THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

THEME
It is generally agreed that conflicts are endemic to and inherent in human nature, recorded history bears evidence to this fact, as conflict in human history has persisted as a historical constant. However in the past tribes and societies clashed owing to a range of reasons, but since the time that states had established themselves as predominant actors in the international system, conflicts between them have increasingly occurred due to the clash of National interests. Despite this fact many in the west perceived the cold war era as a clash between contending ideologies rather than states or of USSR, the age of clashes between ideologies has terminated. Samuel P. Huntington belonging to a similar school of thought has advanced the thesis that the clash in future will occur primarily between the major contemporary civilizations and not the states. The thesis in not only provocative but has dangerous dimensions for nation states like Pakistan which is entrapped between major civilizations. It therefore merits an in depth analysis to ascertain its veracity and ramification.
SUB THEME
The clashes amongst various nations at the world arena occur in the pursuance of their respective national interests rather than their civilization imperatives.
ABSTRACT OF CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
Neither civilization nor culture has become the “fundamental source of conflict. All the major religions of the world give a very high status to man. All the world religions teach that there is only one ultimate reality, which we call God. All of the world religions make absolute claims to truth. War, unrest and disharmony are loathed by all the religions” May it be World Wars, Iran- Iraq War, Gulf War and America-Afghan War. Nation states have been fighting for their political, ideological and territorial interests. There have been conflicts among different as well as same civilizations. In the future also, there will be conflicts on the basis of national interests and not on the lines of civilizations. Yes, there will be a degree of moral and political support for the kin civilization but one nation will not align with another nation without having a national interest. In the recent American- Afghan War we saw American’s destroying everything that came in their way; but there was no substantial reaction from the Muslim Ummah. However, if the attitude of the United Nations and USA do not change towards Muslims there can be a possibility of a clash between the Muslim and the Western civilizations.
Introduction
1. The 20th Century ended with the triumph of capitalism over communism. It was claimed that man’s ideological evolution had come to an end with the collapse of Marxism and the ultimate victory of western liberal democratic capitalist system as the ultimate form of human government. Most of the 20th century remained trapped in misery, chaos, pain and suffering.
2. The new millennium has set in with new hopes and horizons. But the suffering of mankind has still no end in sight. The reasons for this gloomy scenario can be attributed to the prevalent master paradigm in international relations, which is based on the discourse of power, which plunged mankind into the two World Wars. It was the blatant show of might in the guise of ideology, which brought humanity to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. Though the west emerged victorious in this ideological battle, yet to retain its hold on its might, required a search for another enemy. This search led the West to evolve a new and novel paradigm in the shape of ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Samuel Huntington’s thesis projected culture as the fundamental source of future conflicts. According to him, nation states will continue to play a crucial role in international relations but civilizational forces will increasingly overshadow the former.
3. This is not a world where the writ of civilizations runs. Civilizations and civilizational fidelities remain. There is to them an astonishing measure of permanence. But let us be clear, civilizations do not control states, states control civilizations. States avert their gaze from blood ties when they need to; they see brotherhood and faith and kin when it is in their interest to do so. This becomes evident from the Iran- Iraq war, Kuwait’s invasion by Iraq and then Muslim stand against America’s war against Afghanistan. We remain in the world of self help. The solitude of states continues; the disorder in the contemporary world has rendered that solitude more pronounced.
Aim
4. To evaluate whether nations fight for their national interests or civilizational imperatives.
Scope
5. The paper has been developed in following parts:-
a. Is the clash of civilizations is inevitable?
b. The world order and reasons of conflict.
c. Analysis and recommendations.
PART I
IS THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS INEVITABLE
6. General. According to Huntington, ‘differences among civilizations are not only real, they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and most importantly from religion. Differences over religious beliefs and practices are natural, but it would be an exaggeration to label them as fundamental and basic irreconcilable factors leading to clashes. As a matter of fact, different religions emerged out of specific traditions within particular backgrounds. Therefore, differences are inherent to that process. The need of religion arises wholly within the human consciousness and, “Human beings have to face certain common problems in the world and because people of different religions share certain common feelings, ideas and sentiments, therefore, there are bound to be certain similarities”.
a. Commonalities among Civilizations. If commonalities and differences among major religions of the world are inherent and natural, then a comparative study of this aspect becomes an imperative to gauge whether there is a divisive or a bridgeable gulf among the various clashing civilizations of the world:-
(1) First is the concept of God as viewed by the five major religions of the world i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. There is general agreement amongst all these religions; most of them either strictly or loosely believe in only one supreme power, all knowing creator, God.
(2) All the religions firmly believe that the world has been created by God and is subject to destruction by Him, at any time in future.
(3) Then we take on the concept of Man as viewed by these religions. All the major religions of the world give a very high status to man. Since Buddhism does not believe in God in its traditional sense, therefore man becomes the highest being, capable of attaining ‘Godhood’ by himself.
(4) Evil and suffering is a burning fact of life. While the world religions accept that evil and suffering have been allowed by God for some good inherent purpose, their essential details differ with each religion.
b. Differences among Civilizations. One of the most puzzling questions of our age is how to account for the great number and diversity of world religions and at the same time, to acknowledge their similarities is also one of the most challenging social issues confronting humanity. Disputes and disagreements over religious beliefs have been and continue to be one of the main sources of conflict, civil war, terrorism and even genocide in the modern world. As the noted theologian Hans Küng has said: “There will be no peace among the peoples of the world without peace among the world religions.” The fact that religion appears in such colorful variety that there is not one single religion but a plurality; has always been a source of irritation for people. Dr. Schaefer writes, “Religions are in many ways similar, and yet they are so different; there is much which unites them, but also much which divides them. This is indeed irritating. All the world religions teach that there is only one ultimate reality, which we call God. If that is so, there can logically be, only one truth: But, if there is only one truth, why are there so many religions?”
All of the world religions make absolute claims to truth. Each is convinced that it possesses a divine message brought by its founder which to them is ‘the way, the truth and the life.’ The problem with this attitude is that it too often leads to intolerance. “This claim to exclusivity and superiority, in which one’s own religion is regarded as a priority better than others easily slips into fanaticism”.
7. The Concept of State and Interstate Relations. All the religions outline a political order framed for the welfare of its followers and aspire for universal brotherhood and international peace. War, unrest and disharmony are loathed by all the religions. Although these world religions follow different practices to assert their viewpoints regarding state and inter state relations, yet they happen to arrive at similar conclusions.
a. Hindu Concept. The kings of Hindu era who generally belonged to the Kshtriya caste were thought to be divinely appointed and ruled by the ‘grace of the gods’ and it was the divine law of Dharma(righteousness) not the legislative law of men which the king was to obey. The existence of the state was primarily dependent on two factors; Danda and Dharma the social order, that is, the preservation of the caste structure. Even Rama the ‘ideal ruler’ of the ideal state of Ramraj ruled according to the Dharma. The principal method by which a king was to extend his dominions and govern his own kingdom were called upayas. These were: conciliation/ negotiation (Sama), giving presents/bribes (Dana), causing/sowing dissension among foes (bheda) and war or punishment (danda) .
b. Buddha Concept. Buddhist views about the state are almost similar to Hinduism because of their common origins. The roots of political thoughts in Buddhism can be found in ancient India, but the real development of Buddhism occurred in sixth to third century B.C, when the Mauryan Empire dominated the sub-continent. The third ruler of the empire, King Ashoka, who acceded to power in 270 B. C. Ashoka attempted to establish a ‘true dharma’ in his realm based on the virtues of self-control, impartiality, cheerfulness, truthfulness and goodness. Though he did not found a state church, he did attempt to make for the state a church that would include Hindus, Janis and Buddhist alike. His aim was to create a religious and social milieu that would enable the ‘children of the king’ to live happily and attain heaven in the next live. A system of dharma officers was set up to provide for the empire magistrates, district attorneys, preachers, bureaucrats, social workers and spies.
c. Christian Concept. Christianity has developed two schools of thoughts in defining state and interstate relations. The first is the Augustinian Tradition, which had a major influence upon the 12th and 13th centuries. The second is Thomas Aquinas, who influenced the Roman Catholics thinking on the concept of the state, which prevails to the present. St. Augustine asserts man is a passionate being and creature driven by love. The instrument of reason does not transcend the special love, which the self has for its own interest. Reason projects self-interest as a universal claim, but it is love that rules. However, Augustine holds the view that the love that wins is in fact the ‘disorderly love’ which seeks to advance the self at the expense of all others. It is the common love that binds a group of people together into a community or a society. For instance, Augustine states that it was the ‘common love of glory’ of ‘love to dominate ‘that bounds the Roman together into a like-minded community. St. Aquinas’ thoughts are in a sharp contrast to that of Augustine’s. He asserts that state provides us with common things, and by virtue of which we transcend our immediacy and carry on the common concourse of life. He says that self interest, if perceived accurately, leads not to selfishness but to the ‘common good’ and the public order. The modern Christian community still derives inspiration both from Augustine’s realism and Aquinas’ optimism. The policy makers of the West have transformed self-interest into the new realism of national interest. The West has also come to realize that the world in which they live today has become transnational and Aquinas’ ‘common good’ theory has a universal appeal and applicability.
d. Judah Concept. Judaism approaches the concept of the state and universal brotherhood in a cautious manner. The Judaic political philosophy recognizes the indispensability of the state, but at the same time admits the dangers inherent in it. As stated by a commentator, in Judaism; the state in indispensable, otherwise the threat of internal chaos and defenseless resistance to aggression will overwhelm the people. Therefore, the state is a defense against sin in the social order. But the state also becomes a vehicle of sin when: The necessity of the nation state does put into power groups of people over other people. The wielders of power face the constant temptation of increasing their power at the expense of others. J Pedersen, a political observer on Jewish statehood writes, ‘when we see a soul we always see a community rising behind it’. But, Judaism sees the universal brotherhood as too idealist to be achieved perfectly in this imperfect world. It fears that pursuance of this lofty ideal can lead to uncontrollable destruction. Therefore, Judaism finds a middle ground by floating the notion of ‘Berith’ or a covenant. A Berith is a mutual agreement in which two or more existence. Judaism sees little prospects for a perfect universal brotherhood. It stresses a partial unity instead.
e. Islamic Concept. The universal brotherhood envisaged by Islam breaks all ethnic bonds, territorial affiliations and national boundaries. The Quran asserts: ‘O Human, We have created you of a single pair and constituted you into tribes and nations that you may identify one another. Nobler in the eye of Allah is the more righteous’. (49:13) Nations and tribes are not meant to divide human beings; they are only for the identification purposes. Islam embraces a universal community under one single arch of Ummah. The Islamic state is an expanding world. Ummah designed eventually to include humanity as its citizens. The communities, which constitute the world Ummah, were to co-exist in peace. It is a kind of United Nations, to preserve peace and with respect and concern for the spiritual identity of the members. It is the expression of Islamic humanism. Islam’s political order rests on the fulfillment of Allah’s commandments so that an ordered society is established. The State, therefore, is the focus of Uammatic activity. The State is the mobiliser and organizer of collective human energy, towards achieving the desired goal of peace and tranquility. The world order that Islam envisages, therefore, is an order of peace where no ethnic group, or a nation, would be at odds with another. Humanity continues to be arranged in continents, provinces and ethnic groups, but under the concept of universal brotherhood, none would have the God-given right to commit aggression upon another. Such a socio-political order is to be maintained not by the whims of statesmen, or by any bill of legislation, but by what Allah has ordained. The first Islamic State, established in 7th century A.D. at Medina, where the Jews and Muslims lived side by side, was the true implementation of the Divine Laws.
PART II
WORLD ORDER AND REASONS OF CONFLICTS8. General. During the Cold War, the people, in general believed that the conflict between the two super powers will end up in favour of humanity; the world will become more peaceful to live, economically more prosperous, politically more democratic and , overall , a more free world. The West, more so the US, tried to claim similar intentions under the guise of New World Order (NWO). But the event has proved otherwise. The end of Cold War and events to date are contrary to the hopes and gains. After the demise of Russia there exist a unipolar World, in which America has emerged as sole super power and there is no disagreement on that in the intellectual and political spheres.
a. Present World Order. With the end of the Cold War, the US President George Bush, in early 1990, came out with a fresh call for a new world order. Iraq’s disastrous attack on Kuwait and the US led Gulf War were used as the harbinger of the alleged new world order. It was claimed that “no aggressor would, in future, be allowed to go unpunished”; that “international boundaries would not be allowed to be changed arbitrarily”; that “it would be ensured that any violation of human rights is brought to an end” without the constraints of national boundaries; and that “the United Nations would play a new role as the peace keeper of the world”. With the establishment of these principles, it was suggested that humanity is bound to enter in to a new era of cooperation and security.
(1) Faulty Birth of World Order. It is basically, like an illegitimate child because it took its birth from the use of brutal force against Iraq. Other responsible countries in the region were neither given a chance nor the right to solve their problems. It is perceived that events were preplanned. Such perceptions can conveniently be supported by the measures like providing full support to Iraq against Iran, encouraging Iraq to attack Kuwait and moving the forces to the Gulf Region even before the start of the invasion. Thus the principles projected on the birth of New World Order(NWO), obviously, become doubtful.
(2) Self Defeating Definition of Claimed Principles. Since the West has its own definition, therefore, the claimed principles of NWO have become mere rhetoric. The definition of “aggressor” has been confused and the “occupation forces” have changed their style. The “international boundaries” have been tampered with and are being continuously threatened. The “human rights” violations are being treated discriminately. United Nations is playing the role of “peacekeeper” as the West wants. In short, because of self-suiting definitions, the goodwill has also been defeated due to violation of the claimed principles by those who set forth these principles.
(3) 20th Century Claims for World Order. After the First World War, the American President, Woodrow Wilson, tried to break some fresh air into the debate on the future world order and came out with a dream of a world, ruled by principles and universally accepted values. Wilson’s world order could neither prevent wars nor polarization. The world was split politically to the extent that it saw another world war, just after two decades. At the end of the Second World War, new hopes were nurtured, once again. The UN was founded, and prospects of a new era were trumpeted. Very soon, these hopes were shattered as well, and humans entered into an era of a disastrous Cold War, stretched over four decades. This time, the world ended up with deep divisions of all kinds: political, economic, social, cultural, religious, ideological etcetera. Military, the world is busy in the mad race of nuclearization, engulfing even the poorest countries of the globe. Economically, the world is heading to a great disorder. Seeing this World Order, purely from the point of view of history, it is visible that:-
(a) Firstly, it is again an American brand world order.
(b) Secondly, it genuinely lacks sincerity of purpose and goodwill.
(c) Thirdly, events to date have proven otherwise.
(1) To Date Progress. A summary of events contrary to the proclaimed principles of NWO that no aggressor, in future, would go unpunished; that international boundaries would not be allowed to be changed arbitrarily; that no violation of human rights be let: that the UN would play a peacekeeper’s role, is given as under:-
(a) Continuing attack on Iraq against the wishes of world community and the UN Charter.
(b) Threatening the sovereignty of nations through missile attacks and the threats therein.
(c) Violating air space of countries like Pakistan and Iran during attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq respectively.
(d) Israel and India continue to be allowed to violate NWO.
(e) Ever increasing hypocrisy in establishing standards against human rights violations.
(f) Dual policy on the issue of nuclearization and non nuclearization and resultant threats to the third world countries.
(g) Ever increasing civil wars and pumping up of the prejudice openly, as this suit to the West.
(h) Creation of economic crises in third world countries and the doubtful roles of World Bank, IMF and WTO.
(i) Degeneration and irrelevance of the UN rules, leading to the abuse of its charter.
(j) Allowing and practicing dual standards for acts of terrorism.
(k) Mixing terrorism with freedom struggles.
(l) Taking action against only Muslim terrorists and projecting Islam as religion encouraging use of violent force.
(5) Impact on Islamic World
(a) In spite of the fact that Muslims constitute over one fifth of the humanity, yet Islam remains the most misunderstood religion in the West. The bogey of Islamic fundamentalism, therefore, is perceived to be the next threat to the West as visualized by Huntington.
(b) In the past, Muslims have suffered at the hands of the Western colonial powers. The Islamic world, therefore, perceives to be threatened by the new style of colonization reflected in the unfolding of the NWO.
9. The Changing World Order
a. European Union is Strengthening itself. United States and its Cold War allies no longer have a shared view of the world and its dangers. The war against terrorism has opened this breach. None of America’s friends and allies is against a war against terrorism, but it has failed to provide an explanation of how this war is to be conducted, an explanation that convinces or reassures them that Washington understands the risks of what it is doing. George W. Bush has said that this is a war against evil, which makes European and others uncomfortable. By definition, a war against evil is unlimited and interminable. Moreover, European Union has introduced Euro and has a different perception about the world affairs as compared to America. It has all the potentials to part ways with America and makes another bloc.
b. Asia Pacific may emerge as another Power. What Huntington fears and is hoped by the world, that Asia Pacific region will emerge as a global power to thwart American and Western dominance. Particularly Chinese are excelling in every field except Militarization at the moment to make themselves strong and they have resolved most of their problems with their neighbours peacefully. Huntington also fears Confucian civilization to be a danger for the West for the reasons that they have growing relations with the Muslims.
10. Reasons of Recent Conflicts
a. Iran Iraq War. The Iran-Iraq War permanently altered the course of Iraqi history. It strained Iraqi political and social life, and led to severe economic dislocations. The problem in the area escalated when the Iraqi Kurds rebelled against the government. Their stand was supported by the Iranians, which eventually led to the Iraqis accepting new peace talks in 1975. In that, the waterway of Shatt al Arab was split down the middle, giving each country an even share. Saddam Hussein, despite having made significant strides in forging an Iraqi nation-state, feared that Iran’s new revolutionary leadership would threaten Iraq’s delicate Sunni-Shia balance .(About 55% of Iraq’s population was Shia) and would exploit Iraq’s geo-strategic vulnerabilities–Iraq’s minimal access to the Persian Gulf, for example. In this respect, Saddam Hussein’s decision to invade Iran has historical precedent. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state.
b. The Gulf War. There were events from 1970s to 1980s that would prompt the invasion, and one of the most significant was the Iran-Iraq War. There were five other reasons for Iraq’s decision to invade Kuwait, which are as under:-
(1) Iraq could not repay the $80 billion that had been borrowed to finance the Iran- Iraq War.
(2) Kuwait’s decision, not to forgive Iraq’s $80 billion debt provided economic and emotional justification for the Iraqi invasion.
(3) The Kuwaitis were incredibly rich and had huge investments abroad. Access to this wealth could resolve Iraq’s financial problems.
(4) Yet another reason was alleged Kuwaiti oil drilling in the Rumaila oil field, which lay in disputed territory.
(5) Kuwaiti overproduction of oil. Gulf revenues were depressed as a result of an oil glut on the spot market in the late 1980s, and on 17July1990, Saddam threatened to use force as retribution for Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates had cost Iraq $14 billion in oil revenue.
c. American Afghan War. These were not merely two towers which led to the unlimited war. There was much more to this end and that was, to have an access to oil reserves of Central Asian States and reduce the dominance of China, by having strong military forces in the region. Another aim of American’s was, to have a strong check on the rising militancy in the Muslim world by curbing the few militant organizations and warning the others to refrain from it. Moreover, America wanted to reiterate its dominance by exponential show of its military advancements.
PART III
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11. General. The end of the Cold War has indeed brought a new phase in world politics, yet its impact is not unidirectional. The tense confrontation between the two armed camps has disappeared and in this sense ideological conflict seems to have come to an end, for the moment. But, conflict of economic and political interests are becoming more and more common among the major nations of the world. Neither civilization nor culture has become, “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world.” The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany may no longer exist, but the economic, social and political factors that led to their emergence still do. The Cold War has ended, but hot Wars rage in more than thirty countries and regions. We can hardly say this phenomena result from conflict between different civilizations.
a. The logic of history. It is evident from the history of the world and preceding discussion that the conflicts always erupted due to differences among nations on issues ranging from political to ideological and even religious. But history is also witness to the fact that there have been conflicts between civilizations and within civilizations. The driving force being the national interests behind these conflicts. May it be World Wars, Iran- Iraq War, Gulf War or America-Afghan War, in all these conflicts the overriding factor was Nation and not the civilization.
b. The Blind Future. There have been conflicts on religious as well as on political and ideological basis. Nation states have been fighting for their political, ideological and territorial interests. Conflicts have been among different as well as intra civilizations (i.e. Iran-Iraq war, Gulf war, America’s war with Afghanistan and Muslim stand towards the American war). It can safely be assumed, that in the future also, there will be conflicts on the basis of national interests and not on the lines of civilizations. Yes, there will be a degree of moral and political support for the kin civilizations but one nation will not jump into the war of another nation without having any national interest. The present anti terrorism war mainly led by USA is aimed at eliminating terrorism alone; however its manifestation does not bear the testimony of its definition. If it were to root out terrorism alone, then it should not have encouraged undeclared Muslim genocide. It may be relevant to fear, that if the present drive against terrorism continues unabated, Muslims would be pushed against the wall to the last extremity. Such a scenario where the interests of the individual nation states are likely to be compromised on one pretext or the other, there might be a situation wherein individual nations for their survival may group on the basis of civilization to fight their way through.
12. Who will fight future war and why? Huntington would have nations battled for market shares rather than civilizational ties and faithfulness. To learn how to compete in a merciless world economy, provide jobs, and move out of poverty. It is hard to think of Russia, ravaged as it is by inflation, taking up the grand cause of the bearer of the Orthodox-Slavic Torch. And, where is the Confucian world Huntington speaks of? In the busy and booming lands of the Pacific Rim, so much of politics and ideology has been subjugated into finance that the nations of East Asia have turned into absolute workshops. The civilization of Cathay is dead; the Indonesian inhabitants are deaf to the call of the religious radicals in Tehran as it tries to catch up with Malaysia and Singapore. A different wind blows in the lands of the Pacific. In the world economics, not politics is in command.
13. Recommendations. Above study reveals that nation states pursue their national interests as their prime objectives, where as civilizational aspects seem secondary. Nation states are fully legitimatized to have their respective national interests, nevertheless it is important to manifest legitimacy in pursuance of interests. Needless to say that conflicts and problems emanate when a nation state pursues its interests at the cost or by undermining the contemporary opponent to a definite or indefinite limit. The suffering of the human beings, increasing hatred and intolerance, economic disparity, discrimination and violation of basic human rights is attributable to the misdeeds of the key global players. Present world of distrust and fear can become a world of peace and harmony provided interests of other nation states not undermined and all contentious issues/conflicts are resolved with justice and fair play by the global players of the day. In the light of above study following recommendations are proffered:-
a. Role of United Nations. United Nations must play a role for which it was established; particularly the role it assumed in the gulf war that is “the peace keepers”. The hegemony of nations should be eliminated and decisions taken on the majority of the votes and implemented irrespective without prejudice.
b. Role of America. Being the only super power America holds the greatest responsibility to be fair and just in its policies towards all nations and particularly the Muslim who are unfortunately the sufferers in most parts of the world. America may also be communicated at the appropriate forums to review its policy of targeting the Muslims.
c. Resolution of Contentious Issues. A number of unresolved issues like Kashmir and Palestine have kept the contestants on war footings, resulting into a very slow economic progress. The international community must pay an immediate attention for resolving all such issues inline with the United Nations resolutions amicably, without compromising the legitimate interests of the nation states.
d. Elimination of Economic Disparity. Economic disparity is the biggest challenge being faced by the world. In order to address this issue the great industrial nations of the world should generously help the economic plight of the poor countries. This will eradicate the roots of hatred, intolerance and violence ensuring greater economic integration and cohesion.
e. Protect ion of the Rights of Weaker Nations. Non acceptance and exploitation of weaker nations must be curbed to eliminate potential dangers of conflicts among the nations and subsequently civilizations. United Nations must play its envisaged role effectively and without discrimination.
14. Conclusion. Huntington is impressed by the “de- Westernization” of societies, their “indigenization “and apparent willingness to go their own way. In his views such phenomena as the “Hinduization” of India and Islamic fundamentalism are ascendant. To these detours into “tradition” Huntington has assigned great force and power. But Huntington is wrong. India will not become a Hindu state. The inheritance of Indian secularism will hold. The vast middle class will defend it; keep the order intact to maintain India’s and its own place in the modern world of nations. The phenomenon we have dubbed as Islamic fundamentalism is less a sign of resurgence than of panic, bewilderment and guilt. Those young urban poor, half educated in the cities of the Arab world, and their Sorbonne-educated lay preachers, can they be evidence of a genuine return to tradition? They crash Europe’s and America’s gates in search of liberty and work. It is easy to understand Huntington’s frustration with this kind of complexity, with the strange mixture of attraction and repulsion and his need to simplify matters, to mark out the borders of civilization and visualize the impending clash. Effective role by United Nations along with the key global players to address contentious issues, ensure justice and fair play, removal of economic disparity and acceptance of weaker nations will lead the world towards real peace and tranquility. In such a scenario chances of a conflict among nations will considerably reduce and that of civilizations will become further bleak.
BIBLIOGAPGHY
1. Nazir Hussein, “Dialogue among Civilizations: An Alternative Paradigm of International Relations” Strategic Studies, April 2001, p 103-130.
2. ibid., p.104.
3. Ibid., p. 107.
4. Brigadier Javed Hussan, India: a Study in Profile, Rosalinda: Army Education Press, 1990, p.12-15.
5. Ibid., p. 13.
6. Ibid., p. 14.
7. Seymour Siegel, “The Nation State and Social Order in the Perspective of Judaism” in Al Faruqui, p 31.
8. Ibid., p. 30.
9. Ibid., p. 30.
10. Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Rafique Sabir, “A New World Disorder” Pakistan Defence Review, winter 2000, p 43-54.
11. Ibid., p. 47.
12. Ibid., p. 50.
13. Ibid., p. 52.
14. Bruce W. Watson, Military Lessons of the Gulf War.(Lahore: Izharsons)
15. Ibid., p. 5.
16. Ibid., p. 7.
17. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. (New York: Simon & Schuster)
18. Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Rafique Sabir, “A New World Disorder” Pakistan Defence Review, Winter 2000, p 43-54.
Denise Groves, “ India and Pakistan: A Clash of Civilization?” Current Affairs, Februray1999, p 109-113.
19. Nazir Hussain, “Dialogue among Civilizations: An Alternative Paradigm of International Relations” Strategic Studies, April 2001, p 103-130.
20. Robert L. Bartley, “ The West Should Believe in Itself” Foreign Affairs, September/October 1993, p 15-17.
21. Liu Binyan, “ Civilization Grafting: No Culture is an Island” Current Affairs, September/ October 1993, p 19-21.
22. Feane F. Kirkpatrick and others, “ The modernizing Imperative” Foreign Affairs, September/ October 1993, p 23-26.
23. Samuel P. Huntington, “If Not Civilizations, What?” Foreign Affairs, November/ December 1993, p 187-194.
24. Fouad Ajami, “ The Summoning: But they Said, We Will Not Hearken” Foreign Affairs, September/ October 1993, p 2-9.
25. Udo Schaefer. “Beyond the Clash of Religion: The Emergence of a New Paradigm”. [Online] Available http:// www. Burlb. Bmi.net, April 30, 2002.
26. The AMAR/UNESCO standing conference,[online] Available History , April 30,2002.
27. Simon Heseltine. “The Iran and Iraq War” [online] Available http://ak.essortment.com/inandiraqwa_rlnp.htm, May 3, 2002.
28. John Pike. “The Iran Iraq War (1980-1988) [online] Availablehttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101 /ops/war/iran-iraq.htm, may 3,2002.
29. Schwarz. “The Gulf War”. [Online] Available http://www.mindspring.com/~fragments/TXT2/ gulfwrtx.html, May 3,2002.
30. Bruce W. Watson, Military Lessons of the Gulf War.(Lahore: Izharsons)
31. F. Gregory Gauze, III, “Iraq’s Decisions to Go to War, 1980 and 1990” Middle East Journal, Winter 2002, p 47-70.