beermotor
06-20-2007, 06:14 PM
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington (1996).
Thesis: world is divided among Civilizations (roughly corresponding to religious affiliations) - Western (Christian), Latin American (Roman Catholic), African, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Eastern Orthodox (Russia, et al.), Buddhist, Japanese. Conflicts happen both internally and externally. Ok, nothing new, right? But check THIS out.
"In the coming era . . . the avoidance of major intercivilizational wars requires core states [US = West, Pakistan/Iran = Islamic, Russia = Orthodox, etc] to refrain from intervening in conflicts in other civilizations. This is a truth which some states, particularly the United States, will undoubtedly find difficult to accept. This abstention rule that core states abstain from intervention in conflicts in other civilizations is the first requirement of peace in a multicivilizational, multipolar world. The second requirement is the joint mediation rule that core states negotiate with each other to contain or to halt fault line wars between states or groups from their civilizations." p. 316.
And there's a third rule:
". . . in addition to the abstention rule and the joint mediation rule, the third rule for peace in a multicivilizational world is the commonalities rule: peoples in all civilizations should search for and attempt to expand the values, institutions, and practices they have in common with peoples of other civilizations." He goes on to say this strengthening of the ties would allow Civilization to survive what may be an impending barbarism / global Dark Age with the breakdown of social order, law, etc that seems to be happening all over the world.
More information about the book can be had here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations
At any rate, these three rules sound like AWESOME talking points for RP to bring out in a debate.
I. Abstention from Conflict
II. Mediation of Conflicts
III. TRADE with Other Civilizations to build commonalities
Any thoughts? Wikipedia tells me this book received a lot of criticism, but more along the civilizational lines and whatnot. I don't think these policy rules have been criticized (except by the neocons I imagine).
Thesis: world is divided among Civilizations (roughly corresponding to religious affiliations) - Western (Christian), Latin American (Roman Catholic), African, Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu, Eastern Orthodox (Russia, et al.), Buddhist, Japanese. Conflicts happen both internally and externally. Ok, nothing new, right? But check THIS out.
"In the coming era . . . the avoidance of major intercivilizational wars requires core states [US = West, Pakistan/Iran = Islamic, Russia = Orthodox, etc] to refrain from intervening in conflicts in other civilizations. This is a truth which some states, particularly the United States, will undoubtedly find difficult to accept. This abstention rule that core states abstain from intervention in conflicts in other civilizations is the first requirement of peace in a multicivilizational, multipolar world. The second requirement is the joint mediation rule that core states negotiate with each other to contain or to halt fault line wars between states or groups from their civilizations." p. 316.
And there's a third rule:
". . . in addition to the abstention rule and the joint mediation rule, the third rule for peace in a multicivilizational world is the commonalities rule: peoples in all civilizations should search for and attempt to expand the values, institutions, and practices they have in common with peoples of other civilizations." He goes on to say this strengthening of the ties would allow Civilization to survive what may be an impending barbarism / global Dark Age with the breakdown of social order, law, etc that seems to be happening all over the world.
More information about the book can be had here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_civilizations
At any rate, these three rules sound like AWESOME talking points for RP to bring out in a debate.
I. Abstention from Conflict
II. Mediation of Conflicts
III. TRADE with Other Civilizations to build commonalities
Any thoughts? Wikipedia tells me this book received a lot of criticism, but more along the civilizational lines and whatnot. I don't think these policy rules have been criticized (except by the neocons I imagine).