It is not easy to talk about civilizations nowadays. I mean, it isn’t, above all, politically correct to do so. Ever since Samuel Huntington published, in the summer of 1993, the famous article in which he associated the word “clash” with civilizations that the discussion around these millenary entities has been violent. The international political environment (Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, 11th September, North Korea, etc) has not, obviously, been blind to the referred enthusiasm.
Using this reading grid as a possible alternative to face the critiques directed towards an analysis based purely on the nation-state, I propose a brief look on the civilization’s optic of the western “proponent-regulator”.
Looking at the world, it seems clear that the so called Western Civilization does not form a coherent whole or an indistinctive one, since it can be, for example, between Europeans and north-Americans and between Catholics and Protestants. It is relatively close to the Jewish (with a very relevant power not only in Israel but also in the USA, in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands) and to the orthodox (these divided between Greek and Slavic). As it happens in most of religions, Catholics too could be divided between progressive and integrators, while it is also important to notice the growing importance of Evangelicals in countries like Brazil and the USA.
The West “manages” its relation with the orthodox fundamentalists through security (i.e. NATO’s enlargement), through political and economic integration (i.e. EU) and of Investment (i.e. boom of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) fluxes in the 90’s). It is also the FDI that brings the Western and Confucians world closer together with a global perception that the Chinese sleeping giant is waking up very quickly (we will see if international reserves of hydrocarbon will allow it). The same happens between Hindu India and the West (i.e. the importance of FDI in India in watering down the tensions with Pakistan), between Japan and the West (with the central difference being that Japan shares with the West the big decisions of global economic and finance regulation) and between Latin America and the West (the ALCA is only one of the attempts).
Africa, however, seems to continue to be forgotten about, being important however to accompany the emergence of some countries as significant oil producers (West Africa) and the geopolitical role held by African countries of Islamic civilization (like Libya, Egypt and Sudan). This last civilization, in the centre of the more recent geopolitical hurricane, is profoundly divided. Some examples: Shiites vs. Sunnis; Arabs vs. Turks vs. Malays vs. Persians. Turkey, which takes part in NATO and is a candidate to enter the EU. Indonesia is an ally of the USA (the same with Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – though the relation between this state, where the holy places of Islam are, and the USA have been deteriorating a lot since 9/11). Pakistan is a partner (though “a slippery one”). Iraq is, at the moment, under the control of USA forces. Nonetheless, it seems undeniable that the question “Who are you?” substituted “on which side are you?”, traditionally linked to profoundly ideological conflicts like the Spanish Civil War, the Cold War or even the Second World War. The problem is that “Who are you?” suffers from a rigidity and therefore of flammability which is way more evident. …
[2] See Boniface, Pascal: “Guerras do Amanhã”, Editorial Inquérito, 2003; Huntington, Samuel P. [et al.]: “O Choque das Civilizações – O debate sobre a tese de Samuel P. Huntington”, Gradiva, 1999; Huntington, Samuel P.: “O Choque das Civilizações e a Mudança na Ordem Mundial”, Gradiva, 1999.
Using this reading grid as a possible alternative to face the critiques directed towards an analysis based purely on the nation-state, I propose a brief look on the civilization’s optic of the western “proponent-regulator”.
Looking at the world, it seems clear that the so called Western Civilization does not form a coherent whole or an indistinctive one, since it can be, for example, between Europeans and north-Americans and between Catholics and Protestants. It is relatively close to the Jewish (with a very relevant power not only in Israel but also in the USA, in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands) and to the orthodox (these divided between Greek and Slavic). As it happens in most of religions, Catholics too could be divided between progressive and integrators, while it is also important to notice the growing importance of Evangelicals in countries like Brazil and the USA.
The West “manages” its relation with the orthodox fundamentalists through security (i.e. NATO’s enlargement), through political and economic integration (i.e. EU) and of Investment (i.e. boom of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) fluxes in the 90’s). It is also the FDI that brings the Western and Confucians world closer together with a global perception that the Chinese sleeping giant is waking up very quickly (we will see if international reserves of hydrocarbon will allow it). The same happens between Hindu India and the West (i.e. the importance of FDI in India in watering down the tensions with Pakistan), between Japan and the West (with the central difference being that Japan shares with the West the big decisions of global economic and finance regulation) and between Latin America and the West (the ALCA is only one of the attempts).
Africa, however, seems to continue to be forgotten about, being important however to accompany the emergence of some countries as significant oil producers (West Africa) and the geopolitical role held by African countries of Islamic civilization (like Libya, Egypt and Sudan). This last civilization, in the centre of the more recent geopolitical hurricane, is profoundly divided. Some examples: Shiites vs. Sunnis; Arabs vs. Turks vs. Malays vs. Persians. Turkey, which takes part in NATO and is a candidate to enter the EU. Indonesia is an ally of the USA (the same with Morocco, Egypt and Saudi Arabia – though the relation between this state, where the holy places of Islam are, and the USA have been deteriorating a lot since 9/11). Pakistan is a partner (though “a slippery one”). Iraq is, at the moment, under the control of USA forces. Nonetheless, it seems undeniable that the question “Who are you?” substituted “on which side are you?”, traditionally linked to profoundly ideological conflicts like the Spanish Civil War, the Cold War or even the Second World War. The problem is that “Who are you?” suffers from a rigidity and therefore of flammability which is way more evident. …
[2] See Boniface, Pascal: “Guerras do Amanhã”, Editorial Inquérito, 2003; Huntington, Samuel P. [et al.]: “O Choque das Civilizações – O debate sobre a tese de Samuel P. Huntington”, Gradiva, 1999; Huntington, Samuel P.: “O Choque das Civilizações e a Mudança na Ordem Mundial”, Gradiva, 1999.
Posts
