Hello, dear listeners, and welcome to the Diplomacy
and Discourse Podcast. I'm your host, AR, and
I'm thrilled to have you with me for part one
of today's thought -provoking episode. This is
the first of a two, maybe three -part series
where we'll be unpacking some of the most influential
ideas in international relations. Today, we begin
with Samuel P. Huntington's famous, and highly
debated, Clash of Civilizations theory. and how
its arguments continue to echo in today's global
geopolitics. Your support means the world. Don't
forget to like, subscribe, and share your thoughts
with us at diplomacyanddiscourseatgmail .com.
Thank you for tuning in. Now let's dive into
this fascinating exploration of power, culture,
and politics. But before we get started, a quick
disclaimer. This might be a topic of contention
for some of you listeners. I'm not here to state
that I agree or disagree with Huntington. Nonetheless,
I think it remains an important framework that
has shaped policy debates, so it's vital we understand
both its insights and its criticisms. So picture
this, a world in transition, where the old ideological
battles of the Cold War have faded. But new lines
of division threaten to emerge, drawn not around
politics or economics, but around culture and
religion. That's the world Huntington asks us
to imagine. First formulated in a 1993 article
and expanded into his 1996 book, The Clash of
Civilizations and the remaking of World Order.
Huntington's thesis argues that in the post -Cold
War era, cultural and religious identities will
become the primary drivers of conflict. In essence,
he divides the globe into major civilizational
blocks. Western, Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, Orthodox,
Latin American, African, and others. and claims
that fault lines between these blocks will become
the flashpoints of global politics. Why is this
theory then so controversial? Many scholars argue
that it oversimplifies the complexities of identity,
reducing billions of people to broad cultural
categories. Others worry that it can encourage
stereotypes, feed prejudice, and even justify
confrontational policies. And yet, the theory
refuses to fade away. Every time tensions escalate
between the West and the Islamic world, whether
after 9 -11, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
or even recent debates about migration and cultural
integration in Europe, commentators bring Huntington
back into the conversation. Similarly, the growing
rivalry between the United States and China is
often cited as a civilizational clash, with democratic
liberalism on one side and a Confucian authoritarian
model on the other. And when Russia frames its
war in Ukraine as a defense of Orthodox Slavic
identity against Western encroachment, echoes
of Huntington's thesis also emerge. These examples
show how Huntington's arguments, even if imperfect,
continue to shape the way leaders, scholars,
and the media interpret global conflicts. As
I revisited Huntington's work, several questions
came to mind. Could this really be the roadmap
to our future? What happens if cultural and religious
identities replace ideology as the dominant source
of conflict? How would this reshape diplomacy,
alliances, and even the way ordinary people interact
across borders? So with those questions in mind,
let's bring Huntington's theory into today's
global landscape and examine whether his predictions
hold up in the 21st century. Huntington argued
that the widespread Western belief in the universality
of values Democracy, liberalism, and human rights
is misplaced in today's global landscape. We
live in a shifting world, where economic, military,
and political power is more diffused than at
any point in modern history. The West no longer
enjoys unchallenged dominance. The rise of new
economic giants in the East, the resurgence of
old powers like Russia and China, and the restructuring
of the global economy have created both uncertainty
and new areas of competition. On today's geopolitical
chessboard, Huntington highlighted two civilizations
as especially significant – China and Islam.
For China, as one of the world's oldest continuous
civilizations, China has steadily reasserted
itself aiming to reclaim regional leadership
and challenge Western interests. Its rapid economic
growth, military modernization, and ambitious
projects like the Belt and Road Initiative shows
Beijing's determination to expand its influence.
Washington, meanwhile, responds with Indo -Pacific
alliances, trade restrictions, and explicit support
for Taiwan's autonomy. From trade wars to military
drills in the South China Sea, the clash of strategic
visions between the US and China seems to echo
Huntington's predictions. And for the Islamic
civilization, Huntington controversially wrote
that Islam has bloody borders, pointing to recurring
conflicts along Muslim -non -Muslim frontiers.
Events like the Iranian Revolution, the US wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Syrian Civil War,
the rise of ISIS, and the ongoing Gaza war all
seemed to reinforce parts of his arguments. Yet,
here too, we must question, are these conflicts
primarily civilizational, or are they just as
much about state power, authoritarian rule, colonial
legacies, and global inequality? And many scholars
pushed back. Amartya Sen the Nobel Peace Prize
-winning economist warns against reducing people
to one dimension of identity, like religion or
civilization. In his Identity and Violence, 2006
work, Sen argues that humans hold many overlapping
identities, like national, professional, linguistic,
regional, cultural, and that conflict arises
when people are boxed into a single civilizational
label. Edward Said, author of Orientalism, critiqued
Huntington directly, calling the clash of civilizations
a dangerous simplification that fosters an us
-versus -them mindset. Said argued that Huntington's
framing was less about describing the world and
more about justifying Western fears after the
Cold War. And there's Francis Fukuyama, writing
just before Huntington, envisioned a very different
outcome. In The End of History and The Last Man,
1992, he claimed liberal democracy would be the
final form of global political organization.
Instead of endless clashes, Fukuyama imagined
the spread of Western values as nearly inevitable.
an argument disrupted by the very events Huntington
would later interpret as civilizational conflict.
Adding to this, globalization complicates Huntington's
vision. Despite conflicts, the 21st century has
also seen unprecedented interconnectedness. Muslim
-majority countries are deeply tied to global
economies. The Gulf states, acting as financial
hubs, Turkey straddling East and West, Indonesia
emerging as a G20 leader. China's factories are
deeply intertwined with U .S. consumers. Technology,
trade, and migration mean that civilizations
are not sealed compartments, but overlapping
networks. So the deeper question is this. Are
we truly witnessing a clash of civilizations?
Or do Huntington's predictions merely provide
a convenient story to explain what are really
power struggles, resource competitions, and identity
politics layered on top of globalization? So
for example, US -China relations are both rivalry
and partnership. Islam and the West clash in
some contexts, but Muslims are also integral
participants in Western societies. And there's
global challenges, like climate change, AI governance,
pandemics, which all demand collective solutions,
not isolation. Huntington saw inevitable clashes.
His critiques suggest a more nuanced reality.
One where identities overlap, where cooperation
and conflict coexist, and where politics, rather
than civilizations alone, drive much of the story.
So let's take Denmark for example. It's a nation
known for its openness and multicultural values
that found itself at the center of global controversy
in 2005. The publication of cartoons depicting
the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper ignited
outrage across the Muslim world, triggering protests,
embassy attacks, and even violent clashes. What
seemed to the Danes as an exercise in free speech
was perceived by many Muslims as an intolerable
violation of religious respect. This incident
starkly illustrated how deeply held values can
collide. religious devotion on one side, freedom
of expression on the other, and how avoiding
enmity in such cases can threaten the very fabric
of open societies. It is precisely in such moments
that people search for frameworks to explain
global conflict. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations
provides one such paradigm, casting many of these
tensions as evidence of Islam's confrontation
with the West. But is that really what we're
witnessing? Consider the record. Are ethnic or
cultural conflicts truly more frequent now than
20 or 30 years ago? Not exactly. Many bloody
conflicts in the 1990s had roots in Cold War
or even colonial legacies like Rwanda, Burundi,
and the Balkans, which remind us that deep political
and social grievances, not just civilizational
divides, exploded once authoritarian systems
collapsed. In places like Yugoslavia, internecine
war followed the breakdown of state control,
much as it had after the collapse of earlier
European empires. So, when Huntington frames
Islam and the West as locked in perennial conflict,
he overlooks these deeper currents. For one,
he ignores the diversity within the Muslim world
itself. Millions of Muslims are democratic, pluralistic,
and forward -looking. Indonesia, the world's
largest Muslim -majority democracy, is more often
a U .S. partner than adversary. The same can
be said of countries like Jordan or Morocco,
which maintain strong ties with the West. Even
geopolitics complicates Huntington's neat binaries.
Saudi Arabia, often identified with conservative
Islam, has long been one of America's closest
allies. Its political and economic weight, particularly
oil, has historically overridden ideological
divides. The paradox of this U .S.-Saudi partnership
complicates any straightforward notion of a civilizational
clash. But recent events underscore this complexity.
Take the Gaza war of 2023 to the present day,
which has reignited global debates about Islam,
the West, and justice. But what looks like a
clash of faiths... is also a struggle over territory,
national identity, and great power involvement,
from U .S. mediation to Iran's support of militant
groups. In Afghanistan, the Taliban's return
to power in 2021 and their continued rule reflect
not a monolithic clash of Islam vs the West,
but the failure of western state building, regional
power games, and internal Afghan dynamics. And
in Europe, ongoing migration debates, whether
over Syrian refugees in Germany, Afghan asylum
seekers in the UK, or North African migration
across the Mediterranean, often get framed in
Huntingtonian terms. Yet many analysts argue
these debates are driven more by economics, security
fears, and domestic politics. than by any pure,
civilizational incompatibility. And critics sharpen
these points. Joseph Nye reminds us that influence
today flows not only from military might, but
from soft power, like culture, diplomacy, education,
and technology. The West's relationship with
the Muslim world includes tensions, yes. but
also millions of daily connections through universities,
trade, and media. John Mearsheimer, the realist,
would argue U .S. confrontation with Islamic
states has little to do with civilizations and
everything to do with resources and balance of
power logic, like oil in Iraq, counter -terrorism
in Afghanistan, security guarantees to allies
like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, Amartya
Sen critiques Huntington's flattening of identities,
reminding us that Muslims are not only Muslims,
they are also Indonesians, Nigerians, Britons,
Americans, feminists, engineers, soccer players.
Defending them by religion alone sets up the
very divide Huntington describes. And what about
terrorism and radical non -state actors? Groups
like al -Qaeda or ISIS thrive on exactly this
civilizational framing, casting themselves as
defenders of Islam against the West. Yet the
roots of their power were shaped as much by failed
governance, economic despair, and foreign intervention
as by ideology. The so -called clash often serves
as a recruitment tool for extremists rather than
an objective description of reality. Indeed,
if Huntington were right in absolute terms, conflict
between the U .S. and Indonesia, the world's
most populous Muslim nation, would be inevitable.
Instead, Washington and Jakarta cooperate on
trade, security, and education, despite major
differences on issues like wages, or LGBTQ rights.
This forces us to confront an unsettling possibility,
that the clash of civilizations narrative may
itself be a political instrument. Leaders and
pundits use it to justify wars, surveillance,
and cultural fears. The clash becomes not an
unavoidable destiny, but a story. One that can
be weaponized to shape policies, and public opinions.
So, is the clash real, or is it a lens used to
control how we think about conflict? That's the
question we have to carry forward. Nonetheless,
however, as we probe deeper, we must confront
an uncomfortable truth. The West has historically
supported radical Islamist currents when it served
its geopolitical interests. Both Washington and
London once saw militant Islam as a buffer against
secular nationalism during the Cold War, arming
the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s to bleed the
Soviet Union or backing Gulf monarchies to counter
Jamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt. This history complicates
any simple narrative of a civilizational clash.
The U .S. may preach liberal values But time
and again, it has allied with regimes that suppress
them. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait. Because
strategic interests outweighed ideological consistency.
This paradox was exposed again during the Arab
Spring of the early 2010s. The West cautiously
supported uprisings in some countries, but defended
its old allies and others. liberal rhetoric collided
with hard, real politic, undermining the idea
that democracy promotion drives foreign policy.
Looking to the future, some analysts suggest
that we're moving toward parallel blocks rather
than an open clash, a world of partial coexistence,
where civilians live side by side while protecting
their own spheres of influence. In the Western
Hemisphere, the US still dominates, but Latin
America increasingly seeks autonomy through organizations
like CELAC, C -E -L -A -C, formed in 2010 to
foster regional cooperation. Meanwhile, countries
like Brazil and Argentina have started leaning
into expanded BRICS partnerships with China and
Russia, signaling that Latin America won't always
align neatly with Washington. Across the Atlantic,
the growth of Islam is undeniable. With nearly
2 billion adherents worldwide and demographic
momentum on its side, Islam is projected by Pew
Research to become equal in size to Christianity
by the mid -21st century. From Casablanca to
Jakarta, its presence is vast and fast -growing,
accelerated by migration, higher birth rates,
and diaspora communities globally. In cities
like London, Paris, and New York, Islam is part
of the cultural fabric, complicating Huntington's
neat divisions. That raises a provocative question.
Are we heading toward convergence, not clash?
Some speak loosely of Chrislam, pointing to theological
overlaps between Christianity and Islam. A true
synthesis seems unlikely, but what is realistic
is a growing recognition of shared values like
justice, community, and care for the poor. values
that might support coexistence if cultivated
wisely. Still, the future could swing either
way. Will convergence unfold peacefully or through
violent friction? Consider Iran. Its backing
of armed groups from Hezbollah to militias in
Iraq and Syria fuels ongoing confrontation with
both the U .S. and Israel. The Gaza war currently
happening has only deepened these rifts, with
Iran's influence across the axis of resistance
more visible than ever. Or look at Turkey under
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, often branded
a neo -Ottoman for his ambitions to restore Turkish
influence. Erdogan has backed military operations
in Syria, brokered maritime deals with Libya,
and expanded Ankara's naval presence in the Eastern
Mediterranean. His policies secure energy routes
and project Turkish power deep into Africa. Just
last year, Turkey signed new defense deals with
Libya while upgrading economic ties with the
Gulf states. A blend of rhetoric invoking Ottoman
legacy and cold strategic leverage. For neighbors
like Greece and Egypt, this fuels fears of destabilization.
For Europe, it raises the specter of new clashes
along the Mediterranean's civilizational scene.
Here again, the clash of civilizations narrative
offers one explanation. Erdogan reviving Islamic
identity in opposition of Europe's Christian
heritage. But realists like John Mearsheimer
would say this is less about Islam and Christianity
and more about Ankara asserting itself as a rising
middle power. Meanwhile, Joseph Nye would note
that Turkey also wields soft power—television
dramas, cultural diplomacy, and trade routes—to
win influence without war. The lesson is this.
Huntington's categories capture some fault lines,
but they flatten the complexity of geopolitics.
Religion. Culture. Economics. Power politics.
they're woven together. Whether the future looks
like blocks in coexistence, selective convergence,
or repeated conflict, will depend not just on
civilizations in the abstract, but on leaders,
alliances, and the choices societies make. But
also, when then do the Eurasian giants like China
and Russia fit into this changing landscape?
Some argue that the United States is in decline,
while China and Russia are on the rise. But the
truth is more nuanced. The U .S. faces domestic
turmoil, political gridlock, and increasing debt.
Yet it remains a superpower with unmatched global
reach. Its military alliances through NATO, partnerships
in Asia, and enduring economic dominance continue
to anchor the global order. China, meanwhile,
has rapidly moved into spaces once dominated
by Washington. In Iraq, Beijing has become a
major investor, funneling billions into energy
and infrastructure, while also supplying arms.
Beyond Iraq, China stunned the world in 2023
when it successfully mediated a detente between
Saudi Arabia and Iran, two bitter rivals who
reopened embassies after years of hostility.
That deal was more than diplomacy. It symbolized
Beijing's growing capacity to act where Washington
could not, and marked a milestone in the shift
toward multipolarity. Russia, though weakened
by sanctions and its ongoing war in Ukraine,
remains a disruptive force. Moscow continues
to cultivate influence in Africa, where private
military companies like the Wagner Group left
their imprint. And it leverages energy exports
to retain leverage in Europe and Asia. Together,
China and Russia offer alternatives to US leadership
through platforms such as the expanded BRICS
block, which now includes countries like Saudi
Arabia and Iran. The COVID -19 pandemic accelerated
these shifts. China and Russia not only managed
their domestic responses, but exported medical
supplies, vaccines, and support, generating goodwill
in parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
These gestures increased their global visibility
at a time when Western democracies were consumed
by internal crises. In parallel, the U .S. has
often retreated. The Trump administration reduced
troop levels in Iraq, signaling fatigue with
forever wars. More recently, debates over U .S.
global commitments persist. Shaped by domestic
polarization, and fiscal strain. Political gridlock
in Congress has repeatedly pushed the government
into the brink of shutdown, damaging Washington's
reputation for reliability. In an interconnected
economy, these domestic dramas reverberate worldwide.
So, looking to 2025 and beyond, economic realities
remain central. According to the Economist Intelligence
Unit, U .S. GDP growth is projected to slow to
1 .4 % in the rest of 2025, down from 2 .4 %
in 2024, while global GDP is expected to average
2 .6 % growth over the next five years. Interest
rate cuts may support households, but high debt
levels and partisan budget fights risks undermining
stability. Meanwhile, U .S. competition with
China across trade, AI, energy supply chains,
and military posture in the Indo -Pacific will
remain the defining rivalry of this era. All
of this leads us back to Huntington. He foresaw
civilizations clashing along cultural lines,
but what we see today is something more complex.
Yes, identity and religion matters, but so do
power politics, energy resources, soft power,
and technological competition. As critics like
John Mearsheimer remind us, states pursue security
through power, while Joseph Nye emphasizes networks,
culture, and alliances. The world of 2025 looks
less like a single civilizational clash and more
like a multipolar contest. Messy, overlapping,
uncertain. So, in this first part, we've unpacked
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory, explored
its historical context, and measured it against
the messy realities of our interconnected world.
But this is just the beginning. Stay tuned for
part two of Diplomacy and Discourse. Don't forget
to like, subscribe, and put a comment down below.
Let's keep unraveling this tapestry of power,
culture, and politics together.