Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington’s hypothesis is the notion that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will primarily be cultural, not political or economical. I agree somewhat with this opinion, but I also believe politics and economics will still play a role in future global conflicts. We cannot isolate cultural effects without understanding what the end result will look like. We will see that the three effects are almost always intertwined, especially in cases where the civilians who fight for religion want an independent state, free of economic powers from the Western World.

On the other side, Said mocks Huntington and believes in looking at the big picture and not to isolate the conflicts as the “War of the Worlds.” This is more in line with my opinion because religious or cultural conflicts will most likely not occur if there were no political or economical gain or independence in the end. We can then argue that the main cause of conflict in the modern world is the protection of cultural identity and the pursuit of an economically autonomous state.

Huntington correctly points out that conflicts in the ‘old world’ were mainly between emperors, princes, and absolute monarchs who were striving for economic and military strength. Now we see main conflicts stem from different ideologies, religions, and cultural aspects. The war on terror is a good example of conflict between the West and non-Western worlds or civilizations. In this war, it was the United States and United Kingdom along with the support of NATO who waged war against Islamist fundamentalists. This was evident when the United States entered the Philippines to assist the Armed Forces of the Philippines to specifically combat Philippines Islamist groups.

More than ever as Huntington notes, countries are torn by differences in religion within their own borders. He points out examples such as the violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. While the violence is mainly due to...