February 7, 2002

THE CRASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, AS HEARD FROM GROUND ZERO

By Tom Plate

Mutual respect may be a greater deterrent than arms buildups

(C) 2002 Asia Pacific Media Network

NEW YORK CITY --- When Samuel P. Huntington's provocative "Clash of Civilizations" grabbed center-stage in the international media and policy arena a few years ago, the book created more than just a stir: Its bold thesis -- that the world was divided into tense, rival cultures and civilizations -- was so defining, it seemed to be the Next Big Idea, as the concept of the Cold War had been for decades past.

But the book had its critics, especially in Asia, who felt that Huntington offered such a bleak "Lord of the Flies" view of the world that the give-and-take of international politics suddenly seemed pointless and the prospect of war inescapable -- as if humanity was no more a civilized world than one barbaric tribe pitted against another in violent dances of confrontation and destruction.

This week, the impressively enduring, if not always endearing, Huntington was in the middle of the media and policy controversy again, defending his bizarre and frightening global viewpoint at several World Economic Forum sessions in New York, where the so-called Davos Conference is decamped rather than in its usual Swiss ski resort.

Indeed, the cruel events of September 11 at Ground Zero -- just a few miles away from the conference's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel -- would appear to provide grim support for Huntington's thesis.

The terrorist attack might have put the professor into a smug state of I-told-you-so satisfaction. Not so. Instead, Huntington appears to be carefully -- and responsibly -- refining his thesis as history provides new events to comprehend, and new tragedies to overcome.

In a tone far more scholarly than smug, he told one panel that differences in values and cultures among civilizations need to be traversed. The challenge, he said, is to figure out whether the bridge to cross is a "bridge over a chasm, a wide ocean, a changing stream or what?"

But then, in what seemed to be a partial shift from his overall outlook of gloom and doom, he admitted, "Differences in culture and civilization don't necessarily have to lead to conflict." That's because cultural enmities are made, not born; and they can be created through misunderstandings or by a lack of mutual respect. "The need to feel respected is an important factor driving people," he said.

Three factors may be behind the problem.

One is undoubtedly the media's reprehensible proclivity for stereotyping whole peoples and groups -- indeed, "civilizations." Consider the near-libel that most of the U.S. news media have committed against "Arabs." That's why, suggested Walter R. Mead of the U.S. Council of Foreign Relations, it's vital the U.S. media are "not the only voice heard or always the strongest." He looks to the explosion of alternative news sources -- foreign newspaper Web pages, for example -- as an antidote to the tyranny of Western news.

A second factor is the decline in the authority of the nation-state and the subsequent power vacuum into which new -- sometimes bogus and evil -- authorities enter and grow.

A third factor is the upsetting effect of modernity, including economic advancement, a force that constantly roils the international environment and gives rise to new blends of cultures. Thus, Huntington's division of the world into static sets of rival cultures will become inherently susceptible to being overtaken by new realities.

What is urgently needed is a more sophisticated, educated and cosmopolitan diplomacy. "The need is for a new global culture in which these national and ethnic differences can peacefully co-exist," said Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore's ambassador to the United Nations. He related his own experiences growing up in a Hindu household next to Muslim neighbors in a Chinese-dominated country under British rule. That melting-pot background leads him to believe that different cultures absolutely can live side by side.

But with new technologies and accumulations of new wealth creating new cultures, intense pressures and powerful interests, how can clashes be avoided in a world full of inequalities?

This is surely the overarching challenge for world diplomacy and international institutions, not to mention the media. The world needs to agree to zero tolerance for any more Ground Zeros, culturally driven or not.

From World Economic Forum, NYC 2002:

The Taliban of Money Market Capitalism (February 6, 2002)

Previous Columns:

The Canary in the Asian Coal Mine (January 30, 2002)

Crony Capitalism, American Style (January 23, 2002)

The Medium is in the Message (January 16, 2002)

The Importance of Being Optimistic (January 9, 2002)

(C) 2002 Asia Pacific Media Network