Huntington - lacklustre and wrong

Even as we witness barbarism in Gaza, it is important not to lose sight of larger forces that justify such behaviour, as well as reflect on key ideological platforms that shape what passes for Western perceptions of peripheral societies.

Samuel P. Huntington, one of the most influential American political scientists in recent memory, passed away on Christmas Eve. While his academic reputation was built on the premise that "the most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government," Huntington will forever be remembered for his "Clash of Civilisations" theory, which dangerously pitted societies against each other.

Given that Huntington displayed keen understandings of what motivated individuals in the developing world, his latter conversion towards, and prognostication of, a "clash" was uncanny to say the least.

In the late 1960s, Huntington recommended that the Johnson administration alter its strategy towards South Vietnam, because it could not simultaneously support Saigon financially while encouraging long-term institutional programmes. The South Vietnamese, argued Huntington, opposed the Viet Cong because they wished to defend their religious and ethnic communities. Washington, on the other hand, sought to create a modern Vietnamese state, rejecting those sources of authority that were considered somewhat primitive. Amazingly, he failed to appreciate that the Vietnamese, both Southerners as well as Northerners, were part of a single nation.

Likewise, in his more recent assessments, the jovial Harvard University professor adopted purely divisive policies, arguing that an "us-vs-them" mentality was inevitable. While there are no direct correlations between such categorisations and President George W. Bush's September 20, 2001 "you are either with us or with the terrorists" declaration, one can see where giddy speechwriters dig for their sound bytes.

Sadly, his theory about a clash reflected far more on Western predispositions to seek supremacy, by pigeonholing people around the world into simple categorisations, which were superficial at best. In fact, the Muslim World was not then, is not now, nor is it likely in the future, set to "clash" with other civilisations, whether Western, Eastern or even those hailing from Jupiter.

If Huntington's "clash of civilisations" grouped the planet into six teams, the theory overlooked the necessity for convergence.

Self-respecting

All societies, much less self-respecting and proud civilisations, seek to minimise differences, engage in dialogue and agree on commonalities that can protect intrinsic interests. It goes against basic survival instincts to assume that one can define a problem, monopolise knowledge, arm oneself to protect national security interests, attack with impunity, and deny basic rights to others. That is the definition of hegemony, which is a historically ephemeral phenomenon, and which is always replaced by a competing power.

Of course, Huntington posited that because many societies failed to meet basic social changes, people often reverted to their oldest and most durable source of security - religion - as a form of solace. Still, in what was his gravest error, Huntington cavalierly replaced Islam with the disappearing ideology that was communism.

In fact, few differences exist over religion provided everyone acknowledges reciprocity, though significant distinctions remain for control and exploitation of natural resources, including land, labour, and capital. To be sure, one can add to this list equally valid supporting arguments, covering a gamut of issues like weapons of mass destruction or even the knowledge to acquire such capabilities, but human history provides ample evidence that most national or even global struggles were bred by basic manipulation instincts.

Past clashes almost always err in assuming that those with military power can deal with the rest of the world with disdain because, somehow, their objective - to create political stability - is imperative and must be accomplished at all costs.

Still, as we are witnessing in Gaza, the problems are not just about Hamas and its struggle with the Palestinian National Authority, but between those who support the idea of a state that applies Westernisation as a source of authority, versus those who cling to land and traditions. This clash of civilisations cannot ignore occupation (for the latter will not go away no matter how often one changes the subject); it cannot ignore injustice (with millions of refugees lingering in disgraceful camps); and it cannot brush over the fate of thousands of prisoners (whose crime it is to oppose acts of violence).

These points were overlooked by Huntington and are seldom raised by Tony Blair, in his capacity as Special Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East [United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations], or French President Nicolas Sarkozy, or even outgoing US President George W. Bush. All have failed in their respective missions, because they all took sides with Israel against Muslims in general, and Palestinians in particular.

It is of course their right to perceive clashes of civilisation the way they see fit, but it is also a shame that Muslims and Arabs fail to publicly object when the likes of Sarkozy resort to vulgar anti-Arab characterisations in the Arab World's premier capital. To avoid clashes, one must stand up to control and exploitation, lest one warrant marginalisation.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.