New Mars Forums

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be--the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis 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. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.

Why will this be the case?

First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily, mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.

Historically, the other great antagonistic interaction of Arab Islamic civilization has been with the pagan, animist, and now increasingly Christian black peoples to the south. In the past, this antagonism was epitomized in the image of Arab slave dealers and black slaves. It has been reflected in the on-going civil war in the Sudan between Arabs and blacks, the fighting in Chad between Libyan-supported insurgents and the government, the tensions between Orthodox Christians and Muslims in the Horn of Africa, and the political conflicts, recurring riots and communal violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity are likely to enhance the probability of violence along this fault line. Symptomatic of the intensification of this conflict was the Pope John Paul II's speech in Khartoum in February I993 attacking the actions of the Sudan's Islamist government against the Christian minority there.

Frankly, to win the kind of conflict you describe Cobra, we in the US need to be able to absorb blows like 9/11 without reacting in a way that plays into the terrorist hands.

No we don't. We need a balance between swift and brutal action with clear provocation and enticement. We need to kill a few people and tempt the rest with the bounty of the West. Afghanistan fit perfectly with such an approach, Iraq was a bit of a stretch in that context but could have been spun.

Unfortunately there is a greater problem, and it is the reason we'll never be able to fully implement the type of program I mentioned. As you say Bill, we can't let the majority of Muslims believe that we seek to supplant their culture, so we can't be entirely open about it amongst ourselves. It requires a tacit acceptance of the people to abide by a lie, we all know what's at stake but simply don't speak of it. Unfortunately, many won't get it, and will believe the lie but not for the duration. That is why we can't do it, as a nation we have a short attention span and no "poker face."

What about domestic violence? A guy beats up his wife, gets divorced and later beats up his second wife.

Domestic violence would fall under the criminal courts, no? I'm not talking about criminal proceedings.

Bill, do you know if this is one of the Jesuit schools you were referring to when you were commenting on Martian curricula?

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. Federalist #1

ATV?

Maybe there is some confusion between me and someone else.

Oops, sorry, that was Mad Grad Student.