The Clash of Civilizations

America’s need for an ‘enemy’ for its national progress, it will require a real enemy. Such politics cannot succeed on the basis of a powerless imaginary demon. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was cast in the role of the ‘real enemy.’ This policy might have been effective in that instance. But now America has no real enemy in a practical sense. Therefore, the so-called Cold War philosophy is no longer feasible. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, if America had really required an enemy to serve its national interest, it could have chosen China for this purpose. But, as we all know, America established friendship with China by ceasing all rivalry or hostility. This shows that even if the concept of the presence of an enemy existed in the 20th century, it has outlived its usefulness in the 21st century. In the post-cold war period, Samuel Huntington wrote a book called “The Clash of Civilizations,” in which he claims that such a face-off would escalate to the dimensions of a Third World War. Its message alerts the West to the necessity to prepare for this coming war. Those who subscribe to Samuel Huntington’s logic hold that, on September 11, when a number of over-zealous Muslim youths hijacked four American planes and crashed them into the buildings at New York and Washington, this was the signal for the beginning of this civilization clash. But I cannot agree with this. To my way of thinking, the incident of September 11 was the isolated and individual reaction of unsound minds. It had nothing to do with a clash of two civilizations. Such a clash would have to be a well-considered action of the two groups, rather than a solitary kamikaze initiative. This may, of course, be sensational news for the media, but it cannot be said to be the sign of a clash of two civilizations.