WORLD PEACE AND CONFLICT UNDER GLOBALIZATION

1. WORLD PEACE AND CONFLICT UNDER GLOBALIZATION

2. What is "globalization" and why should anyone care about it? There are a lot of different answers to this question, depending on whom you ask. The sceptics would say: Globalization can be better described as internationalization in the form of growing links between discrete national economies or societies? or Simply an ideological construction – a convenient myth that helps justify and legitimize the neoliberal global project, i.e. the creation of a global free market and the consolidation of Anglo-American capitalism Globalization

3. Globalization The globalists reject the assertion that globalization as a purely ideological or social construction or a synonym for Western imperialism. They argue that globalization is an inevitable, technologically driven process that gives rise to real structural changes to the relationships between people of different countries with multiple economic, political and social dimensions.

4. September 11, 2001 Attacks The 9.11 attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airlines. With nearly 91m3 or 24,000 gallons of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were turned into flying bombs.

5. Iraqi Shi'ite men shout anti-American slogans during a demonstration in Baghdad, August 13. Thousands of Shi'ites poured into the streets to denounce U.S. troops who they said had defiled a religious school by flying low in a helicopter, which struck its flag.  On 8.29 the Occupation Command admitted the flag desecration was a deliberate act, not an “accident” as they had claimed before..(Faleh Kheiber/Reuters

6. The 2002 Kuta bomb explosion in Bali The atrocious explosion in the Indonesian island of Bali not only confirms Samuel Huntington’s theory of "War of Civilzations", but also that this conflict has entered an active phase", according to a veteran Iranian political analyst Safa Haeri, referring to the renowned American political scientist’s "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".

7. The West (United States) And the Rest?

8. Post-Cold War International Relations in the context of globalization Francis versus Samuel Fukuyama Huntington The End Clash of of History Civilizations Stanley Hoffman The Clash of Globalizations?

9. Francis Fukuyama The End of History and The Last Man What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of of human government …the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real of material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run

10. Clash of Civilizations? Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order

11. "Huntington has written a brilliant, riveting, and utterly original book, masterful in presentation and brimming with insight, its disturbing conclusions corroborated by an impressive array of data and well-chosen quotations. How Huntington makes his case is no less impressive than the argument itself. The author's style is precise, pithy, plainspoken, and coolly analytical." —A. J. Bacevich, director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University

12. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 have suddenly brought the Islamic civilization to the focus of the Western world’s attention — in a way that fits into the kind of the enemy nmstereotype created by Samuel Huntington’s essay of 1993 on “The Clash of the Civilizations.” After September 11Clash of Civilizations or Dialogue? Dr. Hans Koechler

13. What is a “clash of civilizations”? The Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Samuel argued that in the wake of the Cold War, the main pattern of global conflict would probably be cultural, not economic or ideological. Civilizations, in Huntington’s thinking, are broad groupings organized around language, history, religion, and self-identification. “In the coming years, the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major wars will be those...along the fault lines between civilizations,” wrote Huntington, who listed eight “major civilizations”—Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African—that might clash with one another.

14. The Clash of Civilizations • 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 ans groups of civilizations • The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics • The fault line between civilations will be the battle lines of the future

15. The Clash of Civilizations • Conflicts between princes • Conflicts between nations • Conflicts between ideologies • Conflicts between civilizations

16. The Clash of Civilizations • A Civilization is the highest grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which which distinguishes humans from other species. • It is defined both by common objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs, instituions, and by the subjective self-identifiaction of people.

17. Why Civilizations Will Clash • Differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. • The world is becoming a smaller place • The process of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities • The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West: at a peak of power and a return to the roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations • Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones • Economic regionalism rooted in common civilization is increasing

18. Clash of Civilizations: Implications • The Paradigm does not argue that civilizations identities will replace all other identities and does not advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations • Short-term: in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity among its own civilization • Long-term: Since non-Western civilizations have become modern without Western, the West has to maintain the economic and military power to protect its interest and develop more profound understanding of other civilizations and identity elements of commonalities

19. “It was hoped that the end of the Cold War would usher in an era of peace and stability but it did not. The disputes of Palestine and Kashmir were festering wounds…. The theory of clash of civilizations further complicated things, he said. "Like any religion," he emphasized, "Islam preaches moderation, justice and equality and does not preach extremism and militancy… The vast majority of the moderates remain out of the loop, and are seen by the West as extremists. Islam is seen through the eyes of extremists from both sides” – President Musharraf

20. Causes of 9/11: A Clash of Civilizations? • Were the September 11 attacks part of a clash between Islam and Western civilization? Most Western foreign policy experts disagree. Al-Qaeda considers its terrorist campaign against the United States to be part of a war between the ummah — Arabic for the “Muslim community”— and the Christian and Jewish West. But al-Qaeda’s extremist, politicized form of Islam represents only one strain within a diverse religion — and a radical one that many Muslims reject as a grotesque distortion of their faith. Many Muslim-majority countries are members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting al-Qaeda. Moreover, al-Qaeda also targets Muslim governments, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that it sees as godless. Many experts therefore say the September 11 attacks cannot be reduced to a “clash of civilizations.”

21. Causes of 9/11: A Clash of Civilizations? • Does al-Qaeda think it’s engaged in a clash of civilizations? • Yes. Bin Laden openly seeks a clash between Islam and the West. “This battle is not between al-Qaeda and the U.S.,” the al-Qaeda leader said in October 2001. “This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.” From bin Laden’s perspective, it is a clash that has been under way for centuries, with the Americans as the latest incarnation of the Christian Crusaders—arrogant Western interlopers out to oppress Muslims. In an October 2001 interview on al-Jazeera, the Arabic satellite news channel, bin Laden talked about the “clash of civilizations” thesis. Muslims, bin Laden argues, must reverse a series of humiliations that they’ve endured since the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim great power, was dismantled after World War I. Al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of a jihad, or holy war, against “Jews and Crusaders” urges Muslims to attack “the Americans and their allies, civilian and military”.

22. Causes of 9/11: A Clash of Civilizations? • Do all Muslims see things al-Qaeda’s way? • No. Most Islamic scholars interpret jihad as a nonviolent quest for justice—a holy struggle rather than a holy war. (Bin Laden is not a credentialed Muslim scholar, and most Muslims do not recognize him as a religious authority.) Moreover, mainstream Islamic teachings prohibit the killing of civilians. Islam has a tradition of religious tolerance and moderate leadership, exemplified by the Muslim caliphate’s ninth- and tenth-century rule of Spain and by the pluralism and diversity of the Ottoman Empire. Still, many scholars today worry about the growth of fundamentalism and anti-Americanism in Muslim countries.

23. Causes of 9/11: A Clash of Civilizations? • Why is anti-Americanism prevalent in many Muslim countries? • For a complicated series of reasons. One key factor is that many Muslims live under authoritarian governments lacking democratic institutions that would let citizens openly express grievances and solve problems themselves. Moreover, American support for such repressive regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia has sowed widespread bitterness. Many Islamic movements “are anti-Western because the governments they oppose are pro-Western.” Within the Arab world, U.S. support for Israel is also frequently cited as a source of anti-Americanism. On a deeper level resentment of the United States is a reaction to America’s overwhelming wealth and power, particularly when compared to the economic stagnation and political insignificance of many Muslim states. This disparity leads Islamist movements, which are usually antimodern as well as anti-Western, to blame America for the loss of Islam’s past glory.

24. Causes of 9/11: A Clash of Civilizations? • Is the West waging a war against Islam? • Western leaders insist they are not, and their choice of partners and policies backs this up. Although President Bush did once refer to the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda as a “crusade”— Bush and other Western leaders have repeatedly said that the U.S.-led coalition is waging war against al-Qaeda’s brand of global terrorism, not against Islam. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends,” Bush said shortly after September 11. “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.” • Moreover, several Western military interventions in the 1990s came to the defense of Muslims—from the 1991 Gulf War, which ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, to the ill-fated U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia, to NATO’s 1999 war to stop the “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims by Christian Serbs in Kosovo. Likewise, the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban has improved the lives of most Afghans.

25. Critique • It is too simple • The examples do not substantiate the claim • It is not empirically proven • It does not understand cultures • It is driven by domestic concerns • It is dangerous

26. Ten Reasons why this is the worst book in political theory that I have ever read --Michael Jandl • 1) The thesis is a very narrow, one-dimensional view of conflict in the contemporary world. In effect, it attempts to relate conflicts straight and simply to cultural differences between peoples. • 2) It presents a wrong-headed argument that, if taken as true, will have devastating consequences on world politics and the fate of future generations. • 3) Each and every major building block of the so-called “new paradigm” is simply wrong: There are no clear-cut 8 civilizations around which nations will “rally” (what does that mean, anyway? against members of other civilizations • 4) The historical and contemporary evidence of conflict does not in any way support the argument of “The Clash”. • 5) A strong case is made of the fact that modernization is not equal to westernisation. It is, however, not an argument that differences and frictions between cultures (or even civilizations) will necessarily grow and there is much evidence to the contrary (think of elite formation or the growing importance of “epistemic communities”).

27. Ten Reasons why this is the worst book in political theory that I have ever read --Michael Jandl • 6) The argument does not in any way explain why conflicts occur in the first place. • 7) The major culprit and source of future conflicts are the Islamist resurgence and the Asian affirmation, which are said to be driven by demographic and economic growth, respectively. The core of the book thereby assumes a different argument: It is no longer a Clash of Civilizations, but a “Clash of Religions”. • 8) The hidden agenda of S.H: If the West is to counter the “challenge” of the rising civilizations, it must “rally” around the U.S.A. • 9) The primary example of the clash is Bosnia which is at a Huntingtonian “fault line” and embodies the quintessential civilizational war. If you had asked the Bosnians, whether or not they belong to different cultures, let alone civilizations, they would not even understand what you mean. The war is the result of ethno-political mobilization by “ethnic entrepreneurs”, who exploited historical fears and profit opportunities by starting and sustaining a war. • 10) Finally, the book is not only wrong, but dangerously so. Given the new lines of conflict in global politics, “The West” must guard against two things: 1. Multi-culturalism within, unless it would become a “torn country” like a Hispanic dominated southern US and 2. Multi-civilizationism without: That means that all “multi-civilizational integration” (economic and political) is unnatural and unsustainable. • What a weird conclusion in the era of globalization!

28. Continuing conflicts under Globalization As Stanley Hoffman observed, far from spreading peace, it seemed to have fostered conflicts and resentments. The lowering of various barriers, especially the spread pf the global media, makes it possible for the most deprived or oppressed to compare their fate with that of the free and well-off. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 showed that for all its accomplishments, globalization makes an awful form of violence easily accessible to hopeless fanatics. As countess individuals and groups are becoming global actors along with states, insecurity and vulnerability are rising. Clash of Globalizations -- Stanley Hoffman

29. Continuing conflicts under Globalization • Rivalries among great powers have most certainly not disappear • If war between states are becoming less common, wars within states are on the rise • Foreign policies of states are shaped not only by realist geopolitical factors such as economic and military power but by domestic politics. • Clash of Globalizations, Stanley Hoffman

30. The Many Forms of Globalization – Stanley Hoffmann • Economic globalization – main actors are companies, investors, banks, and private industries as well as states and international organizations – fairness and efficiency • Cultural globalization – uniformization (read Americanization) versus diversity – disenchantment against uniformity • Political globalization -- preponderance of the US and its political institutions and a vast array of international and regional organizations and trans-governmental networks

31. Globalization and international conflict • New ideologies • New Interests • New players • New Issues • New identities • New structures

32. Challenges Institutional barriers– reluctance of states to accept global directives that might constrain the market or further reduce their sovereignty Identity – globalization has not profoundly challenged the enduring national nature of citizenship. Violence – traditional state of war still persists. States prefer to try to preserve their security alone or through traditional alliances. –Stanley Hoffman

33. The Future of World Peace New Form of Global Governance New Identity Role of Major Powers Economic and Social Justice