Samuel P.

Huntington claims that culture and civilization will become much more prominent as
a source of conflict than previously in world history. In the past, particularly after the Treaty of
Westphalia, conflicts largely impacting geopolitics were taking place in the West, and were
based on economics and territorial expansion, such as the Napoleonic Wars. This then gave way
to ideological binaries, most prominent of which was the communism-liberal democracy binary
before and during the Cold War. Now, the Non-Western Civilizations are playing a larger role
than previous, perhaps colonial, times in global politics. The author believes that this increased
role will lead to battle lines being drawn on the basis of culture and civilization between West
and Non-West. Glancing upon contemporary international relations, this is apparent as the US
has geared up for a two-front tussle with Russia and China for global influence, as the later are
playing an increased role in helping developing nations build up their economic, technological,
and energy infrastructures.

The writer further elaborates that to remain in touch with global developments, we must group
countries not by political or economic interests but by culture and civilizational identity.
Civilization is defined as the broadest level of cultural identity which can be a matter of pride for
its members, and it has various features such as flexible boundaries, various populations large or
small, sub-divisions within a civilization, such as European and North American within the
West, and their boundaries however fluid do become a source of conflict. For most of history,
Civilizations, and not nation-states, have been primary actors in shaping global affairs. But, in
contemporary world affairs, many Non-Western countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka are found
to be dependent in terms of loans, infrastructure, energy and security needs on largesse from
more powerful neighbors within their continents or on developed Western nations like America.
Thus, the author’s hypothesis is called into question by the fact that the West - Non-West line
appears to be blurred here. As the Non-Western nations, with exceptions in Southeast Asia
perhaps, are mostly developing as of this time, the contest with the West cannot at present be
called an evenly matched conflict, as seen in 2003 when the US quickly overpowered Iraqi
forces to take over the entire country.

The possible reasons for conflicts of the future being primarily based on civilization are now
examined. The Civilizations have basic differences such as language, customs, and religion.
Their different views on relation between God and man, equality and hierarchy, set in stone for
centuries have resulted in several violent conflicts, such as the Ottoman-Hapsburg wars of the
16th and 17th century, which were presented as a “fight to save the Christian West from the
courage of Islam” by the Spanish.
As the world population rises, the interaction between different cultures increases as well,
making people more aware of their own cultures differences from other civilizations. This is a
result of globalization as well, which has increased technological and cultural exchanges
between nations. But this increasing awareness of one another has made people more possessive
of their own cultural identities, as the author explains, and thus movements to stop this blending
together of cultures, such as the anti-immigrant sentiments in the Republican Party in the US,
have periodically arisen as a reaction. This hypothesis can be considered right for the present
context, but it certainly cannot be applied to the past. In India, people of different religions and
cultures lived together for centuries despite keen awareness of each other’s habits through
frequent interactions.

Economic modernization and social change around the world are weakening local identity
barriers, creating space for religious revival movements that act as glue for civilizations, and
create more grounds for inter-civilization conflicts as time goes on. An example of this fact is the
modernization in 1960s and 1970s under King Faisal, that created a sentiment among locals that
they need to turn inward, to religion to save their identity against perceived Western
encroachment on their values. This gave birth to reactionary Islam, which had led to much of the
extremism plaguing the world today.

The Western peak of power also forces Non-West civilizations to desire to shape the world in
ways that conform to their own level of power, technological and economic development. This
fact is often used by populist within these countries to further their ambition of shaping their
nation’s future in their own often narrow image, as the case of Imran Khan in Pakistan shows.
Such leaders of Non-Western countries may have no care or inkling about popularity of Western
culture in their people. No matter how much people may hate Western concepts in Pakistan,
majority of the people are not ready to part from democracy, a primarily Western invention
imported to Pakistan and India though colonial times.

Cultural differences cannot be as easily resolved as political or economic ones, and can often
result in danger to one’s life. Differences in religion and ethnicity are more concrete than others,
and result in violent conflicts such as those in Bosnia and Sudan in the 1990s.

Due to regional economic trades increasing share in the overall global trade, grounds for a
common civilization in regions such as Europe and North America increase as well. But for
civilizations only consisting of one country, like the Japanese, due to their own civilizational
identity, their development of a common culture with other countries on basis of trade ties is
difficult.
If people of a country in any economic region feel as if the benefits of such integrated trade,
investment and cultural ties are not accruing to them, it can create divisions within the bloc, and
give rise to nationalist sentiments within the countries, as made clear by Brexit in 2016, which
sowed a bitter divorce between the European Union and Great Britain in the following years.

Due to this economic regionalism concept, the author predicts the rise of an East Asian economic
bloc, centered on China, due to the commonality of cultures between these countries, which can
cause increased economic integration, which further evolves the common culture, and the cycle
goes on. In the contemporary world, China is already in process of accomplishing this via the
Belt-and-Road Initiative.

After the dismembering of the Soviet Union, the role of Ideology in shaping people’s behaviors
in the former Soviet States and Eastern Europe has disappeared, and pent-up cultural, religious
and ethnic differences have come to the fore, increasing the chances of violent conflicts over
territory, such as the case of Bosnia indicates. The West’s pressure for democracy, the decreased
role of Ideology in guiding people, forces leaders of Non-Western countries to appeal more to
culture and religion to gather support. This is a major characteristic of dictators and populist in
the 21st century.
The ideological barrier of the Cold War in Europe, the author believes, is being replaced by
civilizational differences between Western Christianity, and Orthodox Christianity and Islam.
The northern and western parts, chiefly Catholics, are economically better off as compared to the
East, have experienced European Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance etc, and are more
inclined towards a common European culture and democracy, while the Eastern parts lack the
aforementioned European experiences, and are less inclined towards democracy and common
European civilization.

The conflict between West and Islam is quite an old one, and in different times Christian and
Islamic Empires have exerted their influence and territorial ambitions, particularly in North
Africa and the Middle East. But recent times have the Western civilization in the ascendance,
giving rise to Arab Nationalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, Western dependence on Middle
Eastern energy resources, and eventually the show of Western power on Middle Eastern shores,
which influenced many Muslims around the world, particularly Arabs, to rise up in arms and
protest against the West as they felt constricted by Western hegemony, and also turned towards
religion and culture as a solace.

The concept of civilization rallying tells us that in any inter-civilization conflict, which most of
future conflicts are likely to be, members of one civilization will try to rally support from other
members of the same civilization. This hypothesis is born out by the European Union’s efforts to
rally all members to approve a phasing out of Russian Energy by the end of 2022, which
currently faces roadblocks due to the reluctance of countries like Hungary, which have their own
interests behind not approving it. Another example of this is the Russian Invasion of Ukraine in
the same year. In the Eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, a large population of
Russian speakers, most of whom are Orthodox Christians, yearn for closer relations with Russia,
which claims that it put its forces into Ukraine to protect those Russian speakers from, and I
quote Russian authorities on this, “being persecuted by Nazis in the Ukrainian Government”.
Russia’s concern for security and for rallying behind its civilizational brethren in Eastern
Ukraine, I believe, is one of the main reasons behind this invasion.

As viewed by Non-Western civilizations, after the end of the Cold War, the West has obtained
extraordinary hegemony in terms of security and economics, and the decisions of the
international institutions, dominated by the West, are imposed on Non-Western countries and
presented as the decisions of the “world community”. These Western-dominated institutions,
such as the IMF, have broad support from government ministers in Non-Western countries, but
the common people vehemently oppose their fiscal policies which often burden the poor in
unequal proportion. The West, according to these people, uses these institutions to maintain its
global hegemony. It breeds resentment in Non-Western cultures. Differences between them and
the Western culture exist on the basic level, and West attempts to impose their economic and
political values on Non-Western countries and civilizations lead to reactions alleging
imperialism and a re-affirmation of indigenous values, as seen in the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism in the later half of the 20th century. The future pattern of conflict will be based
primarily on these responses according to the author. Some, like North Korea, can completely
shut out the Western influences. Others can seek to completely imitate the Western values and
institutions, while many like Russia and China in present times, can seek to modernize
themselves without explicitly adopting Western values like democracy and individualism.

In some “torn” countries, adherents of two or more different schools of thought, Civilizations
and ethnicities argue in favor of their respective views. In Turkey, for instance, since the time of
Ataturk, a perpetual argument between two major groups, one of which argues the country is
European-oriented and should adopt its values, and the other argues that Turkey should shun
European culture and move toward being the Middle Eastern Islamic Society they claim it really
is. Turkish leaders, like Ozal and Erdogan, in attempts to maintain electoral support of both
groups, perform a delicate balancing act by negotiating with Western countries for trade and
economic relations, while professing solidarity with Muslim causes. Erdogan has often vowed
moral support for Kashmir and Palestinian Muslims, in the midst of establishing closer ties to the
EU and Israel. But this pattern may change in future as Turkey’s hopes of being considered an
important part of Europe are dashed and it seeks resultantly to orient towards Eastern civilization
countries like China for trade relations.

The same kind of divide is present in Mexico, which to this day, seeks to join the US in its North
American Free Trade Area, signing first the NAFTA in 1994, and replacing it with USMCA in
2018, forming one of the largest economic blocs in the world by GDP.

Russia, however, is a complicated case. The binary there is one between Western and Slavic
Orthodox, and this has existed throughout Russian history, and both groups have been dominant
in policy in different times. The Russian Empire supported other Western powers like Prussia
and Britain militarily against Napoleon, the French Emperor in the early 19th century. But after
the communist takeover in the 1920s, the West appears to have shunned Russia, building up an
ideological conflict with it. This ended at the conclusion of the Cold War, when Russia under
Boris Yeltsin sought again to Westernize itself in its principles and values, much to the chagrin
of the traditional Russian elite and public, which were divided by Yeltsin’s moves. Dissenters,
like Stankevich, argued for Russia to “emphasize its Turkic and Muslim connections” and orient
itself towards the East instead. This division among the Russian elite was judged as complicating
Russia’s relations with the West, and this judgement was proved correct in subsequent years with
Russia’s reorientation towards Nationalism under Putin, which led to its invasion of Georgia in
2008 and Ukraine in 2022, ostensibly due to security concerns.

Non-Western countries that cannot join the West for various reasons seek to match it in
economic, political and military power, by building themselves up and cooperating with other
Non-Western countries. The most prominent such connection is the Confucian-Islamic one,
where China and several Middle Eastern and South Asian nations cooperate for increasing their
respective military capabilities, by exchange of technology and creation of local arms industries.
The Western definition of arms control, post-Cold War, has changed to limiting such build-ups
through agreements and economic sanctions, and limits on technology transfer. An example is
the Western powers’ attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons through JCPOA
in 2015, and economic sanctions post-2018. West seeks to control proliferation of sophisticated
weapons through such sanctions and offers of benefits to those who choose not to pursue these.
Such Western moves are primarily aimed at those nations who are mostly anti-West, and
consider it their right to acquire such weapons for their own self-defense. Nuclear weapon
proliferation is a major reason for such Western concerns.
China has increased its military spending, exported arms to fellow Eastern and Middle Eastern
nations, developed its defense technology, asserted itself regarding territorial claims in the South
China Sea, especially regarding its longstanding vow to reabsorb Taiwan (formerly called
Formosa), into the mainland, that the Western world especially the US seeks to limit by keeping
its Naval fleets perpetually in the South China Sea. Its neighbor, North Korea, also often has sold
weapons to Middle Eastern nations like Syria and Iran. All these moves by non-Western nations
to acquire military parity with the West appear to be one more step towards the construction of
the civilizational fault lines between West and non-West, as defined by Huntington.

Till date, the prominent conflicts in the recorded world history over the centuries have been in
the Western civilization, as defined by the author. But as the role of non-Western Civilizations in
shaping global politics increases, cultural differences between the two civilizations will become
more pronounced and well-known, and they will have to find ways to cooperate with each other
to avoid the potentially violent civilizational conflicts that perpetual distrust and hostility can
produce.