Posted on 10/07/2001 11:49:14 AM PDT by Sabertooth
Seeking clues to future by interpreting terrorists' attacks through two seminal views of post-Cold War world.
BY SCOTT SHANE
What do we make of the willingness of 19 young Muslim men to sacrifice their lives to kill thousands of Americans they didn't know?
Is it a tragic fluke, a final shudder of an old enmity at ``the end of history''? Or is it the first major battle in a titanic ``clash of civilizations''?
Those questions arise when the hijackers' attacks are viewed through the very different lenses of seminal essays written by two political scholars as the Cold War sputtered to a close a decade ago.
The articles, by Francis Fukuyama, then a U.S. State Department policy planner, and Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard University political scientist, were written in provocative style and made a splash in foreign-policy circles. Both were subsequently expanded into books and added to reading lists at scores of universities. Their authors were widely lionized, occasionally ridiculed.
Now, in the wake of the September terror, Fukuyama's 1989 article ``The End of History?'' and Huntington's 1993 article ``The Clash of Civilizations?'' put the news into larger patterns, as random stars form shapes when constellations are described.
Fukuyama did not claim historical events had screeched to a halt -- but that the epic contest of political systems had been fought and won.
``What we are witnessing,'' he wrote, ``is not just the end of the Cold War, or a passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.''
In fact, Fukuyama went so far as to anticipate a certain ``boredom'' that might set in, as ``the worldwide ideological struggle'' is replaced by ``the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.''
Fukuyama did allow in his essay in The National Interest that the Third World would remain ``mired in history'' and ``terrain of conflict.'' But even if ``a new Ayatollah proclaimed the millennium from a desolate Middle Eastern capital,'' he wrote, the underlying world order would be ``an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism.''
Huntington's far-darker essay in Foreign Affairs proposed that, far from ending, history was entering a new and tumultuous period of cultural conflict among the ``seven or eight major civilizations,'' which he listed as ``Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilizations.''
A DARKER VIEW
Explicitly rejecting the end-of-history theory, among others, Huntington stated his thesis in words as categorical and evocative as Fukuyama's: ``The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.''
And one of the chief fault lines, Huntington wrote in the year of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, was that separating the Western and Islamic civilizations.
``Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years,'' he wrote, tracing the Crusades and rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire.
``This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent,'' he wrote.
ECHO OF THE PAST
If Fukuyama was right, the terror is an echo of the past more than a wave of the future, a fringe phenomenon rather than one expressing a ``civilization.'' The attacks may be merely a tragic, criminal detour in the global progress toward liberal democracy.
But if Huntington was right, the terror could be a grim prelude, the beginning of one more war in centuries of conflict between Muslims and Westerners. ``Some Westerners . . . have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen-hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise,'' he wrote.
Huntington, of Harvard, isn't commenting, and Fukuyama, now at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, is away due to a family illness. But following the carnage in New York, Washington and rural Pennsylvania, the essays' contrasting paradigms are everywhere reflected in government statements and expert analysis.
Steven R. David, a professor of international relations at John Hopkins' Homewood campus, says he believes both essays captured important truths about the contemporary world. Fukuyama is right, he says, that ``the big disputes that people fought and died for are over. Germany's not going to invade France. You don't have many people arguing that communism is superior to capitalism.'' But Fukuyama, he says, ``greatly underestimated'' the trouble that could be caused by those still ``mired in history.''
``Unfortunately,'' David says, ``I think Huntington's view is closer to the mark.''
One who portrays the terror very much as a clash of civilizations is suspected terrorist plotter and financier Osama bin Laden. Reaching back into 1,400 years of history, he is rallying Muslims against what he calls ``the new Jewish-Crusader campaign led by the biggest crusader, Bush, under the banner of the cross.''
The televised shots of crowds of Muslims in several countries celebrating the attacks, burning American flags and praising bin Laden also suggest a cultural conflict. Interviews with a wide range of Muslims around the world often elicit regret at the loss of lives, but it is usually coupled with a ``but'': But, the speakers say, American arrogance and actions, from support of Israel to sanctions against Iraq, provoked the attacks by reflecting hostility to Islam. Yet just as striking was the initial rush of Islamic leaders and officials of Muslim nations to denounce the terror and reject any Islamic justification. ``It is deplorable that in this year of dialogue between civilizations,'' said Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, a reformist Muslim cleric, echoing Huntington's words, ``the most violent and savage of attacks should have taken place.''
A WARNING
Other Muslim commentators, some specifically referring to Huntington, warned against unwittingly turning a horrendous crime into a conflict between civilizations. ``We should all do our best so that a war against terrorism does not turn into a `clash of civilizations,' '' wrote Azzam Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, in the Times of London.
David, at Hopkins, says the United States and its Western allies must be careful to avoid words that imply civilizations are at war.
``If we in the West say we're at war with Islam, then we're at war with Islam. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.''
In a notable stumble early on, President Bush labeled the campaign against terror with bin Laden's favorite word, ``crusade.'' ``That reminds Muslims of an ugly history,'' says Abdulaziz Sachedina, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.
Since then, the Bush administration has taken pains to avoid suggesting their war is against Islam. But many Muslims are still made nervous by American officials' frequent references to ``the civilized world'' or ``the free world'' in an apocalyptic showdown with ``barbarism'' or ``evil,'' Sachedina says. Americans' claim to be defending freedom rings especially hollow with Muslims in such countries as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, where the United States backs authoritarian regimes, he says.
IT'S NOT A WAR
In fact, Sachedina says, if the United States is to avoid Huntington's clash of civilizations, officials might be well-advised to back away altogether from the use of the word war.
``It's not a war; it's a criminal act,'' he says. ``The more we use war rhetoric, the more we need to find a proper target. And with an international terrorist group, there is no proper target.''
©2001 The Baltimore Sun
OK, smart guy. Enlighten me...
Let's see some of that complex and altruistic ignorance you must prefer.
Wrong.
The best way to end war and ensure peace is to kill the enemy.
We can control the pace of the war, but that's a tactical distinction. Bin Laden wants this to be to the death, and he's not alone, I'm afraid. Millions support him.
We can't control the terms of the war when the enemy wants us dead and will throw their suicidal children at us to do it.
We won't be able to control the terms of the war with bin Laden, Hussein, etc. any more than we could the war with Hitler.
"Bin Laden is trying to make this a war of civilizations. If he succeeds there will be many dead from both civilizations."
Sadly, you are correct.
"Bush has defined this war as one against terrorism, Bin Laden, Al Queda and those who harbor him. If Bush succeeds then civilization on both sides will be intact. Lets support Bush's goals, not Bin Ladens. "
I fully support president Bush in all of his efforts in this regard. At least we'll know we sincerely tried. I just think that this genie is out of the bottle, and only much bloodshed will stop it.
Hope I'm wrong.
CLASH. Fukiyama is all wet. Still doesn't stop him from promoting his "End of History" thesis even today. He has too much invested in it.
A better question to ask is how many went in knowing that the building was going to implode in less than an hour.
IOW, when one side accepts death and welcomes it, they automatically become a more dangerous enemy.
This isn't about who was brave or not. It's about the survival of the United States of America.
If I followed your failed socialist sociologist philosophy, I would have to kill myself.
But then I would be on your side, and being on your side I would be wearing the
"Please don't hurt me, I wouldn't even think of hurting you. Let's be violence free" tee shirt and therefore couldn't possibly be the enemy,
so I would still be here, wouldn't I.
Quite the conundrum!
Maybe he's got his money on the "End of History's Dustbin?"
You know... Where his thesis rests.
Since there is no peace, we have war, but it only came because come because we started this by recognizing Israel.
You're absolutly right, we should just have sat back and watch the arabs wipe them off the face of the earth.
I would direct to Thomas L. Friedmans piece in the NY Times today.
As a large and extinct feline superpredator, there's no great love between me and dogs.
But I rely think you're being a little harsh on the canines with this.
The Arabs weren't doing d*ck with Palestine before the Israelis showed, as is the usual way of most Arab cultures. Then, suddenly, the land was valuable.
The Palestinians could have been settled in another Arab country, but they were just too useful as pawns in the great game of Arabia: "hate somebody else, while I'm raping the country's treasury!", says the Arab ruler.
If Islam is such a benign religion, what's with the dynamiting of ancient Orthodox churches in Kosovo by the devout Muslim drug pushers and white-slavers? And the dynamiting of ancient Buddhist shrines by the Afghan Taliban? And the excavation and destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount?
This crap is deliberate. Some of these jerks are no better than woodchucks in robes with rags wrapped around their heads.
You grossly over-simplify the problem here. What about the Balkans and the muslims killing the Serbs there? What about India and Kashmir? What about Chechnya? What about Indonesia? The Phillipines? Really, just about anywhere Islam in numbers rubs up against other religious groups.
Basically, there are many "Palestines". When do you make a stand and say "no more"?
And our God IS God.....
Exactly, Luis!
BTW, good luck in the playoffs. I'll be rooting for the D'Backs unless they run into the A's.
Too bad about that MVP, though.
Oh, than why do live in America? This country is just full of Isrealites, we have English Isrealites, Irishish Isrealites, Italitan Isrealites, Polish Isrealites, German Isrealites and forgive me if I forgot to mention all Isrealites. And never forget our brother Judah, from which lineage our Christ comes, and they are called Jews.....
Peace be unto Jerusalum and all Isreal. In His Service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.