| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| noname | Posted
on 11-Sep-03 04:28 AM
Counting the days and the years Two years passed after 9/11. Once again, Media is flooded with what happened on that day, TV channels are screening the tragedy - planes plunging in the towers, people jumping from the buildings and relatives crying, analysts are busy portraying how the world changed that day, President Bush seems more determined - albeit, less believed - and not far behind are the terrorists too - Al Quaeda, too, released a video tape to commemorate 9/11. This hype won't be same in coming years. As days pass by, memory fades. Tianmen, where students were crushed under tank by Marxist regime, is no more in the news, neither is Chille - on September 11, 1973 a CIA backed coup staged to depose a democratically elected Marxist government left more than thousand people killed. Relatives left behind learn the art to live with trauma. Nothing justifies killing those 3,000 plus innocent people. They even did not know what they were dying for. They were calling their families and friends, they were writing emails: 'Something wrong has happened,' 'I am scared,' 'I love you'. To some death was so close, but they did not even know that. One moment you are listening to "Living high, Pushing back boundaries with smile," and the other moment you are engulfed in a flame, leaving behind just a name in the list of thousands, and a loving memory, to be shared with trauma, to the close ones. 'Dying is an art like everything else,' wrote Sylvia Plath. May be true for her, but not for the victims, for art is a conscious effort. Shaw said life levels all men, death reveals the eminent. No! The managers - the janitors, the bourgeoisies - the proletariats, the Jews - the Muslims, all were leveled equal at the end as a tragic memory of 9/11. Tragic it is, but 9/11 is not the single event where death is being imposed on innocent people. Deepak Gurung died the other day. Many died in Afghnaistan, Iraq, and Middle-east, more are dying. They claim by killing people they are making this world a better living place. Does it happen, or did it happen? How many died in world-wars, how many died in gulf-war, how many died in the so called Proleterait vs. Burgoises war? When will the time come where everyone will start thinking that killing more people does not make the world a better living place? Or, will a time come when every Prachandas and Ladens are denounced by all, and all Bushes loose elections? ********* The clash of civilizations In a 1993, now famous, paper titled 'The clash of Civilizations?", Samuel Huntington forwarded the concept of 'clash of civilizations' as a model after 'Cold War paradigm' to explain and understand major developments in the world. He hypothesized: "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 and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." In a paper published same year, as response to his critiques, he wrote: "At the macro level world politics are likely to involve conflicts and shifting power balances of states from different civilizations, and at the micro level the most violent, prolonged and dangerous conflicts are likely to be between states and groups from different civilizations." It is frightful even to consider that the current war is something falling in the 'clash of civilizations' paradigm rather than, in part, war against terrorism, and, in part, war for resources. With France and Germany still reluctant to accept terms posed by America, Saudis and Pakistan still with America, and a faction inside Iraq, albeit small, supporting the US, there is fragile hope that it is not. But warns Madeline Albright in her recently published article in Foreign Affairs: "Even if the Saudis succeed in such efforts [to rip extremism and terror out by roots that have become deeply implanted in the kingdom's sandy soil], the roots of terror will continue to throw up shoots elsewhere. The Iraqi imam [quoted at the beginning of this article] did not explicitly advocate terror in his speech, but he did use the kind of clash-of-civilizations terminology that tends to make Samuel Huntington look retrospectively prescient." She further warns : " By complicating its own choice, the [US] administration has instead complicated the choices faced by others, divided Europe, and played into the hands of extremists who would like nothing better than to make the clash of civilizations the defining struggle of our age." - http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82501/madeleine-k-albright/bridges-bombs-or-bluster.html |
| SimpleGal | Posted
on 11-Sep-03 09:49 AM
Thanks for the posting noname. My father has been raving about Huntington's Clash of Civilizations as a must read. The excerpts and critiques you present above confirm his passion for the book. in peace. |
| noname | Posted
on 11-Sep-03 07:21 PM
E..second part ta hareko JUWADE ko topi jasto sabai Chhadke parera po aayechha. SG, thanks for reading it. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 11-Sep-03 11:47 PM
Noname, I don't think the recent war on terror can be described as "the clash of civilizations". If I remembrer correctly, Huntington's argument is: Due to amazing inter-connectedness (thanks to Globalziation), the young people all over the world search for their identity, and again thanks to increased MCdonaldization of the world, the only thing that people use to identify themselves with will be religion (s). And as a result of which, there will be militant nationalism movements in the world, and there will be the clash of civilizations. (feel free to correct me. I read the book a long time ago). Now, why this war on terror does not fall under "the clash of civilizations" 1. Not all teh christian countries or the countries with a significant christian population approved the war in/on Iraq. 2. Huntingtun says taht people in their 20's and 30s are more likely to be influenced by the militant nationalist movements and they will be the ones supporting their governments to go on wars with different cultures/civilizations. In the case of Iraq, I think the opposite happened: The protests in Germany, England, France and other palces where the majority of the protestors were college students somehow contradicts Huntigton (at least that's what I think). So, I'd rather go with Friedman's approach: because of the Mcdonaldization of the world, there will be no REAL third world war. :-) namaste |
| noname | Posted
on 12-Sep-03 04:11 AM
IF, I concur with you on that this war can not be described as clash of civilizations. As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I view this war originating in part from war against terror and in part from abundance lucrative resources in the middle east. My point, as I have tried to put forward by quoting Madam Albright, however, is that further stretching this war may lead to something that Huntington's paradigm points to. We have witnessed that even tribal wars in African countries were once backed by two blocks in the cold war era, proving text book application of cold war paradigm correct. Long stretching this war, or the conflict in the Middle east, may later change into clash of civilizations. On further note: 1. To turn a war into clash of civilizations does not necessarily need unity among all falling in one or another domain of 'civilizations', for example, all Christian countries need not join hands against Iraq to turn this war something as Christian vs. Muslim. Even if France and German do not support the US, some other elements in the dynamics may make it appear as clash of civilizations. Nonetheless, had all Christian countries been united, it would have been a declared clash among civilizations. 2. The difficulty with clash of civilizations paradigm compared to cold war paradigm is that no rational state can declare war against one or another civilization. Ronald Regan boasted during his parting time from white house that 'he did not let the communist take a single inch of land during his regime' (I am not sure whether these are his words or not, though.). So, boasting war against communist dictatorship or war against capitalistic hegemony was something revered, albeit, within the circle of their influence. Can one civilization (hoping that it is civilized) boast about limiting spread of another? Even if they do that in effect, they have to do it in disguise. So, it'll be hard time for academicians to classify whether or not one war is 'clash of civilizations' or not. |
| zero gravity | Posted
on 12-Sep-03 06:43 AM
I have read the Clash. While a truly interesting read to book, I came out not being a fan of Huntington and actually think he is very wrong. First, historians are best if they could stick with history and not dabble into some wild, populist projections about the future. Many say, Huntington has been right, after 9/11. A few things - 1) Huntington's main contention is a clash between China and the Western Powers, not the islamic-Western confrontation. 2) In this clash between the West and Islam, esp. post 9/11, people in the West are quick to blame the Islamic states for this clash. But, the Islamic actions action the West are not acts of pre-emptive aggression but reaction to Western hegemony over the Ismalic states. 3) While ethnic tensions have risen in the 1990s and this proves Huntington right in some ways, the clash simplies the complex geo-political reality. Do you think France easily accepts American supremacy? National interests are not completely aligned, not even during the cold war. 4) I hate the Clash foremost because it provides for those who want to believe in it. It divides people into 'races.' Perspectives are malleable and the Clash provides one perspective, a rather divisive one. ZG |