The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (1996)

Samuel P.  Huntington's international affairs monograph published in the late 20th century continues to have influence on contemporary global politics. His argument is that world conflict will be induced by cultural and political identities. This thesis has flaws when examining it through the context of history and other social sciences. This text seems to be the projection and subtle fear that other nations are rising and the West will no longer have domination of the globe. This has in a sense already occurred with decolonization, yet economic independence has to be achieved. China, Russia, India, and possibly South Africa will be important players on the world stage of the 21st century. The Middle East which has been plagued by warfare Huntington argues is based on civilization lines surrounding Islam. This simple and Islamophobic explanation ignores the historical complexities of the region. The text although written very well tends to steer toward generalizations or lumps various groups together. The world is a vast and diverse place. The classification system that Huntington devises merely ranks different regions. It is clear he view the West as a model, yet had doubts about spreading what he referred to as Western universalism. The book has its origins in an article published and written by Huntington in the journal of Foreign Affairs.  When it was read by the public and academic circles in 1993, it generated much controversy. The causes of conflict according to The Clash of Civilizations are Muslim militancy, an assertive China, West universalism, population growth and how it effects stability. The general synopsis as stated in the text and original article ( "Clash of Civilizations?")  " clashes of civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace, and an international order based on civilization is the surest surest safeguard against world war." Huntington even admits that this book was not meant to be a work of social science. It was his interpretation of the change in global politics after the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union. When he wrote this he wanted it to be a new paradigm in which policy makers and scholars could use as a frame of reference. There obviously was an agenda, but it reveals how the former imperial colonial powers want to still maintain dominance even when it is not politically possible. The monograph wants to be that framework for that particular objective. This is not a preventative measure against conflict, but a method of maintaining an international order that favors European or Western nations. Samuel P. Huntington presents an intellectual form of racism, that he justifies as keeping peace in the world . The real cause of international conflict is war, economic turmoil, and imperialism.
      Huntington's perspective of international affairs focuses on relations between what he sees a major civilization centers. These world civilizations include Hindu, Sinic ( Chinese), African, Japanese, Western, Buddhist, Orthodox,  and Latin American. There is a problem with these labels and they are done from a context that does not examine historical factors. One must define what civilization is before using the term for a geopolitical description. The historic definition of civilization is the stage in human development in which society has reached a level of urbanization, scientific advancement, and a structured belief system. Culture and the arts do play a significant role in various civilizations. Where every there were people and river systems to support them, civilization emerged across the globe. Yet this classification system that Huntington reveals is not accurate. When he describes Latin American civilization he does so in the context of Spanish Catholic conquest. Prior to the Spanish and Portuguese invasions, South America was home to Amerindian civilizations. The Maya, Aztecs, and the Inca Empire were civilizations that were destroyed by conquistadors. If South America is to have a classification it should be Amerindian civilization, due to the fact that the native populations are still present, but have mixed with African and European populations. Samuel P.   Huntington even doubts in his writing that Africa is a civilization. He explains " most major scholars of civilization except Braudel  do not recognize Africa as a distinct civilization." This continues to be the product of colonialism and racism in which many Europeans in academia believed Africa did not have a history. Ethiopia and Egypt were even at one point not considered African in the view of Western scholars. The reason was that their anti-black race prejudice made them distort the truth. Huntington to an extend continues this tradition by placing North Africa into Islamic civilization. While Islam is a major feature of the region, North Africa is still African. It is home to Tuareg, Berber, Toubou and Nubian  peoples.

Separating Sub-Saharan Africa from North Africa, makes as much sense as trying take Italy out of Europe. North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa have been historically  linked by the Trans-Saharan Trade.  Using religion as a civilization classification system poses problems. Any group of people can convert or gradually adopt a religion. Buddhism's birth place was in India, yet Hinduism became dominant. Asoka under the Mauryan Empire ruled most the continent under Buddhist leaning philosophy. Calling India merely a Hindu civilization ignores its ancient history as well as the Muslim and Sikh contributions. India is a diverse land of  people and languages. Dravidians, Naga, Munda, and Malayali are just a few of the many ethnic groups of India. A better terminology rather than Hindu civilization would be Indian subcontinent civilization. There is a tendency for scholars of the West to lump people of color in together. Japan being classified as its own civilization seems logical, because its geography allowed it to develop in a unique manner. Western civilization is the product of both the Roman Empire and Greek civilization. These two terms for world civilization realms work due to the historical circumstance. The classification of Orthodox civilization also has issues. It ignores the long history of  Asian history prior to slavic conquest of the Eurasian landmass.The Tatars, Avars, Huns, Bulgars, Hsien nu, and other Turko-Mongol peoples ruled the land and developed civilization. The Mongol Empire was the largest land empire in world history. Huntington does not as shown in the text deem Central Asian civilization as important. Nor does he include the peoples of Oceania. Central Asian civilization developed and maintained one of history's most important trade networks, the Silk Road.If one is to have a grasp of civilization, they must have an understanding of history, archaeology, and the social sciences. The classification system that Huntington uses is limited, because it is done solely through a political science perspective. If there is to be a major classification system of the world in terms of foreign relations it would be more geographically based, rather than civilization centered.  There are the Anglo-American aligned western European countries.  The Russia and China block which constitute the Eurasian block. The African continent and East Asia  which are attempting to navigate a world which has been hostile to their independence. South and West Asia in the geopolitical classification are placed together mainly because they share similar challenges. Latin America would be separate considering the counties their share similar experiences. This form of geopolitical classification would more more rational than simply saying it is drawn on lines of civilization.  

Oceania and Australia would also fall under a international affairs classification. Australia, like New Zealand would have been considered Asian, but the legacy of conquest and genocide made it western colony. Aboriginal populations were reduced and replaced by white ones, therefore culturally and politically putting it in the West. Geographically part of Oceania both countries will become isolated in their own region and have poor relations with their neighbors. It parallels America's relations with its Latin American neighbors. Racial arrogance and hostile attitudes in regards to immigration policy prevent improved relations. Samuel P. Huntington's classification of civilizations is inadequate in describing a changing world or the nation-states. 

        The West has been presented as the standard for the world's nation-states, seeing as these countries are dominant. At least up to a point they were in the international landscape. Huntington delineates that their is a concept of universal civilization, which he does challenge to a degree. The idea of universal civilization can be explained as the world will come together based around common convictions, institutions, and practices. This belief  demonstrates cultural imperialism. It attempts to make Western culture a normalized standard, by either undermining or attempting to eliminate the distinct cultures of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Davos culture as it is commonly referred to by particular academics was an outgrowth of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. These educated elites share common values for which they want to spread across the globe. These beliefs are political democracy, individualism, and free market economies. Every nation will not adopt these beliefs. There is a level of acculturation in other areas, such as entertainment. Consumer habits around the globe does not represent the triumph or superiority of Western civilization. This more so represents that the West is having an identity crisis. While Roman and Greek civilization were its foundation it has gradually over a historical time frame acculturated other practices from non-Western peoples. Huntington even laments " the argument now that the spread of pop culture and consumer goods around the world represents the triumph of civilization trivializes Western culture." This seems to be more of an exaggeration. Elements of culture can be transferred, but this does not trivialize culture. Many seem to hold onto the myth of cultural purity, when there are fusions and amalgamations of various cultures. Huntington even with particular evidence available, seems to fall in to the faction of cultural purity. When Rome expanded it came into contact with African, Greek, and Middle Eastern civilizations. Acculturation occurred in the arts,sciences, and philosophy. A culture never stays the same. Overtime it can change into something entirely different. Christianity was a Middle Eastern religion that changed the civilization of the West. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) 

There are also many cultures that fall under s dominant culture. Subcultures can range from anything that is material or non-material in nature. Culture goes through a transformation given the political and social circumstances of an environment. One assessment that Huntington does get correct is that westernization and modernization are not synonymous. Modernization describes societies that have a level of industrialization, urbanization,  higher levels of education, wealth and social mobilization. They are at the forefront of scientific and technological development meaning they have reached a post-industrial society. Westernization is attributed the culture of Europe and those foundations, from the Roman Empire and Greek civilization. The explanation is expressed in the Clash of Civilizations as follows: " the West was the West long before it was modern." Other attributes to Western civilization such as representative government, separation of church and state, as well as individualist philosophies developed prior to the modern world. As Huntington wrote " Western civilization emerged in the eighth and ninetieth centuries and developed distinctive characteristics in the following centuries." The Reformation, the Enlightenment, and scientific advancement propelled the West to modernization. It was not because these European societies were anyone talented or brighter than other peoples of the world. Jared Diamond stated it was geography, not racial superiority that gave the West the upper hand in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Samuel P. Huntington wanted to see a world in which the US and  the West would remain in a position of dominance. Being an astute political scientist he realized that the United States cannot maintain a position of dominance indefinitely even with the collapse of the U.S.S.R in 1991. The nations of the world no longer want to emulate the West or its political models. The paradigm shift was happening when the book was published, but is more evident in current world affairs. 

          The Clash of Civilizations poses a theory that Islam is in particular is a threat to the West as well as the rise of Asian power in the East. This Islamophobic stance is not only prejudiced; it is inaccurate. Terrorism is not the monopoly of  radical political Islamists. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and drone strikes could easily be counted as terrorism. Huntington wants the reader to believe that Islam and radical political Islamism are synonymous. Radical political Islamism is a theocratic movement seeking to change the current regimes in the Middle East. Islam is a religion with a long tradition of theological philosophy. Huntington then claims that Muslim communities rarely live in peace with others. Religious fundamentalism has become threat to modern society. Islam is not the only religion that struggles with this. It can be seen in the religious right in America and the Zionist extremists in Israel. The current wave of anti-Muslim sentiment that has emerged globally distorts public perception of the multiple dimensions of religious fundamentalism. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have this problem and extremists are competing with each other for relevance in a modern world. The reality is when the public becomes more educated, the less religious they become. Modern societies are becoming more secular and as science advances faith becomes a less believable answer for the meaning of human existence. The idea of God becomes a fantasy, but to the dogmatic this is unacceptable. The problem really is religious fundamentalism and organized religion attempting to survive a scientific and secular world. Samuel P. Huntington clearly favors Judeo-Christian values over other world religions. Christianity was used to colonize African kingdoms and was used a justification for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. When Europeans began enslaving African peoples, they used the fact they were not Christians as a reason for forced labor. Missionaries on the African continent were agents of imperialism. Prior to this there was Reformation and Thirty Years' War which were some of the most lethal religious wars on the European continent. Jews were victims of the violence in Europe. Religious antisemitism was rampant in European society resulting in pogroms and discrimination. When examining these historical facts it appears that Christianity also has blood on its hands. The West has a problem with Islam and Muslims. After the 9/11 attacks the US has waged a campaign of perpetual warfare on Muslim countries. The reason has to do with oil and international power. With the Soviet Union gone, the US was the sole superpower. This did not last for long as China was gradually rising  under the Jiang Zemin. Hu Jintao his successor raised China's profile specifically in Africa, which has led to a number of alliances in terms of economics and international affairs. Xi Jingping  extended China's influence internationally with BRICS. China has not thus so far waged aggressive war on any nation. Washington has framed it as a menace. 

                    

 The US does not want peace, but enemies to justify expansion. Huntington attempts to justify US aggression as a stabilizing force. The language employed reveals also race prejudice. The rise of Asian states he calls Asian affirmation and the demographic shift in Muslim populations he calls Islamic resurgence. The alarmist tone is not a minority opinion in the West. Europeans are scared of a world that has more African, Asian, and Latin American populations. Not only that there is a genuine hate for non-white peoples. Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, and Australia are seeing a rise in xenophobia, racism, and far-right politics. Even when various communities assimilate they are still treated with hostility. There is a new mainstream international white supremacy that targets nations and peoples who do not submit to the Western order. The attacks on Muslim societies is a way for Western culture to reassure itself, when it is reaching a point of decline.  

         Asian affirmation is what other nations states do on a regular basis. This is not so much affirmation rather assertion. China is asserting itself and changing the international status quo. Russia was transitioning in the 1990s to a free market system and struggling economically. Now the Russian Federation is demonstrating power once again under Vladimir Putin. Nation-states have to assert themselves within an international frame work. Refusing to do so would mean sovereignty would be eroded. Former colonized countries have to struggle to maintain independence and resist regime change from past oppressors. China suffered in the past under the open door policy and extraterritoriality. Their economy was controlled by English, American, French, German, Russian, and Italian zones. The 1911 nationalist revolution under Sun Yetsen and the 1949 communist revolution under Mao Zedong were symbols of China asserting itself. No longer would foreigners dictate China's affairs. This goes beyond affirming their culture. It is about confronting  past injustices and humiliations. China having links to other Chinese communities is part of a more Pan-Asian world view. The problem with an emergence of a powerful China would be issues with its neighbors. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and India may find themselves in conflict. The only solution to this would be a Pan-Asian vision of economic and political cooperation. Samuel P. Huntington's assessment gives an incorrect image : " economic development enables Asian states to expand their military capabilities, promotes uncertainty about future relationships among these countries, and brings to the forefront rivalries suppressed during the Cold War."  Huntington delineates further that "economic development increases the intensity of  conflicts between Asian societies and the West." Ultimately Huntington comes to the conclusion that China would become so powerful Asian nations would try to balance themselves against it or form rival alliance systems. Conflict will only come if the West cannot accept they can no longer do whatever they please to Asian and African nations. Asian rivalries date back to the ancient period either from Han Chinese expansion to Japanese imperialism of the late 19th to 20th century. There were conflicts that were extension of that during the Cold War which included the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979, the Sino-Indian War of 1962, and the Indo-Pakistani Wars. Neoliberal capitalism has the ability to create conflict among nations, not because they develop economically. Huntington believed that Asian countries would be more successful economically, if the West did not taker certain steps to impede it. It cannot be stopped, because capitalism demands competition in the market place. The book even complains about Japanese economic successes and the Clinton administration's failure to negotiate trade agreements. The Asian affirmation concept is a coded message demonstrating Western and specifically American displeasure at the rise of Asian powers.

      The Clash of Civilizations predicts that Africa and South Asia will have less conflict with the West. This overtime has proven to be incorrect. Libya, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Somalia have had to deal with European aggression and attacks. Huntington believed that Asian and Muslim societies are aggressive or a challenge to the West. Africa has been struggling to fight off neocolonialism for three decades. Zimbabwe continues to adhere to Pan-African principles. As a result President Robert Mugabe is targeted for not complying with Western political agendas. Qaddafi, before the NATO invasion was following a similar path of  anti-colonial politics and  global south solidarity. The book even mentions that in 1994 Qaddafi called for a closer alliance with China. The assassination of Qaddafi  and destruction of Libya was an attack on the continent as a whole. The European Union's hatred of African solidarity or cooperation was exposed by this military intervention. African sates no longer want to submit to Europe. All these leaders do not all share a Pan-African vision or a progressive one, but do not want to be puppets. This explains why more African states have turned to China for political and economic collaboration. South Africa will in the future rise in prominence and it has done so by resisting the orders of the ICC. There will be more friction as the War on Terror continues to spread around Africa. Samuel P. Huntington views Africa in a colonial context using dated language of past European empires. He claims " throughout Africa tribal identities are pervasive and intense, but Africans are increasingly developing a sense of African identity, and conceivably sub-Saharan Africa could cohere into a distinct civilization with South Africa as its core state." The problem with this analysis is that the peoples of Africa are ethnic groups, not tribes. The borders that existed were created by the French, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Germans, Belgians, and Italians. The Berlin Conference of 1885  divided Africa into colonies controlled by the European empires. 

Huntington refuses to acknowledge that Africa has had a long tradition of civilization and identity. Egyptian civilization, Aksum, Nubia, the Kingdom of Kush, Mali, Songhay, Numidia, Punt, Carthage , Ghana, and the civilization of Zimbabwe are just a few examples that produced a distinct African identity. African identity and culture existed before the arrival of Europeans. It was born out of the Bantu migrations. Africa was humanity's birth place and from there the human family began to explore the rest of the world. Africa during the 1990s when the book was published was just seeing the end of Apartheid in South Africa and the Congolese Civil War. The DRC would have to be stabilized so that Africa as a continent can move forward. The second Congolese Civil war  ended in 2003, bu there still remains challenges. Huntington clearly views Africa as a place with no history or past cultural identity. Africa has become a major player and the US has effectively cut itself off from the continent. The Iraq War was condemned by many African states and even with then President George W. Bush's Africa Tour  serve damage to relations had been done. China continued to strengthen its ties with more success. Relations with India and Pakistan will not be improving under any administration. The US has accused Pakistan of harboring terrorists and even imposed sanctions at one time for its nuclear program. India has to be involved in the stabilization of Afghanistan, but this will not happen if the US is closer to Pakistan. China favors Pakistan over India. If the US is in conflict with China this further complicates relations with Pakistan and how the situation in Afghanistan is going. South Asia will be another area of conflict that could expand over the coming years. It seems the West seeks to instigate or start conflict with non-Westerners to maintain the former colonial order. 

     Warfare is the biggest threat to global security. Wars are started not because of differences in culture, but resources, racism, and the idea that their should be a global hegemonic power. All nation-states struggle for some form of dominance in the international hierarchy. Samuel P. Huntington calls various conflicts fault line wars. These fault lines are what divide civilizations in his perspective. Ukraine could be considered a fault line between Russia and the West. These areas of division are possible hot spots for conflict. This theory may have some truth, but the reality is conflict is everywhere. Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Yemen,  and the US-NATO operations in Afghanistan are evidence of warfare's global reach. Huntington does not understand the true nature of conflict. Warfare provides governments useful distractions to failed domestic policies, while increasing blind patriotism. Resources are another motivation to fight other nations. The US invaded Iraq for its oil and attempted to overthrow Castro's government in Cuba when he nationalized sugar plantations. Israel attacks Gaza mainly to get sea access for off shore oil exploration and drilling. There are many who benefit from perpetual warfare which include the arms industry. The military industrial complex has become such a large part of the US economy that peace would mean economic ruin. The attitudes of the world's nations is one of constant hostility. Each country is either competing to undermine one another instead of working for a common goal. There is a desire for many nations to achieve a position of global  hegemon or even world domination. The idea of world empire or world government has not disappeared, but changed form. Racism has caused many maladies in various societies globally. When applied to foreign policy it becomes lethal. Their are nations that have taught their people to hate others so much that murder would not be unethical. Ethnic nationalism has a negative element of demanding racial purity. This explains why some states wage war against various ethnic groups within their own borders. Turkey did this after World War I attacking Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks in an effort to create a pure Turkish state. Warfare distorts a nation psychologically to the point in which it believes it better than others. Every nation that has successfully won a war feels this type emotion. Warfare is the highest expression of extremism. 

These lines should all be thick to represent conflict. Many nations are in dispute and some new conflicts could emerge between regions. 

The idea that the clash of civilizations is tribal conflict on a global scale is too simplistic. Human conflict is much more complicated. There are political and social circumstances for why conflicts breakout. This also does not explain why people of similar backgrounds fight one another. The American Civil War had US citizens fighting other US citizens. It can be argued that northern and southern culture was different, but that does not grasp the full nature of the conflict. Competing economic systems, the question of slavery, and political factionalism were reasons for the outbreak of the American Civil War. Wars are a violent and complex activity that have built the civilizations of the world. Most empires and civilizations  around the world did not emerge peacefully. Conquest, invasion, annexation, and colonization vastly expanded territories centered around a ruling mother country. Imperialism would not have existed without war to support it. 

    Imperialism still does exist, but in a different form. The desire of the US and the EU allies to impose democratic systems masks their intentions to maintain a system that subordinates the world to them. The transition wars as Huntington calls them are products of collapsed empires. World War I, World War II, and the end of the Cold War had severe geopolitical repercussions. World War I was caused by Europe's aggressive expansion of empire and network of rival alliance systems. Imperialism was the major cause of the international conflict, but there was little change in behavior . The British and French Empire formed the mandate system and proceeded to divide among themselves the former territories of the Ottoman and German  Empire. Russia could have been in the same situation, if the communist revolution was not successful. The defeat was devastating to Germany and combined with Great Depression it became ripe for fascism. Adolf Hitler wanted not only regain Germany's former territories, but change the international order entirely. The Third Reich in his mind would dominate the world. The defeat of the Axis powers left another power void. The wartime alliance between the US, UK, France, and the Soviet Union disintegrated. The Cold War had began with the US and Soviet Union challenging each other in wars of proxy across the globe. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the conflicts that followed were more than just driven by differences in culture. Afghanistan was not as the author put it " a straightforward invasions by one country by another but were transformed into and in large part redefined as civilizational wars."  Afghanistan's problems are related to attempts at conquest going back as far as Alexander the Great to British attempts to absorb it into its empire in the 19th century. The Great Game was a contest between the Russian and British Empire for dominance in Afghanistan. King Zahir attempted to modernize his country in the 20th century, but was deposed. The Soviet Union had to support a Marxist regime, which was unpopular with the population. Since 1979 Afghanistan has been a pawn in imperial power plays. The US since 2001 is still trying to do what others have failed at : conquer Afghanistan. The former Yugoslavia also had similar problems. This area had been subject to Ottoman, German, and Austrian interference. After World War I, the Balkan peoples gained independence. It was lost again under German and Italian invasion during World War II. Tito emerged as Yugoslavia's leader keeping the country in one piece. When he died in 1980, internal strife escalated once more. This time it led to civil war and dissolving of the nation. Germany once unified supported Croatia, because it wanted to regain influence in the Balkans. Both Croatia and Slovenia  declared independence in 1991 causing starting a civil war. Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia,  and Slovenia were at war and human rights abuses escalated. There was internal ethnic tension, but this was exacerbated by the fact Western nations began to recognize Croatia and Slovenia. The EU and the US could not see a Yugoslavia having an alternative economic model that competes with neoliberal economic integration. The war ended in 1995, but Serbia was still targeted. Kosovo was bombed in 1999 and presented as a humanitarian operation. This was designed to induce further balkanization and by 2003 Yugoslavia no longer existed. The United States, UK,  and France as well as most of the European Union continue to interfere in the affairs of Global South nations. Imperialism has been transformed in order to be more acceptable to the public. Wars and invasions are present as fighting authoritarianism and saving lives. The real motive is economic and maintaining a system that has been in place since the Age of Exploration. 

       The another factor in international conflict is economically based. Much of the natural resources the West wants are in various African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Oil, iron ore, and various fossil fuels are still important to the global economy. These finite resources are being consumed at a rate that cannot meet population needs. This is why China and America will be in conflict over oil, because both populations consume massive amounts of the resource. Nations tired of Western domination are now taking their economies into their own hands. There is a correlation between economic and political power. Clash of Civilizations  exposes that  at that the West and Japan have dominance over advanced technology industries. That has given Japan the ability to increase its power other than military means. The reason the West maintains such hegemony is that they have control of the sea lanes, international capital markets, operate the international banking system, have a high tech weapons industry, and aerospace industry. Under a neoliberal capitalist system there needs to be constant expansion into various markets. This inevitably leads to conflict with other nations who want equal access to economic prosperity. The phenomenon of globalization has made it so that  the workforce is competing globally. Transnational corporations exploit labor from the developing world, while outsourcing jobs that were once in Western nations. This generates hostility against developing nations, but such feelings should be directed at the international business elite. Class conflict has been an issue throughout human history. This is a factor that is ignored in global conflict. Avarice of powerful nations could lead to more violence, something that Samuel P. Huntington did not take seriously. Economic decline and the failure of the capitalist system have make numerous societies vulnerable to extremism. This manifests itself in the form of  far-right xenophobic nativism  or radical political Islamism. Poverty and economic hardship are going to be persistent problems of the international landscape of the 21st century. What Huntington calls Asian affirmation is really an aspect of economic growth and  development. China's growth in the manufacturing sector is a success, but it also resulted in a level of tension in the West. Jealously or racial arrogance will cause tension from the West. Economics, not culture can induce conflict.   

     Samuel  P. Huntington comes to a rather inaccurate conclusion. Multiculturalism he believed was a major challenge and in some case threat to Western civilization. Population growth from the Global South seemed to also alarm him and particularly immigration itself. This analysis comes from individuals who cannot not accept that the world shall change. Population increase will not be an issue as long as there is proper accommodation for it. Having jobs, education, and putting emphasis on women's reproductive rights can be logical solutions. No culture is completely monocultural as he states. Acculturation has occurred  throughout human civilization. That was what made human civilization durable. It was able to learn from various groups and adopt new ideas. This was more of a cultural synthesis that form a new product. The proposed international order based on civilization is nothing more than a divide in rule tactic. Many nations have formed political alliances in which their cultures and histories are different. Kazakhstan and Sudan are attempting to have more bilateral ties. Russia has relations with both Iran and Zimbabwe. There can be collaboration among nations of numerous ethnic, religious, cultural, and political backgrounds. The Non-Alignment  Movement is a testament to Global South solidarity. This is the one development the West fears: the collaboration between the non-white and non-western peoples of the world. Samuel P. Huntington even admitted " the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority of applying organized violence." The people who were victims of colonization and imperialism will never forget, but people of Europe and America do. The Clash of Civilizations seems to more a indirect rallying cry for the West to reassert dominance.  This version of peace is not peace at all but one region imposing its will on the globe. World war will emerge from racism, imperialism, aggressive nationalism, and ideological extremism. Only when humankind can challenge these aberrations the world can be safe.