Clash of Civilizations? Really? Is it?

I cannot elaborate on a "clash of civilizations" because, frankly, i don't buy it. People constantly want to find simplistic, "one size fits all" explanations for complex situations. But human affairs are rarely simple, even at the personal level, never mind when considering entire nations, and global politics. Many Bosnians are, at least nominally, Muslims. Kosovars and Albanians are, at least nominally, Muslims. I know of no one who seriously contends that there is a serious movement of international terroism in the Balkans. Many Africans living in and south of the Sahel are Muslims--for example, the CIA reports that 50% of Nigerians are Muslim--but i know of no one who seriousl contends that Muslim terrorist ogranizations thrive and prosper in central and southern Africa. Malaysia and Indonesia are essentially Muslim nations. I know of no terrorist organization in Malaysia, and those who claim to be a part of al Qaeda in Indonesia act on the grounds of much older disputes between Muslims and Christians which divide perfectly along tribal lines, wherein tribes disputed before either Islam or Christianity arrived in those islands. A good deal of the population of what once was Soviet central Asia are Muslims, and they are not known to be terrorists. Even the Chechens and Ingush who are alleged (conveniently by Putin) to be Muslim terrorists are simply fighting for their independence--at no time in the history of Russian expansion into the Caucasus have the Chechens and Ingush accepted Russian domination, and they have opposed Russian hegemony in arms since Peter the Great first sent a mission to the Chechens in 1721.

The conflicts we have today arise out of the history of the British empire. Russia long sought to push south into central Asia, seeking access to warm water seas. The English opposed their fiddling with Persia, but with the British Raj gone from India in the mid 20th century, the Soviets found it convenient to support communists in the Afghan civil war which has raged since 1963, and sent troops in to support the communist regime which eventually took over the government. Al Qaeda was formed to support the Afghan mujahadin fighting the Russians. Anyone familiar with the Afghans knows they have fought and killed any foreigners in their country since the days of Alexander the Great, before Islam existed.

When Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty before the First World War, he and the First Sea Lord, Jackie Fisher, decided to switch the Royal Navy from coal-fired to oil-fired power plants, for some very good engineering reasons. At that time, though, North Sea oil was not known to exist, but the English already knew there was petroleum in Persia. They were to learn that large amounts of petroleum "slept" under the sands of the Osmanli Empire, in what are now Saudi Arabia and Iraq. After the collapse of the Osmanli Empire in 1918, the French and the English divvied up the middle east, and although Arthur Balfour was given the task by the Paris Peace Conference, he was a very old man, and the young and energetic Winston Churchill was detailed to help him out. He helped himself to the creation of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, including in Iraq the Mosul province of the former Turkish Empire, even though originally, that was to have gone to France. Wonder of wonders, England ended up controlling all of those portions of the middle east with significant petroleum resources.

The Paris Peace Conference also received the address of European Zionists, who wanted a homeland in ancient Palestine. England took a mandate to govern Palestine and the Transjordan, and they were completely comfortable settling European Jews, with familiar culture and customs, on land their ancestors had abandoned or drive from almost two thousand years earlier.

Even those observations only scratch the surface of the complexity of the situation. Anyone offering you a simple and dramatic explanation for the world's ills ought also to be selling a bridge in Brooklyn, for their own profit.

Setanta,

The problem is that the average mind operates simplistically in order to reduce information overload, irrespective of the intricacies of history. We tallk anthropomorphically...."America wants"....."The Arabs want...." in order to apply psychological motivations and expectancies to sociological events. The result is that a social "reality" is created which informs further action. The "clash of civilizations" is one such reality which may then sub-classify further events within its own whirlpool of reification.

There is no fundamental reason for there to be a clash of civilisations. The muslims dont want to conquer the world. Even those that believe Islam will eventually become the one world religion, are quite content to let Allah make it so. But muslims have something much more interesting than a medieval religion...65% of the remaining reserves of the worlds oil, oil which is getting scarce, and oil on which America is dependent. Even so there is no need for conflict, they only want to sell the oil, the west only wants to buy it. But thats not enough for a country like the US. They are not content just buying oil, they want to control oil. And they want to pay dollars for it.

Whilst I think Islam as a religion is stupid (and capable of producing some very dangerous people) there are other people working very hard to build up Islam into the global enemy America and the west needs. The enemy is needed to provide purpose and cohesion at home, and to go to war with abroad. The "Global War on Terrorism" is a deliberately misleading cover for what the west and America in particular is desperate to do. And that is to make secure its oil supplies, if necessary by the application of military force. To do this you have to have an enemy.

That reification only works for those who buy into it. Muslims who do not wish to respond to the calls for jihad by a fanatic break the "reality" to which you refer. Christians who refuse to subscribe to a global definition of all Muslims as "islamo-fascists" break that "reality." The reality of the results of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the grab for oil by the British (eagerly taken over by the Americans) in the middle east are inescapable facts of history which have created and continue to fuel the conflict. It only becomes a "clash of civilizations" in reality when the people on either "side" can no longer see the differnce between the reality which exists and derives from the past, and the "reality" created in bigotted minds.

Just to expand on this for a moment, oil had several advantages over coal. Greater range, greater manoeverabilty (rapid acceleration was dependent on getting coal into the boilers, the manpower to do this was the limiting factor, but oil could be pumped). For the same reason oil fired battleships could refuel at sea from tankers, coal fired ships had to return to the nearest friendly port. So convinced was Fisher of the crucial advantage of oil that he said an oil fired fleet would always defeat a similar coal fired fleet. Hence the decision was taken in utmost secrecy to change the Navy's capital ships entirely to oil. Quite a brave decision when you consider the British Empire depended on the protection afforded by the fleet, and that Britain had no[/i] oil at all.

Again in the utmost secrecy, Churchill effectively took over the Anglo Persian oil company, and gave it a 20 year contract to supply oil to the Navy, which it duly did in both world wars. Anglo Persian of course changed its name by one letter over the years going from AP to BP.

Source

This merely a continuation of his two dimensional worldview as expressed in 2001 when he said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists".
Whether or not there is in fact a "clash of civilizations", the administration will surely push for the myth to be spread. it is far more simple to attach a catch phrase to a complex issue and hope that it remains as simple as it appears.
It's no longer anything political, economic or religious....it just two civilizations "clashing".
Like Monday night football. What's more simple than that?

I realize and respect the complexity of the situation but I don't rule out a potential clash of civilizations. Obviously, oil and imperialism have a lot to do with the current conflict in the middle east. But on top of that there are many people around the world-not just in the midle east- who despise what America stands for. And no it is not freedom, I don't buy that bs. Many see nothing of value in the American way of life and they see it being pushed on them unwillingly. They are revolted by the blatant materialism, obsession with money and sex, the worship of technology and science, and the overall superficiality that they believe America represents. These people don't care about democracy, in fact many despise it. Now maybe if we completely disengaged from the middle east and stopped trying to mold them into our own image, we would see less problems. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

A very good post.

Anyway, this is a good example of the current American ideology. There is a complete equivalance of commerce and freedom in the minds of our leadership. They feel that Afghanistan is now 'free' because Coca-Cola can operate there. Human rights, transparent government and most of the other things we take for granted in the west are not on their agenda. Elections only occur because they are a public acid test of freedom and look good in the news.

The only freedom the neocons care about is the freedom of the rich to enrich themselves further. When people in resource rich countries are given actual freedom, they tend to curtail the power of foreign coporations over those resources.

I have here a news article to backup your point.

Coca-Cola plant opens in Afghan capital

Here's another :

Assuming your thesis, Atavistic, the middle east represents "markets". In fact, they are vast, relatively untapped markets that American corporations are eager to Americanize.
Perhaps it is the Americanization that is being resisted, more than the American style democracy.

Japan willingly Americanized. Seems the middle east is rejecting it.

I have only had time to glance over this thread. It looks very good, and after I come home from the movies (Hollywoodland), I will give it the attention it deserves. But let me just comment on the statement provided by Dandidone1--

Samuel P. Huntington posits that "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural...

Here it seems that Huntington's use of "culture" reflects an attempt to define the present conflict as "valid", "desireable," "natural" (and thus inevitable). I see both the conflict and Huntington's argument as ideological. Cultures have no programs; ideologies do, indeed that is their point, to justify past, present, and futhre actions, not to make sense of the world, as is the principle function of culture.

Note that not all Christians and Muslims endorse or participate in the current "clash." Yet they are all cultural beings. My point is that they are not all, as Christians and Muslims, participants in the "clash". That applies only to members of ideological groups, i.e., Christian "dominianists" and "islamists."

Thank you.

This is true, although I would argue that it only takes a few extremists to get the ball rolling and once the situation has snowballed, less willing participants get dragged in. There are plenty of Arabs who do not hate America, but if it came down to a war, whose side are they going to choose?

"clash of civilizations"? Hardly.

Explain Dys?

Yes, it is a clash of civilizations. A clash between the Europeans who invaded the New World and killed millions of defenseless American Indians, Astezs and Incas. They destroyed viable cultures. The arrogant Americans also plunged the world into war in 1914 and 1941. They cleverly manipulated other states into doing thier bidding. It is a clash of civilizations. Civilizations that believe in peace against a pseudo-civilization that only believes in war.

Cycloptichorn says to the air,

A rose by any other name... still smells the same

Cycloptichorn

Atavistic says -
There are plenty of Arabs who do not hate America, but if it came down to a war, whose side are they going to choose?


This kind of thinking has held too much sway. Not everyone in a state or country or region or even in a religion is out to get everybody else. Most are trying to live reasonable lives with family or other associates. Why people think of us all as acting as some kind of amalgamated block forms is beyond me except that it's simpler and politically expedient on various sides.

I don't understand your reasoning. Before World War 2, few Americans had anything against the Germans, but they dutifully fought and died to stop them anyway. It's not about being "out to get somebody." These wars are often beyond the control of the average person. God forbid we got attacked tommorrow by say, China, are you going to say, "well I have nothing against the Chinese so this doesn't involve me?"