Disproving Samuel Huntington

[Farnan]

For those who don't know Samuel Huntington came up with the Clash of Civilizations thesis that seems to have some support on TWC. I aim here to show that empircally the Clash of Civilizations thesis is not an accurate view of the world. I will do it by first examing the thesis that wars following the Cold War will be conflicts between competing cultures by examing the wars that have occured in the 20 years since the end of the Cold War in 1989. To create a list of conflicts I am going to use the Correlates of War project till 2007 and include interstate, extrastate, and intrastate wars. If a war was exclusively between competing cultures I will label it Intercultural. If a war was between two or more "sides" that are grouped in the same culture, even if other parties from different cultures get involved on a side, I will label in Intracultural. To be a participant a party must contribute military forces.

Because I am testing Huntington's thesis I will be using his culture set:

Map

List of conflicts since 1989 according to the COW data set:

Fifth Lebanese War of 1989-1990
Second Afghan Mujahideen Uprising of 1989-2001
Third Chad (Deby Coup) War of 1989-1990
First Aceh War of 1989-1991
Bougainville Secession War of 1989-1992
Eighth Colombian War of 1989-present
First Cambodian Civil War of 1989-1991
Romania War of 1989
The First Liberia War of 1989-1990
Gulf War of 1990-1991
Kashmir Insurgents War of 1990-2005
Shiite and Kurdish War of 1991
First Sierra Leone War of 1991-1996
Croatian Independence War of 1991-1992
Second Turkish Kurds War of 1991-1999
First PKK in Iraq of 1991-1992
SPLA Division (Dinka-Nuer) War of 1991-1992
Jukun-Tiv War of 1991-1992
Second Somalia War of 1991-1997
Georgia War of 1991-1992
Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1991-1993
Dniestrian Independence War of 1991-1992
Algerian Islamic Front War of 1992-1999
War of Bosnian Independence of 1992
Tajikistan War of 1992-1997
Bosnian-Serb Rebellion of 1992-1995
Second Liberia War of 1992-1995
Angolan War of Cities of 1992-1994
Second Cambodia Civil War of 1993-1997
Azeri-Armenian War of 1993-1994
Abkhazia Revolt of 1993-1994
Second Burundi War of 1993-1998
South Yemeni Secessionist War of 1994
Second Rwanda War of 1994
First Chechnya War of 1994-1996
Iraqi Kurd Internecine War of 1994-1995
Cenepa Valley War of 1995
Croatia-Krajina War of 1995
Third Liberia War of 1996
Sixth Iraqi Kurds War of 1996
Fifth DRC War of 1996-1997
Third Rwanda War of 1997-1998
Second PKK in Iraq of 1997
First Congo Brazzaville War of 1997
Second Sierra Leone War of 1998-2000
Kosovo Independence War of 1998-1999
Badme Border War of 1998-2000
Guinea-Bissau Military War of 1998-1999
Africa's World War of 1998-2002
Fourth Chad (Togoimi Revolt) War of 1998-2000
Third Angolan War of 1998-2002
Second Congo (Brazzaville) War of 1998-1999
Moluccas Sectarian War of 1999-2000
War for Kosovo of 1999
First Nigeria Christian-Muslim War of 1999-2000
Second Aceh War of 1999-2002
Kargil War of 1999
Oromo Liberation War of 1999
Hema-Lendu War of 1999-2005
Second Chechnya War of 1999-2003
Second Philippine-Moro War of 2000-2001
Guinean War of 2000-2001
Al Aqsa Intifada of 2000-2003
Third Burundi War of 2001-2003
Fourth Rwanda War of 2001
Invasion of Afghanistan of 2001
First Nepal Maoist Insurgency of 2001-2003
Afghan Resistance of 2001-present
Fourth Liberia War of 2002-2003
Ethiopian Anyuaa-Nuer War of 2002-2003
Cote d'Ivoire Military War of 2002-2004
Third Philippine-Moro War of 2003
Darfur War of 2003-2006
Invasion of Iraq of 2003
Iraqi Resistance of 2003-present
Third Aceh War of 2003-2004
Second Nepal Maoists War of 2003-2006
Waziristan War of 2004-2006
Second Nigeria Christian-Muslim War of 2004
First Yemeni Cleric War of 2004-2005
Philippine Joint Offensive of 2005-2006
Fifth Chad War of 2005-2006
Third Somalia War of 2006-2008
Second Sri Lanka Tamil War of 2006-present
Second Yemeni Cleric War of 2007

Source: http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%...arList_NEW.pdf

[Mightypeon]

I am highly critical of Huntington myself, especially concerning his invention of a unified western culture group, and his overemphasis on religion. A couple of states would, in my opinion, clearly belong to multiple culture groups at once.
My favorite example regarding this is: Who is more alike, an Italian and a Greek or a Russian and a Greek?
Vietnam and South Korea "Sinic"? Did he actually told this idea to any South Korean or Vietnamese? ;D
One can make an arbitrary number of other examples like this.
I also believe that large scale conflicts will be initiated by those states which have the possiblity, the will and the means to do so. These states tend to be the strongest in their respective neighbourhoods, meaning the surrounding states will align themselfs with them, however, if a surrounding state is strong enough, it will attempt to do whatever it wants.
The only exception is the US, which due to its global power projection, is capable of making countries align themselfs around the US that are quite distant from the US geographically.
As soon as US power falters (by miliatry failures) or becomes unatractive (by either too much or not enough isolationism) to follow, the French-German tandem will go its own way, the "Islam" world is even less homogenous than the "western" one, and we will likely see a three way split between Indonesian, Persian/Pakistani and Arab influences, as soon as suitable "leaders" emerge.

[Farnan]

The Islamic grouping is very very hetereogenous. Putting Indonesians, Mayasians, Maghrebians, Persians, Pakistanis and Arabs together is just insane. Still I'm going to use his coding for the sake of argument.

I'm going to start coding the easy ones (the ones I know off hand) as soon as I get back from buying myself some groceries so I don't starve.

[Farnan]

Intraculture

Second Afghan Mujahideen Uprising of 1989-2001 First Aceh War of 1989-1991 Eighth Colombian War of 1989-present First Cambodian Civil War of 1989-1991 Romania War of 1989 The First Liberia War of 1989-1990 Gulf War of 1990-1991 Shiite and Kurdish War of 1991 First Sierra Leone War of 1991-1996 Second Turkish Kurds War of 1991-1999 First PKK in Iraq of 1991-1992 Second Somalia War of 1991-1997 Georgia War of 1991-1992 Algerian Islamic Front War of 1992-1999 War of Bosnian Independence of 1992 Bosnian-Serb Rebellion of 1992-1995 Second Liberia War of 1992-1995 Angolan War of Cities of 1992-1994 Second Cambodia Civil War of 1993-1997 Abkhazia Revolt of 1993-1994 South Yemeni Secessionist War of 1994 Second Rwanda War of 1994 First Chechnya War of 1994-1996 Iraqi Kurd Internecine War of 1994-1995 Croatia-Krajina War of 1995 Third Liberia War of 1996 Sixth Iraqi Kurds War of 1996 Fifth DRC War of 1996-1997 Third Rwanda War of 1997-1998 Second PKK in Iraq of 1997 First Congo Brazzaville War of 1997 Second Sierra Leone War of 1998-2000 Third Angolan War of 1998-2002 Second Congo (Brazzaville) War of 1998-1999 Second Aceh War of 1999-2002 Second Chechnya War of 1999-2003 Fourth Rwanda War of 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan of 2001 First Nepal Maoist Insurgency of 2001-2003 Afghan Resistance of 2001-present Fourth Liberia War of 2002-2003 Ethiopian Anyuaa-Nuer War of 2002-2003 Invasion of Iraq of 2003 Iraqi Resistance of 2003-present Third Aceh War of 2003-2004 Second Nepal Maoists War of 2003-2006 Waziristan War of 2004-2006 First Yemeni Cleric War of 2004-2005 Third Somalia War of 2006-2008 Second Yemeni Cleric War of 2007 Fifth Lebanese War of 1989-1990 Third Chad (Deby Coup) War of 1989-1990 Bougainville Secession War of 1989-1992 Dniestrian Independence War of 1991-1992 Tajikistan War of 1992-1997 Second Burundi War of 1993-1998 Cenepa Valley War of 1995 Guinea-Bissau Military War of 1998-1999 Africa's World War of 1998-2002 Fourth Chad (Togoimi Revolt) War of 1998-2000 Moluccas Sectarian War of 1999-2000 Oromo Liberation War of 1999 Hema-Lendu War of 1999-2005 Guinean War of 2000-2001 Third Burundi War of 2001-2003 Cote d'Ivoire Military War of 2002-2004 Fifth Chad War of 2005-2006 Second Sri Lanka Tamil War of 2006-present

Interculture

Croatian Independence War of 1991-1992 Kashmir Insurgents War of 1990-2005 Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1991-1993 Azeri-Armenian War of 1993-1994 Kosovo Independence War of 1998-1999 War for Kosovo of 1999 First Nigeria Christian-Muslim War of 1999-2000 Kargil War of 1999 Al Aqsa Intifada of 2000-2003 Third Philippine-Moro War of 2003 Darfur War of 2003-2006 Second Nigeria Christian-Muslim War of 2004 Philippine Joint Offensive of 2005-2006 SPLA Division (Dinka-Nuer) War of 1991-1992 Jukun-Tiv War of 1991-1992 Badme Border War of 1998-2000

Questions, comments so far?

[Big War Bird]

For those who don't know Samuel Huntington came up with the Clash of Civilizations thesis that seems to have some support on TWC. I aim here to show that empircally the Clash of Civilizations thesis is not an accurate view of the world. I will do it by first examing the thesis that wars following the Cold War will be conflicts between competing cultures by examing the wars that have occured in the 20 years since the end of the Cold War in 1989. To create a list of conflicts I am going to use the Correlates of War project till 2007 and include interstate, extrastate, and intrastate wars. If a war was exclusively between competing cultures I will label it Intercultural. If a war was between two or more "sides" that are grouped in the same culture, even if other parties from different cultures get involved on a side, I will label in Intracultural. To be a participant a party must contribute military forces.

The Clash of Civilization Paradigm isn't about war, it is about foreign policy and identity on the grandest scales. If you think counting wars disproves or proves anything you on a fool's errand.

[Farnan]

The Clash of Civilization Paradigm isn't about war, it is about foreign policy.

No its about war.

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.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-civilizations

Huntington was not talking about low politics here.

In most International Politics schools, including the one that Huntington belonged too, War is the most important aspect of foreign policy.

[Mightypeon]

Hmm,
how did the 2003 invasion of Irak end up as Intraculture, Typo?
One could make quite a point that the whole Balkan affair was a "Western" move to claim "Orthodox" Serbia as theirs, I am not 100% sure about which of these wars had "westerners inteverning" and which not so much.
I also think that the Slovenian independence war is missing.

[Farnan]

Hmm,
how did the 2003 invasion of Irak end up as Intraculture, Typo?

Glad you brought that one up. As I said, to be labeled as intercultural all "sides" must consist of members of different cultures. If members of the same culture were on multiple "sides" it counted as intracultural. Although it wasn't shown much in the news thousands of Kurds (who are part of Huntington's Islamic Civilization) fought alongside US Special Forces against the Iraqi Army forming a Northern Front. Should culture be the aspect war is about then the Kurds should not have sided against their fellows in the Islamic Culture.

One could make quite a point that the whole Balkan affair was a "Western" move to claim "Orthodox" Serbia as theirs, I am not 100% sure about which of these wars had "westerners inteverning" and which not so much.

Most of them are labeled intercultural. However Huntington considers the Bosniaks to belong to the Orthodox Culture and I'm using his coding. Also, due to my coding Great Power intervention in an intracultural role does not change the coding (as again this doesn't follow Huntington's logic).

I also think that the Slovenian independence war is missing.

The COW project only includes wars in which there are 1,000 deaths of combatants.

[Big War Bird]

Conflicts covers a greater range of disagreement below the level of war. In 2008 South American countries created the Union of South American Nations which is working on all sorts of intergration issues, from trade to defense. We have the EU which is becoming a superstate.

And do we forget the regular outbursts from the "Islamic world" whenever someone danes makes fun with their prophet? You are missing the forest for the trees.

And you are setting up a straw man.

If you would bother reading even the preface to the book you would read, "The test of its meaingfulness and its usefulness is not whether it accounts for everything that is happening in global politics. Obviously it does not. The test is whether it provides a more meaningful and useful lens which to view international developments than any alternative paradigm."

[Farnan]

Only an idiot can turn the word "conflict" to exclusively mean "war." Conflicts covers a greater range of disagreement below the level of war. In 2008 South Aermican countries created the Union of South American Nations which is working on all sorts of intergration issues, from intergration to defense. We have the EU which is becoming a superstate.

And do we forget the regular outbursts from the "Islamic world" whenever a some danes makes fun with their prophet? You are missing the forest for the trees.

Ummm...

Do you know anything about international relations theories at all?

At all?

Huntington suggest that America should respond to the imminent clash of civilization by maintaining the technological superiority, enhancing Western unity, controlling immigrations to preserve and reify civilization homogeneity, denouncing multiculturalism as it will weaken the 'American creed', exclude Turkey and Greece from NATO, and aligning with Japan, Latin America and Russia against a potential Sinic/Islamic coalition (Huntington 1996:46-7). He argues that ‘Multiculturalism at home threatens the US and the West; universalism abroad threatens the West and the world. Both deny the uniqueness of Western culture (Huntington 1996:318). He also warns that the Western universalism is dangerous to the world as it could lead to a major inter-civilization war between core states and it is dangerous to the West because it could lead to defeat of the West (Huntington 1996:311).

http://eresearch.yolasite.com/clash-...f-interest.php

As you can see from this advice he wasn't concerned with trade disputes.

Also look at the life of Huntington, he was a security guy.

Further I'm using the same method as the many who have wrote about this theory. Oh yea, and Huntington replied to his criticism by basically saying his theory was his opinion thus facts don't matter.

[Big War Bird]

Ummm...

Do you know anything about international relations theories at all?

Very little, but I dare say I understand the topic better than you.

As you can see from this advice he wasn't concerned with trade disputes.

Also look at the life of Huntington, he was a security guy.

So you say but his text says otherwise. He devotes considerable time to economic and demographic components of civilizations.

Keep it up Farnan. Too busy atm to read through but this guy's worth a lol. In the words of my Poli Sci professor: "Samuel Huntington was...well....an ."

Now who can argue with that wisdom?

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Keep it up Farnan. Too busy atm to read through but this guy's worth a lol. In the words of my Poli Sci professor: "Samuel Huntington was...well....an ."

[Farnan]

If you understood international relations you would know conflict = war, fighting. Dispute refers to trade or diplomatic scuffles (or small military fights).

And Clash of Civilizations is a theory not a paradigm, showing again you don't know what you are talking about.

[Babur]

If you understood international relations you would know conflict = war, fighting. Dispute refers to trade or diplomatic scuffles (or small military fights).

And Clash of Civilizations is a theory not a paradigm, showing again you don't know what you are talking about.

he sounds like a (neo-?)realist since he really seems to emphasise anarchy in the international system

[Farnan]

he sounds like a (neo-?)realist since he really seems to emphasise anarchy in the international system

No, he is a culturalist.

Realists don't believe a state's internal matters matter.

And Haakon: Umm, I don't grasp the concept because it doesn't exist in reality.

And Louis: Many Arabs hate Iranians and vice versa. Including Shi'ite Arabs, this dates back centuries. A good amount of Egyptians look down on Arabs, and Arabs consider Egyptians Arab. Pashto, Tajik and Uzbeks fight for influence far more than they ally, and Punjabis look down on Pashto. Indonesians and Malaysians are not the best of friends, and have fought wars. The Islamic world is far more divided than CNN wants you to believe

[Babur]

No, he is a culturalist.

Realists don't believe a state's internal matters matter.

ah thanks for correcting me man

well that sounds quite constructivist though since they argue that state's interests ultimately derive from how they perceive themselves i.e. identity.

[Haakon]

And Haakon: Umm, I don't grasp the concept because it doesn't exist in reality.

Of course it does. It existed when the barbary states and the Ottoman empire captured about a million europeans to serve as slaves, and it exists now as peole in the middle eath pray for death on westerners because of a few satirical cartoons.

[Big War Bird]

If you understood international relations you would know conflict = war, fighting. Dispute refers to trade or diplomatic scuffles (or small military fights).

And Clash of Civilizations is a theory not a paradigm, showing again you don't know what you are talking about.

Again we need to go no further than the preface of Clash of Civilizations.

This book is not intended to be work of social science. It is instead meant to be an interpretation of the evolution of global politics after the Cold War. It aspires to present a frameword, a paradigm, for viewing global politics that will be meaningful to scholars and useful to policymakers."

I'm beginning to think you haven't read the source material.

And any mildly intelligent adult should see a serious flaw in "coding" that puts on equal footing a civil war in Sierra Leone with NATO's invasion of Afghanistan in importance in global politics.

[Farnan]

Again we need to go no further than the preface of Clash of Civilizations.

This book is not intended to be work of social science. It is instead meant to be an interpretation of the evolution of global politics after the Cold War. It aspires to present a frameword, a paradigm, for viewing global politics that will be meaningful to scholars and useful to policymakers."

I'm beginning to think you haven't read the source material.

And any mildly intelligent adult should see a serious flaw in "coding" that puts on equal footing a civil war in Sierra Leone with NATO's invasion of Afghanistan in importance in global politics.

I have come to the conclusion you know nothing about studying empirically or IR...

And the study of it proves it is not useful.

[Big War Bird]

I have come to the conclusion you know nothing about studying empirically or IR...

And the study of it proves it is not useful.

So you do think civil war in Sierra Leone is as important as the war in Afghanistan? Do you seriously think that the intelligence services of UN Security Council members were at a lost to decide which to devote more resources to, the Nepalese Civil War or the insurgency in Iraq? (Granted China and India should be concerned.)

Nevermind that in Clash Huntington states, "Trabal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur withing civilizations." (p. 28) And he goes on to site examples of ongoing conflicts at the time. So your evidence doesn't prove much since he does not say those 68 wars you cite should not have happened. Now if a territorial dispute say, between Germany and Poland results in all out war between the two then I will agree with that the Clash model/theory/framework/paradigm is no longer applicable.

What really worries Huntington are wars that occur on the fault lines of civilizations. Those are the ones that can get out of hand, like the Balkans, where Russians were supporting Serbs and Islamic states were sending money to the Bosnians. Or most famously 19 Islamist flying a plane into a few buildings. Now that one has cost a pretty penny hasn't it?