Posts Tagged ‘Samuel Huntington’


Twenty years ago, Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order posited that the post-Soviet world consisted of nine distinct civilizations. Their cultures and values were different and often in opposition. Huntington was hailed and later assailed. Regarding today’s immigration issues, attention to Huntington must be paid.

Huntington’s new world order consisted of the West, Latin America, Africa, the Islamic world, China, Hindu India, Orthodox Christian Eurasia (Russia and environs), the Buddhist world and Japan. Three assertions—among many—bear study.

— “International organizations based on states with cultural commonality, such as the European Union, are far more successful than those that attempt to transcend cultures.”

— “The philosophical assumptions, underlying values, social relations, customs and overall outlooks on life differ significantly among civilizations.”

— “Global politics has become multipolar and multicivilizational.”

Nations and peoples are not all just the same, and American values don’t dominate the world. This sheds some light on Donald Trump’s position on Muslims—which I do not share—and the European right, which seeks to limit or halt Muslim immigration. Let’s first look at Europe.

Ten days ago, Germany’s conservative political parties reached an agreement limiting the number of immigrants allowed to enter each year. This from a nation that in 2015 welcomed one million immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Last Sunday, Austria’s election produced Europe’s youngest prime minister, 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz. His People’s Party wants to strongly curtail immigration of Muslims.

Europe has never exhibited the United States’ ability to integrate immigrants from different cultures. Decades ago, Europeans loved accusing America of racism when Europe’s non-white, non-Christian populations were small enough to seem colorful rather than threatening. What makes Europe and the U.S. so different? I asked my friend Manfred Wolf, author of a provocative book of essays, Muslims in Europe: Notes, Comments, Questions.

Europe puts up cultural obstacles to assimilation, says Manfred. The French, for example, created a highly secular society. (Europe is heavily secular.) Anyone can be French, but religious identity must be kept private. At the same time, he notes, a significant minority of Muslins in Europe are not sure they wish to assimilate. They live in Europe but may not be of it.

America has never had a major influx of immigrants who refused to submit to the nation’s reigning culture and values, according to Manfred. The Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews have ways that are entirely different, but their numbers are comparatively small. “In America, if Ahmed and Yasmina live next door and don’t make trouble, they’re Americans. We don’t care.”

Manfred’s take on immigration and refugees is personal. As a child, he fled Holland with his family to escape the Nazis. Eventually, they settled in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. He came to the U.S. at 17 to attend college.

He succeeded. “I’d learned English,” Manfred says. “I knew about America. I wanted to accept American culture, which made me a perfect immigrant.” If culture and personality match, he notes, assimilation becomes easy.

It may seem disheartening that immigrants often bring with them values that clash with those of their new country. And yes, much bigotry exists in nations taking in—or rejecting—migrants from other cultures. But solutions to this complex problem require understanding that the problem is, indeed, complex.

My novels, including The Odd Plight of Adonis Licht, currently are unavailable in Amazon’s Kindle store (a publisher matter soon to be rectified). You can still purchase the softcover versions from Amazon—or directly from me.

To respond, click on “comments” to the right just below the title of this post. Then go to the response space at the bottom of the post.


Medical science has helped many cancer patients extend their lives. Further, it’s inching towards cures. Military science has been far less effective in fighting religious cancers, such as ISIS—the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (aka ISIL, the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant). The United States might take that into account as Iraq faces dismemberment.

We toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. Then Iraq disintegrated thanks to a virtually nonexistent post-war plan for rebuilding a shattered country. A troop surge in 2007 brought bubbling hot spots down to a simmer but never extinguished the fire. Fuel and matches remained abundant. We withdrew in 2011. Now the lid has blown. Again.

Let’s get real. And that includes you, Dick Cheney! We can’t remake the Middle East. The cancer of Islamism—Islamic fundamentalism as distinct from Islam—has eaten away at the region since the Sunni-Shiite split in the Seventh Century following the death of Muhammad. We can retard its spread in some places, but a cure will come only from within. Whether it will be found in this century remains to be seen.

Is the cancer metaphor overblown? While all peoples praise peace, justice and freedom, Islamists and many others in the Muslim world define these principles differently. Peace means planting your boot on the neck of your enemy. And you always have enemies. Justice equates with revenge rather than ending the conditions that contribute to hostilities. Freedom, in terms of the caliphate, entails living as you believe God dictates—and dictating the same conditions to everyone you overrun. In The Clash of Civilizations (1996), Samuel Huntington posited that different civilizations/cultures possess different values and goals. Some are malignant. He was right.

What now? Use may be made of American air power in Iraq. But American boots—aside from Special Forces advisors and small, covert special operations units—will not hit the ground. We could stay there for a hundred years, and the same religious and tribal hatreds would remain while we slowly bled ourselves. So we won’t try to cure the cancer of Islamism. We’ll attempt to contain it. This will involve a web of complex, often unsavory, political relationships to stabilize the disease’s periphery.

Turkey will work with Kurdistan. (They’ve been coming to terms for a while.) The vicious Assad regime in Syria will receive more support from Iran, the rebels little from us. The U.S. and Iran will engage, although how remains unclear. We’ll try to drag Saudi Arabia to the table, although the Saudis hate Iraq’s Shiite, Maliki-run government—which we’ll try to change. We’ll quietly prop up Egypt’s military-run government and continue working with Jordan’s King Hussein. We’ll stand by Israel as a counterweight to Shiite Islamist ambitions in Lebanon—again while working with Hezbollah’s patron Iran. Hopefully, Mid-East first aid will stop the bleeding then prompt ISIS to cannibalize itself.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” goes a well-known Arab saying. Many enemies may accommodate each other until this crisis ends. But once ISIS is dealt with, allies joined under duress will turn on each other yet again.

The blog will take two weeks off. Look for the next post on July 11.

Responding is simple. Click on “comments” above then go to the bottom of the article.