Huntington’s Arguments on the Clash of Civilizations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Review of Conflict or Cooperation?
If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Huntington’s arguments on the clash of civilizations equal to overly generalized demonstration of the conflict filled agenda of major powers. He¹ argued that ‘inter-civilizational’ concerns had supplanted ‘inter-superpower’ ones, prompting a paradigm change in understanding post-Cold War global politics. Huntington’s thesis¹, known as the clash of civilizations, sought to provide a new representation of international politics. However, it was able to predict the composition of the global affairs to a narrow time period of war on terror.

In his view, ideological and economic differences will not be the primary sources of conflict in the future. In the future, cultural differences will separate people more sharply than any other factor and serve as the primary catalyst for war¹. The conflict of civilizations will dominate the global political scene¹. Future wars will be fought along the fault lines between civilizations. This depiction of reality seems very accurate in consideration of the war on terror and events that followed after 9/11. However, to a major point the international relations became a complex structure the simplification of which provides only rough understanding of reality. Moreover, the separation of the world to civilizations marginalizes significant portion of the world under superfluous labels. The view of Huntington does not account for the fact that instead of focusing on the differences the international community embraced them via intricate system of contracts and dependencies while furthering global development of society.

Review of Conflict or Cooperation?

In his article, Betts presents a synopsis of the many schools of thought on the subject of international relations, with a focus on the concepts of war and peace. Betts investigates intellectual foundations for Francis Fukuyama’s and Samuel Huntington’s narratives². In particular, he explains how the nation-state has emerged as the fundamental basis of the world order and discusses how the notion of sovereignty fits within that framework. He does so by tracing the history of foreign politics within modernity. Many realists argue that states will always behave in their self-interest. Hence, there is no use in overseeing or regulating the international order. Therefore, all attempts at international cooperation will fail. On the other hand, liberals stress the importance of diplomacy and promote international law as a standard by which all nations should abide.

During the height of the Cold War, nation-states’ actions were mostly constrained by their ideological loyalty to the capitalist or socialist bloc. The conflict was controlled within that structure, a simple and predictable international order.² Some countries began unravelling and eventually collapsed after the Soviet Union’s demise, paving the way for the emergence of non-state entities². Betts rejects the name of a realist philosopher, yet many of his views fit well into this school of thought which provide controversial representation of interpretation.

If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World

The argument made in “If Not Civilizations, What?” revitalize the approach towards the review of international affairs from the perspective of the Cold War paradigm as opposed to the civilizations approach introduced by the author. For 40 years, students and professionals in international relations have relied on a very simplified but extremely effective image of global politics to guide their thinking and actions³. Unfortunately, the Cold War paradigm could not adequately explain the developments in international politics³. As a simplistic model of international politics, it was nonetheless superior to its competitors³.

Conclusion

The issue within that statement is that Huntington understands the argument’s narrowed approach. Although given the current predicament of the Russian invasion, it could be reenacted and reapplied concerning modern-day Russia and NATO.

References

Betts, Richard K. 2010. Review of Conflict or Cooperation? Three Visions Revisited, by Francis Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington, and John J. Mearsheimer. Foreign Affairs 89, no. 6: 186–94. Web.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1993a. If Not Civilizations, What? Paradigms of the Post-Cold War World. Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5: 186–94. Web.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1993b. The Clash of Civilizations?Foreign Affairs 72, no. 3: 22–49. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Huntington’s Arguments on the Clash of Civilizations

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)