Huntington and Fukuyama’s ideas

Huntington and Fukuyama’s ideas

After the Cold War, a unipolar world in which capitalism and democracy dominated other ideologies was established. In this regard, a new perspective of global politics materialized, offering hope for a “New World Order in which conflicts could be resolved peacefully through international institutions and respect for the rule of law” (Poynter 8). For instance, Francis Fukuyama, in his article “The End of History,” propagated the belief that liberal democracy would create universal social order (Poynter 8). However, Samuel Huntington had a pessimistic view of the world, which he presented in his article “The Clash of Civilization,” where he argued that the post-Cold War era would witness tensions and conflicts. The strain would be as a result of faultiness due to national and cultural differences. Despite being developed more than two decades ago, Huntington and Fukuyama’s ideas have shaped the geopolitics and defined international politics.

Fukuyama’s “End of History”

The concept “End of History” has been praised for promoting the democratic peace theory. Fukuyama believed that that war should be the last action after all nonmilitary options have been exhausted. In this regard, he advocated for both preventive and preemptive action against radicalism. Besides, Fukuyama’s theory has been hailed for criticizing American unilateralism. According to Yang, unilateralism weakens the significance of international legitimacy resulting from an agreement between nation-states (42). Legitimacy may build alliances that can help isolate radical Islamic groups. Fukuyama has also underlined the inability of international institutions, such as the United Nations (UN), to fight Islamic terrorism due to a lack of a mechanism to use hard power when required (Yang 43). Thus, Fukuyama’s “End of History” concept can prevent wars and enhance diplomacy.

Fukuyama’s thesis has received several criticisms. To begin with, his logic has been criticized for resembling pseudo-Hegelian historical determinism, which Fascists and Marxists employed to create destruction in the 20th century. Moreover, the correlation between liberalism, democracy, and capitalism was broken by the global economic crisis and the credit crunch (Stanley and Lee). Free markets have also been blamed for the increasing gap between the poor and the rich. In countries hit by the financial recession, including Hungary and Greece, voters have rejected the Fukuyama’s concept of liberalism. Across Europe, nationalism, and interventionism have attracted voters as opposed to equality before the law, deregulation, and freedom (Stanley and Lee). In this regard, liberal capitalism has mostly failed. These weaknesses have created a conflict between democracy and liberalism. Thus, due to the shortcomings of Fukuyama’s concepts, voters in the West have widely disliked the ideology.

Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization”

Arguments For

In the “Clash of Civilization,” Huntington argues that cultural differences would be the leading cause of conflict in the post-Cold War era. Even though nations remain the major players in international relations, different civilizations would clash. This clash would mainly be a result of fundamental differences in the beliefs on the relationship between man and god, hierarchy and equality, authority and liberty, man and wife, parents and children (Osborn 394). Huntington’s clash of civilization was evident during the war in the former Yugoslavia and the frequent fighting in Kashmir. He adopted a simplistic definition of civilizations and used religion as the main criteria for deciding the culture to which a nation belongs (Osborn 394). Moreover, he accurately predicted the political and ideological differences between the West and the non-West. For instance, Huntington’s hypothesis that the shift in military power towards non-Western countries has come true as countries, such as China, Russia, and Iran, continue to militarize. Besides, Huntington proposed that due to international competition, nations would work with their allies to establish a “Civilization-based world order” (Cropsey and Halem). This assumption has come true as the West seeks to advance its agenda all over the world. Huntington, he also has been applauded for accurately predicting the cooperation between non-Western civilizations to counterbalance the West. For instance, Russia has expanded with its corporation with China to resist the potential hegemony. Moreover, Russia has actively intervened in the Syrian civil war on Iran’s behalf (Cropsey and Halem). As the quest for global ideological dominance increases, the cooperation between non-Western nations, such as Islamic states, China, and Russia, is expected to grow.

Arguments Against

Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” ideas have several weaknesses. To begin with, the epistemological criticism posits that the clash of civilization does not present a new paradigm; instead, it is an extension of political realism. Therefore, the theory was dismantled because it had no new concepts. The clash of civilization statements has also been criticized for being orientalist since it employs the phrases ‘us’ and ‘them’ which are deemed problematic due to its cultural assertions and generalizations (Shahi). Moreover, Huntington’s thesis has also been faulted for its elitist perspective of the world; hence, the beliefs of the American people are different from that of the elites. Thus, the clash is between the elites and the masses, but not civilizations.

A methodological critique has also been presented to condemn the clash for civilizations. Its beliefs present a monolithic perspective of civilization with no reference to the polycentric nature of the world and the internal dynamics in the Middle Eastern countries (Shahi). Huntington’s thesis has also been criticized for the overgeneralization of and selective perception of history. For example, the Gulf War was a result of competing for interest, rather than a clash of civilization (Shahi). Moreover, Huntington’s ideology has a reductionist view since it reduces several causes of conflicts to civilization as a primary factor.

United Nations and the Call for Dialogue

With the increasing geopolitical crises, the United Nations (UN) has to intervene by calling for dialogue between the warring groups. Since the early 2000s, the clash of civilization become famous as the new world order continued to take shape. The idea of employing dialogue to address the fault lines between civilizations also rose to counter the clash between cultures. In this regard, the UN has rejected Huntington’s concept regarding the clash of religions or civilizations. For instance, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the UN has argued that Huntington’s concepts create mistrust between the West and Islam. Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general, argued that it was essential to resolve political differences while promoting cultural and social understanding and tolerance (UN News). In this regard, he advocated for an alliance of civilization, instead of a clash. The UN proposed the Alliance of Civilization initiative to promoted respect among different cultures. Moreover, in 2007, the United Nations organized a high-level intercultural and interreligious dialogue to promote tolerance and cultural diversity (Vacchiano 7). The dialogue also advocated for a pluralistic world view. Thus, the United Nations should continue to challenge Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” and promote cultural understanding and tolerance in the world.

Development in the World Order and Solutions

The liberal world order has delivered peace, stability, and prosperity since the Second World War. Since the 2000s, there have been several developments in the global world order. For instance, the order led by the United States is drastically fading (Patrick). For more than seven decades, the United States has pursued its interest by promoting liberal political norms and security alliances. These alliances have prevented the possibility of major conflicts between world powers. However, Donald Trump has abandoned and weakened these multilateral alliances, and as a result, the global leadership of the United States has gradually faded. Moreover, Russia, China, and other emerging powers do not recognize the existing world order, and they have continued to contest it. Technology has also disrupted political systems and labor markets. In this regard, populist movements are exploiting agitations and anxieties to propagate fear and uncertainty. As a result, there is a global backlash against globalization and the state’s industrial policies. (Patrick). Thus, the world order is increasingly being disrupted by globalization and technology.

To resolve the challenges in the new world order, several measures are required. To start with, the middle powers, including India and Turkey, need to take more regional and global responsibilities. According to Patrick, internationals rules should be established to set the rules of engagement in the new world order. Moreover, the United States should seek more cooperation with China to minimize the increasing global competition between the West and the East. Thus, the major and middle powers need to set new rules that will redefine cooperation in the new world order.

Personal Reflection

The post-Cold War theories have had a significant impact on international relations and geopolitics. Fukuyama’s “End of History” theory has helped promote liberal democracies across the world, particularly in former communist countries. On the other hand, Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” is the source of the global competition for dominance and conflicts between the West and the Middle East. Huntington presents a perspective that global politics in the post-Cold War era were becoming multi-civilizational and multipolar. In this regard, the current Middle East conflicts have been fueled by the differences in cultural and religious beliefs. However, I do not agree with Huntington’s “clash of civilization.” Instead, I believe that followers of other faiths and non-faiths are not enemies. Due to globalization, the world is increasingly becoming interconnected. In this regard, it is more beneficial to promote tolerance and respect for other religions. Besides, I believe that the wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan can be ended through religious tolerance and the respect for cultural pluralism in the Middle East. Acceptance and understanding of other faiths and cultures will stop the rise of right-wing extremist groups in Europe and will create more welcoming immigration policies in the West.

Conclusion

The post-Cold War era was driven by liberal democracy and capitalism. Several theories have since emerged to explain the dynamics of international relations and global competition for dominance. Among them were the “End of History” by Fukuyama and Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.” The latter has been predominantly used to justify the need for war since the early 2000s. Huntington believed that civilizations would clash because of differences in religion and culture. However, the UN has rejected the “Clash of Civilization,” claiming that it created mistrust between the West and Islam. The world order has changed with the rise of China and the increasing globalization. The middle powers, including India and Turkey, need to take more responsibility globally and regionally.