There's a clash of something(s), but what?

Joseph S. Nye, Jr. says there is a clash within Islam between moderate and extremist factions. Clash about civilizations, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has argued, between varying viewpoints on what a civilization should stand for. The godfather of the post-Cold War "clash of civilizations" paradigm was Harvard University's Samuel Huntington. Even if the theory is incorrect, elements of it proved true. In the years following the publication of his theory in the Summer 1993 issue Foreign Affairs, there has been ample debate over the definitions of the 'clash' and the 'civilizations'. Huntington's rebuttal was, "if not civilizations, what?"

If one remains unsatisfied — in disagreement or wanting more — with Huntington's simplified 'America versus enemies' theory, a new approach has been proposed. A "clash of emotions" was written about in the January/February edition of Foreign Affairs.

The world today faces not only a clash of civilizations but a clash of emotions as well. The West displays -- and is divided by -- a culture of fear, while the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.

Instead of being united by their fears, the twin pillars of the West, the United States and Europe, are more often divided by them -- or rather, divided by how best to confront or transcend them. The culture of humiliation, in contrast, helps unite the Muslim world around its most radical forces and has led to a culture of hatred. The chief beneficiaries of the deadly encounter between the forces of fear and the forces of humiliation are the bystanders in the culture of hope, who have been able to concentrate on creating a better future for themselves.

These moods, of course, are not universal within each region, and there are some areas, such as Russia and parts of Latin America, that seem to display all of them simultaneously. But their dynamics and interactions will help shape the world for years to come.

Huntington was correct about the collision between the Muslim world and the West (i.e. 9/11). It was a good prediction on a bad premise. However, it is not because of conflicting values, but because of politics and, among other things, emotions, that the seeming confrontation between the Muslim world (not Islam itself, i.e. the Arab states) and the West (i.e. the US and Europe) has escalated so visibly.

The United States should embrace the religious moderates, even if they are not totally on board with US policies in the Mid-East. It is better to pick the lesser of two evils, i.e. the moderates over the radicals. That goes for Israel too. When Israel attacks a village, like Biet Hanoun (in Gaza), and kills civilians or causes other direct anguish, those in Gaza or elsewhere who may have sympathized or even really liked Israel are automatically targets of extremist groups, especially if they are also united by religion. That is, if such people are not recruited by extremists — or at least support anti-Israel causes — they may even become core extremists themselves.

'Clash of emotions'

The so-called clash of civilizations, coined by international relations expert Samuel Huntington, is as close to a myth as one can comfortably get, though it is not entirely off base. Huntington was correct about the collision between the Muslim world and the West. It was a good prediction on a bad premise. However, it is not because of conflicting values, but because of politics and, among other things, emotions, that the seeming confrontation between the Muslim world (not Islam itself, i.e. the Arab states) and the West (i.e. the US and Europe) has escalated so visibly.

I lean more to a recent essay in the American foreign policy journal Foreign Affairs, in which the author views it as more of a clash of emotions. The Muslim world is humiliated; N America and Europe are fearful; Asia is hopeful; etc.

The article is written by scholar Dominique Moïsi. (Free version published as op-ed in IHT.)

The United States and Europe are divided by a common culture of fear. On both sides, one encounters, in varying degrees, a fear of the other, a fear of the future and a fundamental anxiety about the loss of identity and control over one's destiny in an increasingly complex world.

In the case of Europe, there is the fear of being invaded by the poor, primarily from the south. Europeans also fear being blown up by radical Islamists or being demographically conquered by them as their continent becomes a "Eurabia." Then there is the fear of being left behind economically.
...
Some of the same sense of loss of control is present in the United States. ... And of course after 9/11, Americans are obsessed with security.

... behind the Bush administration's forceful and optimistic rhetoric lies the somber reality that the U.S. response to 9/11 has made the United States more unpopular than ever. The U.S. intervention in Iraq, for example, has generated more problems than it has solved.
...
Muslims saw the creation of the state of Israel in the midst of Arab land as the ultimate proof of their decline. For Jews, the legitimacy of Israel was manifold; it combined the accomplishment of a religious promise, the realization of a national destiny, and compensation by the international community for a unique crime, the Holocaust. For Arabs, by contrast, it was the anachronistic imposition of a Western colonial logic at the very moment decolonization was getting under way.

The unresolved conflict between Israel and its neighbors has helped turn the culture of humiliation into a culture of hatred.
...
And globalization, with its expansion of the gap between economic winners and losers, has contributed to the problem.
...
As the West and the Middle East lock horns, confidence in progress has been moving eastward. After two centuries of relative decline, China is recovering its legitimate international status. Its policy of concentrating on economic development while avoiding conflict seems to be earning Beijing both material benefits and international respect. As for India, for the first time in its modern history it has stepped onto the world stage as both an independent and an important power. Difficulties abound for both, but the optimism today is real and seems likely to last as long as growth continues.

Given the global clash of emotions, the first priority for the West must be to recognize the nature of the threat that the Muslim world's culture of humiliation poses to Europe and the United States. Neither appeasement nor force alone will suffice. ... The challenge is not figuring out how to play moderate Islam against the forces of radicalism. It is figuring out how to encourage a sufficient sense of hope and progress in Muslim societies so that despair and anger do not send the masses into the radicals' arms.

In that regard, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears more than ever as a microcosm of what the world is becoming. Israel is the West, surrounded by the culture of humiliation and dreaming of escape from a dangerous region and of re-entry into a culture of hope. But it must find a solution to the Palestinian problem first, or else the escape will not be possible. So, too, Europe and America seek to permanently banish their fears but will be able to do so only by finding a way to help the Muslim world solve its problems.

Multiculturalism will be as key as free markets if globalization — in a general form — is to be more easily taken. We are living in a more global world, which, along with its benefits, brings ample challenges too.