudes
toward the West.
 The universal popular cultural argument focuses on media and
international traffic in general. He quoted Vlahos (Ibidem: p.61) who said
that entertainment does not equate to cultural conversion. Besides, people
interpret communications in term of their own pre-existing values and
perspectives and increasing trade in the international system is unlikely
to ease international tensions or promote greater international stability.
Concerning, Clash of Civilizations, he argued that relation between
states and groups from different civilizations will often be antagonistic. At
the micro level, the most violent fault lines are between Islam and its
Orthodox, Hindu, African, and Western Christian neighbours. At the macro
level, the dominant division is between the West and the rest, with the most
4
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
intense conflicts occurring between Muslims and Asian societies on the one
hand, and the West on the other. The dangerous clashes of the future are
likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic
intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness.
At a local level, fault line conflict will occur between neighbouring
states from different civilizations. Huntington defines the expression ‘clash
of civilizations’ as a tribal conflict on a global scale, because civilizations
are the ultimate human tribes. In a world of civilizations, the most probable
descriptions of relations between entities from different civilizations will be:
Cold war, cold peace, trade war, quasi war, uneasy peace, troubled relations,
intense rivalry, competitive coexistence, and arms races. Trust and
friendship will be rare. Intercivilizational conflict will take two forms:
between groups from different civilizations within a state, and between
groups which are attempting to create new states out of the wreckage of old,
for example in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. At the global scale,
core state conflicts will occur among the major states of different
civilizations. The relation between Islam and Christianity, both Orthodox
and Western, have often been stormy. Islam lacks a core state, writes
Huntington. In the process of changes in the global balance of powers
among civilizations, the dynamism of Islam is the ingoing source of many
relatively small fault line wars; the rise of China and India is the potential
source of big intercivilizational war of core states.
Huntington pointed out the central problem in the relations between
the West and the rest which is the discordance between the West’s
(particularly America’s) efforts to promote a universal Western culture and
its declining ability to do so. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
West thinks that its ideology of democratic liberalism had triumphed
globally and hence was universally valid. The West, and especially the
United States, which has always been a missionary nation, believes that the
non-western peoples should commit themselves to the Western values of
democracy, free markets, limited government, human rights, individualism,
the rule of law, and should embody these values in their institutions. This
attitude is considered by non-Western countries as Western imperialism and
provokes strong opposition that fuels terrorism and other hostilities.
President G.W. Bush’s Biography and Foreign Policy
Writing about the former President George W. Bush Eric, Laurent
(2007: 84) affirmed that Bush was born on July 6th, 1946, New Haven, in
the State of Connecticut, USA. He was the 43rd President of the United
States. He is the son of George Bush who served as the 41st president of the
5
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
U.S. (1989-63). He received a bachelor's degree in history from Yale
University in 1968. Commissioned a second lieutenant in July 1968, he
became a certified pilot. After receiving his M.B.A from Harvard in 1975,
Bush returned to Midland, where he began working for a Bush friend, an oil
and gas attorney, and later started his own oil and gas firm, which was
purchased by the Harken Energy Corporation. Bush married Laura Welsh
and gave up drinking alcohol. His decision was partly the result of a selfdescribed spiritual awakening and a strengthening of his Christian faith.
After the sale of his company, Bush spent 18 months in Washington, D.C.,
working as an adviser and speechwriter in his father's presidential campaign.
In May 1994, Bush challenged Democratic incumbent Ann Richards
for the governor ship of Texas, won the election and became the governor of
Texas for six years. Bush Junior became the first Texas governor to win
consecutive four-year terms. Then he formally announced his candidacy for
the Republican presidential nomination in June 1999. He described his
political philosophy as ‘compassionate conservatism’, a view that combined
traditional Republican economic policies with concern for the
underprivileged. His candidacy was supported by Christian fundamentalists.
He won the electoral vote over Al Gore after a controversial 5-4 decision
issued by the Court. He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001, reelected on November 2, 2004, and sworn in for a second term on January
20, 2005. His presidency was dominated by the September 11th, 2001
attacks which destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New
York City, part of the Pentagon building, and killed some 3000 peoples. The
Bush administration accused radical Islamist Osama bin Laden and his
terrorist network, Al-Qaeda. Then he launched the global war on terrorism:
in Afghanistan and Iraq. He left the White House in 2008 and settled in
Dallas (‘Georges W. Bush’s Biography’: 2011, para.3)
The United States Foreign Policy under G. W. Bush’s Administration
What is foreign policy? Theodore Lowi et al (2006:350) define
foreign policy and say:
A country's foreign policy, called the international relations policy,
consists of strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national
interests and to achieve its goals in international relations. The
approaches are strategically employed to interact with other
countries (…) Since the national interests are paramount, foreign
policies are designed by the government through high-level
decision making processes. National interest’s accomplishment can
occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations, or
6
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
through exploitation. Usually, creating foreign policy is the job of
the head of government and the foreign minister (or equivalent). In
some countries the legislature also has considerable oversight.
As far as the United States’ foreign policy establishment is
concerned, it is highly pluralistic. There are official and less official players
or shapers. Professor Pierre Mélandri (2008:109) points out another element
that shapes the American foreign policy which is the legacy of the founding
fathers. That’s to say Unilateralism and the intermingling of domestic and
foreign policies are two identifiable legacies from America’s traditional
system of conducting foreign policy. After September 11, 2001, George W.
Bush administration’s efforts to track down Al Qaeda and to fight the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan relied on cooperation from other Western
countries, exemplifying the Holy Alliance role. Thus, his presidency was
dominated by the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Traditionally each administration must formulate both domestic and
international policy that it will implement during its mandate in the White
House. President Georges W. Bush’s foreign policy was known as ‘the Bush
doctrine’ defined in his address to the National Security Strategy of the US
on September 2001 underlining the abandonment of deterrence strategy to
pre-emptive one, i.e. attack the first before being attacked leading to the
controversial policy of preventive war, which held that US should depose
foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the
security of the US, even if that threat was not immediate, a policy of
spreading democracy around the world. President G.W. Bush stressed the
fact that the US has the right to secure itself against countries that harbour
or give aid to terrorist groups. He unilaterally withdrew from the ABM
treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. The third action was the rejection of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) so that the American citizens could not
be extradited to face it. But, on Tuesday September 11th, 2001 in the
morning, the United States faced an unprecedented attack. Four American
commercial airplanes were hijacked and deliberately crashed into the twin
towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. That horrific event
changed the course of event of the Bush Administration. Tom Lansford et
al. (2009:2) argue: “These tragic events (…) marked the start of American
War on terror” because terrorism was the declaration of war against the
USA.
After taking all these domestic and international measures G.W.
Bush Administration succeeded in making a worldwide coalition under
U.N’s banner against terrorism, enjoying both national and international
sympathy after the tragedy. Speaking to the nation on Oct. 7, 2001, he
7
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
announced the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom against the
Taliban regime and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as the first move of the global
war on terror. The second step of the ‘War on terror’ was Iraq of Saddam
Hussein. It was a worldwide controversial decision, what Milan Rai
(2002:2-5) called ‘the breadth opposition,(…) there is conflict between
Republicans coming out of the political mainstream, of whom US Secretary
of whom US Secretary of State Colin Powell is the leading example, and
those on fringes, such as Richard Perle of the Pentagon’s defence Advisory
Broad’. In fact, in November 2002 Bush Administration succeeded to
obtain UN Resolution demanding the immediate return of weapons
inspectors to Iraq. But Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the UN
Resolution and solemnly defied the International Community.
After the failure of all diplomatic efforts intended to convince
Saddam Hussein to fully comply with the UN resolutions 1441. And despite
worldwide opposition to war on Iraq the Bush Administration and the
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair were determined to launch the so called
(Operation Iraqi Freedom:2003,para.7) On March 23rd, 2003 the U.S. led
coalition forces began an attack on Iraq strategic positions. Most of the Iraqi
army was dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country.
However, they didn’t found weapons of Mass Destruction. But they started
facing sectarian violence which worsened through bombings and shootings.
What is important to note is the fact that G.W. Bush Administration’s
foreign policy was highly influenced by Neo-conservatism which has
become part of the Republican Party. Who are those Neon-conservatives?
To what extent they manage to influence G.W. Bush Administration? Justin
Vaïsse (‘Neo-conservatism ’: 2011, para.2) was interviewed by Steven Pifer
defined Neoconservative movement and says:
The movement is so complex that the question can be asked whether
the label really refers to something stable, but I guess, in 2010, if we
give a restricted definition, then it does mean something, and that
definition is the following: Neo-conservatism right now is a specific
school of thought in foreign policy, especially among Republicans,
more located on the right side of the spectrum than on the left, and a
movement that advocates a forceful and active stance for America in
the world.
In fact, the Bush Administration’s foreign policy had a strong
connection with the Neo-conservative movement and Jewish
neoconservative especially in the Defence Department and to some extent
Tony Blair too shared neo-conservative views. Professor Justin Vaïsse
highlights the idea that conservatism is a movement that advocates a
8
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
forceful and active stance for America in the world. Basically, the
underlying idea is that America should be active and interventionist, shaping
world order because if it refrains from doing so, then the world order will be
shaped by other powers, other nations, in ways that might be inimical to the
interests and ideals of the United States. Neoconservatives also believe that
democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the
world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia; the so
called axis of evil by G.W. Bush. Eric Laurent (2007:32) ‘that’s why they
supported the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy, and
especially favoured the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy
worldwide.’
Moreover, George W. Bush Administration also had tied connection
with ultra-conservative organisations, such as Hoover Institute at Stanford
University and American Enterprise Institute (AEA). Among the better
known figures based at the Institute are several former George W. Bush
administration officials and advisors who were key promoters of the ‘war on
terror’ policies put in place after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, including John
Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Yoo, and David Frum, Eric
Laurent (Op.Cit: 33) confirmed the fact that Bush Administration was also
influenced by Military–Industrial Complex (MIC). Professor Francis
Fukuyama distanced himself from Neo-conservatism by issuing a critical
opinion against the invasion of Iraq. In an essay in the New York Times
Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the Iraq invasion, Francis
Fukuyama argues: ‘(…) believed that history can be pushed along with the
right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik
version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.
Neo-conservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has
evolved into something I can no longer support.’
Was Huntington’s thesis applied by the Bush Administration?
What is remarkable and a matter of concern is the fact that after the
attacks on the US of September 11, 2001, Huntington was worldwide hailed
as a seer, a prophet. The Clash of Civilizations was translated into 33
languages and seized on by Western and Muslim hawks, who read in it the
historical inevitability of conflict between Islam and the West. Bush
Administration’s mandates were dominated by wars or international
conflicts. The Western world was in open conflict with the rest or nonwestern countries. Ideological conflicts were replaced by civilizational
conflicts in the post-Cold War world. But, after the attacks of September
11th, 2001 the same ‘binary structure of language’ emerged with force, to
use Richard Jackson (2008:48) terms, and the atmosphere of uncertainty and
9
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
fear have regained ground. President G.W. Bush Administration constantly
distinguished, in his speeches, Western world versus the rest; Free Nations
versus captive ones; good and innocent people versus evil and inhuman
terrorists; civilized versus barbarians in order to achieve his goals. To be
more explicit, Richard Jackson (Op.Cit:48) asserts:
By this stage, it should be obvious that the official language of
counter-terrorism implicitly constructs the “war on terrorism” within
the ‘virtuous’ or ‘good war’ tradition. Locating the American
response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the bounds of the
overarching framework of the World War II meta-narrative for
example, and describing it as part of the eternal struggle between
good and evil and civilization and savagery.
According to Huntington countries with Western Christian heritages
are making progress toward economic development and democratic politics,
the prospects for economic and political development in the Orthodox
countries are uncertain and the prospects in the Muslim republics are bleak.
For the Bush Administration and his neoconservative advisors, this implies
that the United States and its Judeo-Christian allies must export their model
of democracy and economic progress throughout the world and work for the
consolidation of the existing democratic regimes in some countries. They
argue that the spread of liberal democracy will benefit the international
System by reducing wars, hence improving security abroad and at home.
According to them Democracies do not wage war on other democracies
because there is cooperation among them. On the same subject, Dusanic and
Penev (‘Neoconservative Movement’: para.3) analysing the influence of
neo-conservative movement on U.S. foreign policy, especially during Bush
Administration declare:
The dream that democracy is the inevitable fate of humanity and
the belief that the “clash of civilizations” is looming over the
horizon with an implacably hostile Islam as the main actor resulted
in a Manichaean doctrine, which neither of the above-mentioned
scholars would have accepted.
Huntington warned that the general failure of liberal democracy to
take hold in Muslim societies is a continuing and repeated phenomenon for
an entire century beginning in the late 1800s. The failure has its source at
least in part in the inhospitable nature of Islamic culture and society to
Western liberal concepts. This is true for all non-western countries. We
remember that discussing about Euphoria and Harmony aroused by the end
of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama (2006: X1) says: ‘The liberal
10
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
democracy may constitute the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution”
and the “final form of human government’, and as such constituted the end
of history. Huntington rejected that idea arguing that it was an illusion
because intercivilizational conflicts will prevail. In his address to the nation
on September 11th, 2001, President G.W. Bush quoted by Jackson
(Ibidem:191) states: ‘Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very
freedom came under attacks in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorists
acts.’ Commenting on the phrase “our way of life” or “our style of life”
Richard Jackson (Ibidem: 47) affirms:
Put another way, the deployment of the cold war analogy in
interpreting and ascribing meaning to the September 11, 2001
attacks would have brought to mind a number of images for many
Americans: the threats of “reds” spying everywhere and trying to
take over the country; the danger of nuclear war and global
annihilation; anti-communist wars in Korea and Vietnam; (…)
Within this discourse then, they would have understood the
terrible and fearful danger posed by terrorism, the likely presence
of terrorist ‘moles’ in American society and the necessity of
building up American military power to protect the American way
of life.
Before launching the reprisal war against terrorism, President G.W.
Bush emphasized the state of clash of principles, beliefs and values with the
rest of the world, especially with terrorists and states that support them.
G.W. Bush cited by Jackson (Ibidem: 47) continued by saying that ‘If you
harbour terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a
terrorist (…) you will be held accountable by the United States.’ He
strongly emphasized cultural differences as being the reasons of clashes
between the West and the rest, ignoring the fact that nature is beautiful
because of the diversity of its elements. Nevertheless, differences can also
constitute sources of conflicts that can become tragedies, genocides,
especially when one part wants to impose his views on another one.
Huntington (Ibidem: 21) observes that culture matters without excluding
other factors and he puts:
In the post-Cold War World, the most important distinctions among
peoples are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural.
Peoples and nations are attempting to answer the most basic question
humans can face: Who are we? 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
term of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and
11
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
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.
When a civilization comes across another one, the process of
exchange between them is established through interaction. They become
aware of the specificity of their identities thanks to the differences of their
values, customs, beliefs, language, religion and institutions. They will
exchange goods, beliefs and values in mutual respect if the encounter was
peaceful. But in case of brutal meeting or war the exchange will not be fair;
the case concerning the encounter between the West and Africa. The winner
will impose his views and way of life to the looser. The latter will suffer
from humiliation but he must survive by adopting the attitude of resignation
hoping that the future will give him an opportunity for revenge. But if the
looser refuses the new culture, he is doomed to disappear. Talking about the
non-Western societies, Huntington (Ibidem: 28) argues: ‘Non-Western
societies, particularly in East Asia, are developing their economic wealth
and creating the basis for enhanced military power and political influence.
As their power and self-confidence increase, non-western societies
increasingly assert their own cultural values and reject those “imposed” on
them by the West.
’
Western civilization promotes individualism, egalitarianism,
freedom (freedom of expression, religion and enterprise), Democracy, and
Human Rights. Besides, the following are traditional American values, but
they are rooted in European values: hard-work, scientific, military,
competitiveness, risk taking, materialistic, laissez-faire, and American
Exceptionalism . When Bush Administration declares that it intends to
promote freedom and human rights throughout the world, it implied that
those values must become universal, even though there are common values
among civilizations. Mélandi (2001: 221) argued that ‘the United States
ethnocentric relationship to the outside world has long fed on its initial
isolation then its supremacy over the nations.’ Huntington has previously
denounced universalism as being the ideology of the West for
confrontations with the non-Western cultures or civilization. This attitude is
antagonistic and bears the seed of the clash of civilizations because nonWestern cultures will react aggressively in order to protect their self-esteems
and their ways of life, what Huntington called ‘Asian affirmation’.
12
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
In his address to joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001,
President George W. Bush quoted by Jackson (Ibidem: 194) states: ‘Every
nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us,
or you are with the terrorists.’ This implies the formation of two opposite
sides: the friends or allies of the Western coalition led by the United States
and the United Kingdom and the rest; those who opposed the war on
terrorism and are assimilated to terrorist supporters. No alternative was
given to neutrality. So, Western countries within NATO and Islamic
fundamentalists around the world include those of diaspora have to make
alliances. It is worth noting that France and Germany, western countries, did
oppose the invasion of Iraq without supporting terrorists. As I have said
above, at the macro level, the dominant division is between the West and the
rest, with the most intense conflicts occurring between Muslims and Asian
societies on the one hand, and the West on the other hand. The dangerous
clashes of the future are likely to arise from the interaction of Western
arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness affirmed Huntington
(Ibidem: 183). But most of the clashes are occurring with Islamic
civilization. Religion is the most crucial factor in those clashes because
there is not distinction between religion and the state in Islam, ‘God is
Caesar’; whereas the West promotes secularism.
In fact, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be considered as evidences
of clashes of civilisations. President G.W. Bush quoted by Jackson (Ibidem:
195) declares: ‘This is not, however, just American’s fight and what is at
stake is not just American’s freedom. This is the world’s fight. This is
civilization’s fight.’ This statement corroborates what many scholars
mentioned about the war on terrorism. On the same line of ideas, Richard
Jackson (Ibidem: 50) puts:
More than simply locating the September 11, 2001 attacks within
the civilization-barbarism narrative, there is also a powerful
attempt to construct the purpose of the ‘war against terrorism’ as a
fight for civilization itself. (…) A month later in Shanghai, Bush
reiterated that the counter-terrorism campaign was ‘a fight to save
the civilized world, and values common to the West, to Asia, to
Islam.
However, I prefer to dissociate war campaign on Afghanistan from
the war on Iraq because the UN which represents the International
Community approved the U.S. led intervention in Afghanistan known as
Operation Enduring Freedom on October 2001. It was to some extent
legitimated by the Security Council approval. But for Iraq war it was not the
case. President G.W. Bush and the Former Prime Minister Tony Blair
affirmed that the war on terrorism was not against Islam but against Islamic
13
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
extremism or Islamic fundamentalism). The coalition demanded to the
Taliban regime to deliver to the United States Authorities all Al Qaida’s
leaders especially the most wanted Osama bin laden but in vain. The logical
result was the launching of the war campaign in Afghanistan. Another
aspect that contributed to fuel the perception of the clash of civilizations is
the fact that the Bush Administration clearly supported Israel against
Palestinian people and many arable countries refused to participate in the
operation.
In fact, the move was perceived by the Islamic world as a JudeoChristian coalition against Muslims in the Middle East.
Even the Iraq
war can also be perceived as civilizational clash which included not only
war of religions but also conflict of interests. Alain Germain (2005: 71)
writes: ‘Beyond the neo-liberal aspect of the American model and the
economic and social consequences that it generates, this model clashes with
many cultures with which it interacts.’ It’s true that Saddam Hussein did not
fully comply with the Security Council’s resolutions. The non-cooperative
attitude that characterised Saddam Hussein has encouraged those who
planned to wage war in Iraq to push the Bush Administration to launch it
unilaterally, especially Neo-conservatives and the Military-Industrial
Complex against which President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the
United States in his farewell address. (‘The former President Eisenhower’s
address’, 1961, para. 5)
The United States unilateral intervention in Iraq, in conformity with
the “Bush doctrine”, has dramatically increased the Anti-Americanism
around the world and especially in the Middle East. After September 11,
2001, the United States efforts to track down Al Qaeda and to fight the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan relied on cooperation with other countries,
exemplifying the Holy Alliance role. Lacking similar international support
in its war against Iraq, President Bush’s willingness to take pre-emptive
action against a hostile state, change the regime, and then remain as an
occupying power seemed a departure from the Holy Alliance role and a
move toward a unilateralist attitude was condemned by the World. Taking
into consideration the influence of the neo-conservatism in the Bush
Administration, we can assert that economic reasons and civilizational
differences were at stake. In his essay, Ryan and Kiely (2009:93)
summarizes the US-UK led invasion in these words:
The removal of Saddam Hussein was designed to send an
unmistakable message not only to ruling elites of the Middle East but
to the post-colonial world more generally.(…) A new democratic
regime in Iraq was meant to signal the lengths America would go to
14
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
in a post-9/11 world to impose the Bush doctrine on recalcitrant
regimes. However, what the neo-conservatives at the heart of the
Bush administration planned as a short sharp demonstration of
America’s unrivalled hegemony turned out to be a bloody
occupation mired in state collapse and civil war.
Aware of the illegitimacy of the US-UK led intervention in Iraq
some countries were even ashamed and afraid to be publicly named as
members of “the coalition of the willing” about which Steve Schifferes
(‘Coalition of the willing’: 2003,para.3) declares:
And the list is most extraordinary for the countries that are left off which include all of the Arab states, including those countries where
US troops are massing for an invasion, like Kuwait, Qatar and
Bahrain. With feelings running high in the Arab world against the
possible invasion, presumably these countries felt it wise not to be
publicly identified with the US action.
The coalition of the willing military achieved the goal of regime
change by removing Saddam Hussein. But it failed to demonstrate that
Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and that his regime had a
strong connection with Al Qaida. The coalition of the willing failed to stop
the destruction of Iraq institutions and infrastructure. It failed to maintain
security and neutralize the insurgency. Politically speaking, Islamic
extremism is gaining ground in Iraq and clash of religions is prevailing.
While discussing about Iraq, the war on terror and the end of
exceptionalism, Ryan and Kiely ( Op.Cit.: 196) argue that ‘critics have
countered that in fact ‘these exceptional measures’ are undermining if not
destroying any remaining sense of American exceptionalism. (…) The Bush
administration has dishonoured that history and squandered that respect.’
Moreover, like Osama Bin Laden, G.W. Bush was considering
himself God’s missionary in order to free non-Western peoples from
oppression by spreading democracy, freedom, human rights, free market; it
is perceived by the rest as prozelytism or simply Western imperialism.
Fatima Mernissi quoted by Huntington (Ibidem: 249) writes: ‘President
Bush’s frequent rhetorical invocations of God on behalf of the United States
reinforced Arab perception that it was a religious war.’
In fact, this explains the fact that American religious beliefs are
rooted in religion, such as these concepts: God’s chosen nation, divine
calling or historical calling, indispensable country nation, American
Exceptionism, Providential nation, Manifest destiny and the Shining City
15
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
upon a Hill. But Christian fundamentalism or extremism is also alive in
America; generally speaking, we can name the Right-Wing Extremism or TParty and Neo-conservatism. Commenting President G.W. Bush’s 2001
address, Richard Jackson (Ibidem: 142) says: ‘the official discourse
explicitly associates the war on terrorism with a sense of divine calling and
historic responsibility, which is far more direct appeal to good war status. It
implies to wage war for his own interest using God’s name.
Concerning Islam in general and particularly Islamic
Fundamentalism, the leader of Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, declared that the
Attacks of September 11th, 2001 were motivated by the fact that Western
countries used to offend Muslims by desacralizing the Islamic Holy Place,
Mecca in Saudi Arabia. His claims are both political and religious because
they reject secularism.
Lieutenant Commander David Kibble (Op.Cit: 35) gives a clear
description of Islamic fundamentalists’ position and writes:
America and its allies, in the eyes of some fundamentalist
Muslims, represent the very opposite of what Islam stands for.
Islam is seen to stand for solidarity among Muslims peoples; it is
seen to stand for moral decency, for obedience to Allah and the
precepts of Allah found in Islam’s holy book, the Koran, and in
the saying and deeds of Mohammad, the Sunnah. The
fundamentalist Muslims saw his holy land of Saudi Arabia
“invaded” by troops whose home country represented, as he saw
it, the very opposite of the Muslim way of life. This “invasion”
became one of the driving reasons behind bin Laden’s hatred of
America and the West.
After analysing the two extremist claims, that is Christian
conservatism and Neo-conservatism in the United States and Islamic
extremism, I realised that both of them are quite rooted in the same ideas:
intolerance, hatred, culture of war, desire to dominate and control the world
and its resources. However, the major point of differences is that the United
States promotes liberalism and freedom of religions whereas Islamic
Fundamentalism promotes religious extremism: Islam or nothing. Western
civilizations, led by the United States and the Islamic civilization which
lacks a core state and led by Al Qaida are advancing religion differences as
being the major cause of their clashes. Bassam Tibi cited by David G.
Kibble (Ibidem: 38) argues that ‘any clash or conflict will be sparked by the
fact that the Christian European civilization and the Islamic civilization both
16
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
advance universal claims. The clash of two universalisms hampers peaceful
co-existence.’
In fact, Christian religion is monotheist. The belief in the existence
of one God is fundamental. Jesus Christ (1982: Matthew 28:19) commands:
‘Go therefor and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ Islam is also
monotheist. Muslims belief in one God, Allah and Muhammad is his
prophet and the Koran is the Holy Book. David G. Kibble (Ibidem: 38)
adds:
As with any other holy book, passages in the Koran can be
interpreted in different ways. For the fundamentalist Muslim,
there are verses which can be seen to encourage the belief that
there should be conflict or war until Islam holds sways in the
world: “Fight [the unbelievers] on until there is no more tumult or
oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether
and everywhere.
As it is stated above, since 9/11, there is a general growing
resentment against Muslims or political Islam in the West, especially in the
environment of Christian extremists due to amalgam effect. Ghosh
(2011:12) writes: ‘The venom was diluted by President George W. Bush.
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Bush visited an Islamic center in
Washington and declared that there would be no reprisals against Muslims.
Islam, he said, was a religion of peace. (…).’ Bush repeatedly drew sharp
distinctions between the extremist, violent interpretation of Islam by
followers of bin Laden and its peaceful majority.
CONCLUSION
In global politics, much literature celebrated the end of the Cold War
as the triumph of the Western civilization with its values: democracy, free
market (capitalism), human rights, secularism which must be spread
throughout the world. One of those very optimistic scholars is Francis
Fukuyama, the author of The End of History and the Last Man. People
thought that there will be no conflict, no war anymore, peace and
brotherhood in the world because the communism is dead. The United
States’ planetary leadership must take on its military responsibility.
But, Huntington warned the world arguing that it was not the “End
of History”. The ideological conflict between the Western Civilization and
the Soviet Union is in fact over. However, the new global conflict will be
17
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
between the Western Civilization and the Rest of the world, mainly between
the Islamic and the Confucian civilizations. In a world of civilizations,
phrases such as cold peace, cold war, trade war, uneasy peace, troubled
relations, intense rivalry, competitive coexistence, arms races are the most
probable descriptions of relations between entities from different
civilizations. To some extent, Huntington’s prophecy is becoming reality.
Dieter Senghaas (2002: 71) observes: ‘Huntington intended to introduce into
the analysis of international policy a completely new way of looking at it as
a clash of cultures. In the future international policy will, according to
Huntington, really be characterized by a clash of civilizations, at macro, as
well as at the micro- level.’
In fact, September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were an act war. But the
language used by both Al Qaida and the Bush Administration was
describing a clash of civilizations. The American-led war against terrorism
meant that it was intercivilizational confrontation, a war of religions. The
world is now aware of the fact that political and economic reasons were at
stake. It’s also clear that George W. Bush Administration foreign policy
which was largely framed by Neo-conservatives, think-tanks and MilitaryIndustrial Complex used Huntington’s thesis. That policy was called “the
Bush doctrine”, which was characterized by militarism, unilateralism, and
abandonment of deterrent strategy in favour of pre-emptive or preventive
war against rogue states listed in the Axis of evil: Iraq, Iran. The reaction of
the Rest can be multifaceted especially terrorism. The world security and
peaceful coexistence of civilizations are seriously hampered.
REFERENCES
DUCANIC and PENEV. (n.d.) ‘Neoconservative Movement’, para.2. Retrieved
September 9th, 2010 from Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neoconservatism
‘Eisenhower’s address,’ (1961, para.5. Retrieved March 15th, 2011 from
Http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010912-4.html
FUKUYAMA, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
FRUM, D. (n.d.) ‘Neo-Conservatism, para 3’. Retrieved April 15th, 2011 from
Http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Frum_david
‘G.W. Bush’s speeches, para. 7.’ Retrieved March 13th, 2011 from
Http://www.seek/peace.org/articles/bushspeech.shtml
GERMAIN, A. (2005). Crises: la fin d’un certain rêve américain. Outremont :
Alain Stanké.
GHOSH, B. (2011) ‘Is America Islamophobic? In The Times. UK: London-Bridge,
15.
KIBBLE, G. D. (2002). ‘The Attacks of 9/11 (…) para.5’.Retrieved August 10th,
2010 from
Http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawe/parameters/articles/02autumn/Kibble.pdf
18
Annales FLSH N° 20-21 (2016)
HUNTINGTON, P. S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of
World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
‘Huntington’s Biography’(n.d) Retrieved November 27th, 2010 from
Http://www.biography.com/articles/Samuel-P.-Huntington/40851
JACKSON, R. (2005). Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and
Counter-Terrorism. London: Manchester University Press.
LANSFORD, T. et al. (2009). American’s War on Terror. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
LOWI, J. T. et al. (2006) American Government: Freedom and Power. New York:
Norton and Company.
MELANDRI, P. (2001). Ethnocentrisme et diplomatie: l’Amérique et le monde au
XXe siècle. Paris: l’Harmattan.
_________________.(2008). La politique extérieure des Etats-Unis au XXe siècle:
le poids des déterminants intérieurs. Paris: l’Harmattan.
‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’(2003) Retrieved August 20th, 2011 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_iraq)
RAI, M. (2002). War Plan Iraq: Ten reasons against war on Iraq. London: Verso.
RYAN, D. and KIELY, P. (2005) America and Iraq: Policy-making, Intervention
and Regional Politics. London: Routledge.
SENGHAAS, D. (2002) The Clash within Civilizations: Coming to Terms with
Cultural Conflicts. New York: Routledge.
VAISSE, J. (2008). Histoire du néo-conservatisme aux Etats-Unis: le triomphe de
l’idéologie. Paris: Odile Jacob.
19