Huntington's theory of the conflict of civilizations briefly. WITH

Synopsis of S. Huntington's article "Clash of Civilizations?".

— Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations // Polis. 1994. No. 1. pp.33-48.

The basis of the article is the author's statement that the central axis of world politics in the future will be the conflict between the "West and the rest of the world", and the reaction of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values.

What is the axial source of the problem and the main source of conflict? The author believes that the most significant conflicts of global politics will unfold between nations and groups belonging to different civilizations. The main source of conflict will not be ideology or economics. The major boundaries that divide humanity and the predominant sources of conflict will be determined by culture.

What are the changes in the nature of conflicts? During the XVII-XIX centuries. conflicts unfolded mainly between sovereigns - kings, emperors, absolute and constitutional monarchs, who sought to expand their bureaucratic apparatus, increase armies, strengthen economic power, and most importantly, annex new lands to their possessions. But since the First World War, "wars between kings have ceased, and wars have begun between peoples." At the present stage, the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer act as objects of Western colonial policy, but along with the West, they themselves begin to move and create history.

What is the nature of civilizations? Civilizations are determined by the presence of common features of an objective order, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, as well as by the subjective self-identification of people. It is possible to define civilization as a cultural community of the highest rank, as the broadest level of cultural identity of people. Civilizations can mix, overlap, include sub-civilizations. Western civilization exists in two main varieties: European and North American, while Islamic civilization is divided into Arabic, Turkish and Malay. A civilization can include several nation-states, as in the case of Western, Latin American or Arab civilizations, or a single one, as in the case of Japan. The boundaries between them are rarely clear cut, but they are real. Civilizations are dynamic: they rise and fall, they fall apart and merge. Much of human history is the history of civilizations. Only 6 out of 21 civilizations have survived to the present.

Why is a clash of civilizations inevitable? According to S. Huntington's forecasts, the image of the world will be largely formed in the course of the interaction of seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African civilizations. The most significant conflicts of the future will unfold along the fault lines between civilizations for a number of reasons:

1. due to deep differences between civilizations. Civilizations are dissimilar in their history, language, culture, traditions and, most importantly, religion. People of different civilizations have different views on the relationship between God and man, individual and group, etc., have different ideas about the relative importance of rights and obligations, freedom and coercion, equality and hierarchy. For centuries, the most protracted and bloody conflicts were generated precisely by the differences between civilizations.

2. the world is getting smaller. The interaction between the peoples of different civilizations is intensifying, which leads to the growth of civilizational self-awareness, to a deeper understanding of the differences between civilizations and commonality within a civilization. Interaction between representatives of different civilizations strengthens their civilizational self-awareness, and this, in turn, exacerbates the differences and hostility that go back into the depths of history, or at least are perceived in this way.

3. The processes of economic modernization and social change around the world are blurring the traditional identification of people with their place of residence, and at the same time the role of the nation-state as a source of identification is weakening. The resulting gaps are mostly filled with religion, the "revenge of God", creates the basis for identification and involvement with a community that goes beyond national boundaries - for the unification of civilizations.

4. The growth of civilizational self-awareness is dictated by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at the height of its power, and on the other hand, and perhaps just for this reason, among non-Western civilizations there is a return to their own roots. In many non-Western countries, there is an intensive process of de-westernization of elites and their return to their own cultural roots.

5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less subject to change than economic and political ones, and as a result, they are more difficult to resolve or reduce to a compromise.

6. growing economic regionalism. The commonality of culture clearly contributes to the rapid growth of economic ties between countries. For example, Japan has established strong ties with China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. It is impossible to establish such close economic relations with America.

The conflict of civilizations unfolds on two levels. At the micro level, groups living along the fault lines between civilizations are fighting for land and power over each other. At the macro level, countries belonging to different civilizations compete for influence in the military and economic spheres, fight for control over international organizations and third countries, trying to assert their own political and religious values.

What are the fault lines between civilizations?

If in the years of the Cold War the main centers of crises and bloodshed were concentrated along political and ideological borders, now they are moving along the fault lines between civilizations. The liquidation of the ideological division of Europe with the disappearance of the "Iron Curtain" was replaced by the revival of its cultural division into Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodoxy and Islam, on the other.

An important dividing line in Europe is the eastern border of Western Christianity, established by 1500. It runs along the current borders between Russia and Finland, between the Baltic countries and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine, turns west, separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then , passing through Yugoslavia, coincides almost exactly with the line that now separates Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia. In the Balkans, this line coincides with the historical border between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires.

Protestants and Catholics live north and west of this line. They have a common experience of European history, their economic situation is much better than that of people living to the east. Now they can count on closer cooperation within the framework of a single European economy and the consolidation of democratic political systems.

East and south of this line live Orthodox Christians and Muslims. Economically, they lag behind the West and are less prepared to build sustainable democratic political systems.

All military conflicts of the 20th century took place on the border of civilizations: in the Persian Gulf, in Central Asia and the Caucasus, between Pakistan and India. Cultural differences increase the economic conflict between these countries. The historically established borders between the civilizations of the Eurasian continent are in a state of conflict. These conflicts reach a particular intensity along the borders of the Islamic world, in the space between North Africa and Central Asia. But violence is also practiced in conflicts between Muslims on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines on the other.

What is the syndrome of "brotherly countries" and where does it manifest itself?

Groups or countries belonging to one civilization, being involved in a war with people of another civilization, try to enlist the support of representatives of their civilization. As a new world order emerges, belonging to one civilization or, as H. D. S. Greenway puts it, “brother country syndrome” is replacing political ideology and traditional considerations of maintaining a balance of power as the main principle of cooperation and coalitions. The gradual emergence of this syndrome is evidenced by all the recent conflicts - in the Persian Gulf, in the Caucasus, in Bosnia.

1. During the conflict in the Persian Gulf, one Arab country invaded another, and then entered the fight against a coalition of Arab, Western and other countries. Although only a few Muslim governments openly sided with Saddam Hussein, he was unofficially supported by the ruling elites of many Arab countries, and he gained immense popularity among the broad sections of the Arab population. The statement "It is not the world that is fighting against Iraq, it is the West that is fighting against Islam" vividly characterizes the nature of the conflict.

2. The "brotherly countries" syndrome also manifests itself in conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The military successes of the Armenians in 1992-1993 prompted Turkey to strengthen its support for Azerbaijan, which is related to it religiously, ethnically and linguistically. The Turkish Air Force conducts reconnaissance flights along the Armenian border. Türkiye delays food supplies and air flights to Armenia. Türkiye and Iran have announced that they will not allow the dismemberment of Azerbaijan.

3. The war in the former Yugoslavia. Here the Western public showed sympathy and support for the Bosnian Muslims, as well as horror and disgust for the atrocities committed by the Serbs. At the same time, she was little worried about the attacks on Muslims by the Croats and the dismemberment of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, the leading countries of European civilization (Germany, the USA, the Vatican) rallied to support their co-religionists. Boris Yeltsin's government tried to pursue a middle ground policy so as not to spoil relations with the Orthodox Serbs and at the same time not to oppose Russia to the West. Today, the conflict in Yugoslavia is causing the intervention of countries that are divided into Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian.

Conflicts and violence are also possible between countries belonging to the same civilization, as well as within these countries. But they are usually not as intense and all-encompassing as conflicts between civilizations. According to S. Huntington's forecasts, the next world war, if it breaks out, will be a war between civilizations.

Sources of conflicts between the West and the rest of the world.

The West uses international organizations, military power and financial resources to rule the world, asserting its superiority, protecting Western interests and asserting Western political and economic values. One of the sources of conflict between the West and other civilizations was differences in the scale of power and the struggle for military, economic and political power. values ​​that are of paramount importance in the West are much less important in the rest of the world.

Three policy scenarios for non-Western countries: 1. Non-Western countries can take a course of isolation - to protect their countries from Western penetration and decay, and in essence withdraw from participation in the life of the world community dominated by the West. But such a policy comes at a high price, and few countries have adopted it in its entirety; 2. the opportunity to try to join the West and accept its values ​​and institutions; 3. an attempt to create a counterbalance to the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western countries against the West. At the same time, it is possible to preserve the original national values ​​and institutions - in other words, to modernize, but not to westernize.

Examples of split countries.

There are countries that are internally divided - relatively homogeneous culturally, but in which there is no agreement on the question of which civilization they belong to. The most striking example of a country split from within is Türkiye. Turkish leadership at the end of the 20th century. classifies his country among the modern nation-states of the Western type. It has made Turkey a NATO ally of the West and during the Gulf War, it seeks the country's admission to the European Community. At the same time, elements of Turkish society support the revival of Islamic traditions and argue that Turkey is fundamentally a Middle Eastern Muslim state.

Mexico has found itself in a similar position in the last decade. If Turkey abandoned its historical opposition to Europe and tried to join it, then Mexico, which previously identified itself through opposition to the United States, is now trying to emulate this country and seeks to enter the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA). Historically, internal divisions have affected Turkey most deeply. For the United States, the closest internally divided country is Mexico. On a global scale, Russia remains the most significant divided country. The question of whether Russia is part of the West, or whether it leads its own special, Orthodox-Slavic civilization, has been repeatedly raised throughout Russian history. After the victory of the communists, the problem became even more confused: having adopted a Western ideology, the communists adapted it to Russian conditions and then, in the name of this ideology, challenged the West. Communist domination removed the historic dispute between Westernizers and Slavophiles from the agenda. But after the discrediting of communism, the Russian people again faced this problem.

President Yeltsin also borrowed Western principles and goals, trying to turn Russia into a "normal" country in the Western world. However, both the ruling elite and the broad masses of Russian society disagreed on this point. At the beginning of the 1990s, as throughout almost its entire history, Russia remained an internally divided country in the turmoil between West and East.

In order for a country divided from within to be able to regain its cultural identity, three conditions must be met. 1. It is necessary that the political and economic elite of this country as a whole support and welcome such a move. 2. its people must be willing, however reluctantly, to adopt a new identity. 3. The dominant groups of the civilization into which the divided country is trying to merge must be ready to accept the “new convert”. In the case of Mexico, all three conditions are met. In the case of Turkey, the first two. And it is not at all clear, according to Huntington, the situation with Russia, which wants to join the West.

What is the Confucian-Islamic bloc?

Confucian-Islamic - military bloc. Its purpose is to assist its members in acquiring the weapons and military technology needed to counterbalance the military power of the West. Whether it will last is unknown. A new arms race is unfolding between the Islamic-Confucian countries and the West. In the previous phase, each side developed and manufactured weapons in order to achieve a balance or superiority over the other side. Now, one side is developing and producing new types of weapons, while the other is trying to limit and prevent such a buildup of weapons, while reducing its own military potential.

What are the implications for the West?

The author puts forward a hypothesis that 1) contradictions between civilizations are important and real; 2) civilizational self-awareness increases; 3) conflict between civilizations will replace ideological and other forms of conflict as the predominant form of global conflict; 4) international relations, historically a game within Western civilization, will be increasingly de-Westernized; 5) international institutions in the field of politics, economics and security will take shape within civilizations rather than between them; 6) conflicts between groups belonging to different civilizations will be more frequent, protracted and bloody than conflicts within one civilization; 7) armed conflicts between groups belonging to different civilizations will become the most likely potential source of world wars; 8) the main axes of international politics will be relations between the West and the rest of the world; 9) in the near future, the main focus of conflicts will be the relationship between the West and a number of Islamic-Confucian countries.

The author believes that the West needs to focus on the long-term perspective of international relations, it is necessary to reckon with other civilizations that are close in their power, but different in their values ​​and interests. The West will also need a deeper understanding of the fundamental religious and philosophical foundations of these civilizations. He will have to understand how the people of these civilizations imagine their own interests.

In his article "The Clash of Civilizations" (1993), S. Huntington notes that if the 20th century was the century of the clash of ideologies, then the 21st century will be the century of the clash of civilizations or religions. At the same time, the end of the Cold War is seen as a historical milestone separating the old world, where national contradictions prevailed, and the new world, characterized by a clash of civilizations.

Scientifically, this article does not stand up to scrutiny. In 1996, S. Huntington published the book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Restructuring of the World Order", which was an attempt to provide additional facts and arguments that confirm the main provisions and ideas of the article and give them an academic look.

Huntington's main thesis is: "In the post-Cold War world, the most important differences between peoples are not ideological, political or economic, but cultural." People begin to identify themselves not with a state or nation, but with a broader cultural formation - civilization, because civilizational differences that have developed over the centuries are “more fundamental than differences between political ideologies and political regimes ... Religion divides people more than ethnicity. A person can be half-French and half-Arab, and even a citizen of both of these countries (France and, say, Algeria - K.G.). It is much more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim."

Huntington identifies six modern civilizations - Hindu, Islamic, Japanese, Orthodox, Chinese (sinic) and Western. In addition to them, he considers it possible to talk about two more civilizations - African and Latin American. The shape of the emerging world, Huntington argues, will be determined by the interaction and clash of these civilizations.

Huntington is concerned primarily with the fate of the West, and the main point of his reasoning is to oppose the West to the rest of the world according to the formula "the west against the rest", i.e. West against the rest of the world.

According to Huntington, the dominance of the West is coming to an end and non-Western states are entering the world stage, rejecting Western values ​​and upholding their own values ​​and norms. The continuing decline in Western material power further diminishes the appeal of Western values.

Having lost a powerful enemy in the face of the Soviet Union, which served as a powerful mobilizing factor for consolidation, the West is persistently looking for new enemies. According to Huntington, Islam poses a particular danger to the West due to the population explosion, cultural revival and the absence of a central state around which all Islamic countries could consolidate. In fact, Islam and the West are already at war. The second major danger comes from Asia, especially from China. If the Islamic danger stems from the unruly energy of millions of active young Muslims, then the Asian danger stems from the order and discipline prevailing there, which contribute to the rise of the Asian economy. Economic success strengthens the self-confidence of Asian states and their desire to influence the fate of the world.

Huntington is in favor of further rallying, political, economic and military integration of Western countries, NATO expansion, bringing Latin America into the orbit of the West and preventing Japan from drifting towards China. Since Islamic and Chinese civilizations pose the main danger, the West should encourage Russia's hegemony in the Orthodox world.

To date, TMO has developed a general international conflict concept and ways to overcome it by the subjects of the conflict and mediators.

One of the definitions of international conflict recognized in Western political science was given by K. Wright in the mid-60s: “Conflict is a certain relationship between states that can exist at all levels, to various degrees. Broadly speaking, conflict can be divided into four stages:

1. awareness of incompatibility;

2. increasing tension;

3. pressure without the use of military force to resolve the incompatibility;

4. military intervention or war to impose a solution.

Conflict in the narrow sense refers to situations in which the parties take action against each other, i.e. to the last two stages of the conflict in a broad sense.

The advantage of this definition is the consideration of an international conflict as a process that goes through certain stages of development. The concept of "international conflict" is broader than the concept of "war", which is a special case of international conflict.

To designate such a phase in the development of an international conflict, when the confrontation of the parties is associated with the threat of its development into an armed struggle, the concept of "international crisis" is often used. In terms of their scale, crises can cover relations between states of the same region, different regions, major world powers (for example, the Caribbean crisis of 1962). If unsettled, crises either escalate into hostilities or pass into a latent state, which in the future is capable of generating them again.

During the Cold War, the concepts of "conflict" and "crisis" were practical tools for solving the military-political problems of confrontation between the USSR and the USA, reducing the likelihood of a nuclear collision between them. There was an opportunity to combine conflict behavior with cooperation in vital areas, to find ways to de-escalate conflicts.

Subjects of the conflict. These include coalitions of states, individual states, as well as parties, organizations and movements fighting to prevent, end and resolve various types of conflicts related to the exercise of power. The attribute, the main characteristic of the subjects of the conflict, until recently, is strength. It is understood as the ability of one subject of the conflict to force or convince another subject of the conflict to do something that he would not do in another situation. In other words, the strength of the subject of the conflict means the ability to coerce (2).

Causes international conflicts scientists call:

» state competition;

» mismatch of national interests;

» territorial claims;

» social injustice on a global scale;

» uneven distribution of natural resources in the world;

» negative perception of each other by the parties;

» personal incompatibility of leaders, etc.

Various terminologies are used to characterize international conflicts: “hostility”, “struggle”, “crisis”, “armed confrontation”, etc. A generally accepted definition of an international conflict does not yet exist due to the variety of its features and properties of political, economic, social, ideological, diplomatic, military and international legal character.

Researchers distinguish positive and negative functions international conflicts. To the number positive include:

♦ prevention of stagnation in international relations;

♦ stimulation of creative principles in search of ways out of difficult situations;

♦ determining the degree of mismatch between the interests and goals of states;

♦ preventing larger conflicts and ensuring stability by institutionalizing low-intensity conflicts.

destructive The functions of international conflicts are seen in the fact that they:

Cause disorder, instability and violence;

Increase the stressful state of the psyche of the population in the participating countries;

They give rise to the possibility of ineffective political decisions.

About the new geopolitical stage in the evolution of human society, which came after World War II, the author first expressed in his article "The Clash of Civilizations" (question to readers), published in 1993. This article caused O greater resonance than all others published during the entire post-war period. An active discussion took place in dozens of countries on all continents, "apparently, the author writes, it hit the nerves of readers on all continents." This prompted the author to write a book, taking into account more than 400 (!) Published papers discussing his article. The work took 20 years, the book was published in 1996 (translated into Russian - in 2006) and to this day remains the most popular geopolitical treatise, because it not only formulates a new stage in international relations, but also gives a forecast of the global development of earthly human civilization , A experience of our time confirms his approach and predictions. The author divides the history of mankind into three periods - the era of tribes, countries and, today, civilizations. As tribes united into countries, so countries began to unite into civilizations. In principle, the union of countries and peoples is known. These are empires (from Assyria to Great Britain) or international political unions. However, civilizations, unlike violent associations of various peoples in empires - are formed spontaneously, and, unlike temporary political unions of different countries - are not due to the political situation, but are formed by uniting peoples and countries identical or close cultures, which ensures their stability. So, civilization is a voluntary natural association of countries and peoples of an identical or similar culture: “Civilization is a cultural community of people, it is a synonym for culture, complemented by the degree of development of society” and “Culture is a concept of philosophy, a set of features that define civilization”."Culture is a unifying force" similar, - V.R) or causing discord ( alien, - V.R.) societies and peoples” and, already today Vaclav Havel, President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic (1989-1993), writer and thinker, summarized - “Cultural conflicts are intensifying, and today they have become more dangerous than ever in history.” In other words, civilization is the socio-political and material completion of culture, and therefore "For most people, their cultural identity is the most important thing." By the way, E. Yevtushenko also wrote about this (2011): “The main thing that holds society together is not material values ​​- they cannot replace spiritual ideals. They are important… But the poverty of the spirit with material wealth is a disaster for any country.” The great poet, consciously or intuitively, used the strongest expression of tragedy - "catastrophe". In a recent (July 2013) article, Boris Gulko notes that in the period 2000-2011. in the United States, the number of those who believe religion is very important fell from 80% to 60% (by 25%) and in the same period the number of suicides increased by 40%. It already exceeds the number of deaths in road accidents. This is a catastrophe . “Over a decade, about 400,000 people ended their lives in the United States - about the same number died in World War II and the Korean War combined” ... “in 2010, suicide became the most common death in developed countries”, with the sharpest, I add, take-off” poverty of spirit”, the loss of religiosity, morality, traditions and identity (Who am I?) throughout the history of the Western world. Aristotle spoke about this: “Whoever advances in knowledge, but lags behind in morality and morality, goes more backward than forward” and pointed out the 26th President of the United States, Republican Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919): “To educate a person intellectually, not by educating him morally grow a threat to society". Continuing to analyze the formation of civilizations, Huntington emphasizes: just as civilization is a consequence of culture, so culture is shaped by religion and in this way: “Religion is the central, defining, characteristic of civilizations - it is the basis of great civilizations” .... "Of all the objective elements that define civilization, religion is the most important." "Religion in today's world is perhaps the most important force that motivates and mobilizes people." In general, the author says: “Religion takes over from ideology” and with the fall of religion (the West), “national feelings, the significance of national traditions fall sharply” and, I add, a drop in vitality, “civilizational fatigue” sets in - the decline of civilization: “ Civilizations do not perish at the hands of others, they commit suicide” (A. Toynbee, “Comprehension of History”, 1961). So, the formation of civilizations occurs according to the scheme: Religion - culture - civilization and the collapse of civilizations occurs in the same sequence. After the victory of US President Reagan in the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet camp (Marxist empire), the author divides our world into the following main civilizations: - Western (Judeo-Christian), divided into three components: Europe, North America and Latin (Catholic ) America with authoritarian traditions; - Orthodox (Russian), differs from Western by its Byzantine roots, three hundred years of Tatar yoke and thousand-year traditions of monarchical, Soviet and modern absolutism. - Jewish - Christianity and Islam are historically connected with it. Christianity, based on Jewish origins and its own theology, created a Judeo-Christian culture and civilization. Islam, having borrowed the idea of ​​monotheism from Judaism, created a sharply different religion, a different image of God and a civilization of religious fascism. Regardless of this, Judaism "preserved its cultural identity and with the establishment of the State of Israel received ( recreated, - V.R.) all the objective attributes of civilization: religion, language, customs, political and territorial House ”(statehood). - Sinskaya (Confucian, Chinese) and Vietnam and Korea close to it. Today it is more correct to call it: Chinese with a Confucian value system - thrift, family, work, discipline and - the rejection of individualism, a penchant for collectivism and soft authoritarianism, and not for democracy. - Japanese (Buddhist and Shinto), spun off from Chinese in the first centuries AD. and abruptly moved away from her. - Hindu (Hindu, Hindustan), Hinduism is "the very essence of Indian civilization." - Islamic, civilization of conquests, for it the whole non-Islamic world is an enemy ("We, and they") and is subject to conquest, because their god, Allah, and his prophet Muhammad so require. A Muslim who agrees to peace with the "infidels" is subject to death. The author pays special attention to this civilization, for: "Ignoring the influence of the Islamic revival on the entire Eastern Hemisphere at the end of the twentieth century is like ignoring the influence of the Protestant Reformation on European politics at the end of the sixteenth century." In the new world, the author believes, "the most large-scale, important and dangerous conflicts will occur not between social classes and not between countries within civilizations, but between civilizations that unite them." Returning to Western civilization, the author writes: “Western Christianity is undoubtedly the most important historical feature of Western civilization. Among the peoples of Western Christianity existed ( past time, - V.R.) developed sense of unity; people were aware of their differences from the Turks, Moors, Byzantines and other peoples" and they acted "not only in the name of gold, but also in the name of God" ... "The disappearance of faith and the moral guidance of religion in individual and collective human behavior leads to anarchy, immorality and undermining civilized life” (remember: “a man who has lost his faith is like cattle”, or, in Dostoevsky: “If there is no God, then everything is allowed”, - a complete return to barbarism, from the force of law to the law of force). Christianity is in the deepest crisis, the deepest in its entire 2,000-year history: the late Pope in 2005 kisses the Koran (!!), and the leader of the Christian (??!) West, the President of the United States in 2009 bows to the waist in front of King and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and invites the Muslim Brotherhood to his speech in Cairo. This crisis and the replacement of Christian culture with multi-culture is leading to the decline of our civilization. “The survival of the West depends on being reaffirmed ( after the founding fathers, - V.R.) Americans their Western identity and whether Westerners will accept their civilization ( and culture, - V.R.) as Unique, based on the religion of the founders. Turning to Islam, the author emphasizes: “The revival of Islam ( initiated by Democratic President Carter in 1979 - V.R.), in any particular form ( Shiites, Sunnis, Salafis, - V.R.), signifies a rejection of European and American influence... the most powerful manifestation of anti-Westernism. This is not a rejection of modernity, but a rejection of the West, its secular relativistic ( without moral, - V.R.) of a degenerate culture and proclaiming the superiority of its own culture," and the West, proclaiming a multi-culture, abandons its own (characterized by the constant patronage of the "Muslim Brothers", a born Muslim, the leader of the West, US President Barack Hussein Obama, elected by the American people). Returning to culture, the author points out that “language and religion are the central element of culture and civilization” . Attributing this to the so-called. “Palestinians”, we note that they have neither an independent language nor an independent religion: both in language and in religion - they are Arabs who settled in Palestine - false Palestinians and false people. In general, the author writes, we must remember that “The central axis of the politics of the modern world ... is the commonality or difference of cultural roots” and at the same time points out: “The cultural distinction between East and West is less manifested in economic well-being - and to a greater extent - in difference fundamental philosophy, values ​​and way of life”. Separately, the author dwells on the connection between civilization and identity: “Undecided on one’s identity ( Who am I, what culture do I belong to, what do I defend and who is close and alien to me - V.R.), people cannot use the policy ( have no arguments, - V.R.) to pursue their interests. We only know who we are after we know who we are not and only then do we know who we're up against." The principle that the leaders of countries and peoples must follow is clearly and unambiguously formulated - who we are and who is for and against us. In Europe and in the US this principle has already been violated by multi-culture and its means of implementation - political correctness, which turns the West into an easily conquered chaos (Roman analogy). The exception to this current degradation of the West is Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic and Israel. The author recalls that “the West conquered the world… by the superiority of organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners will never forget that." Therefore, it is better to live separately. In connection with identity, the author dwells on the concept of personal individuality of the West: “Individualism remains the hallmark of the West among the civilizations of the twentieth century ( and the 21st?, - V.R.), over and over again, Westerners and non-Westerners point to individualism as the central distinguishing feature of the West" and that "the realization of personal autonomy occurs solely along cultural scripts." It follows that the erosion of culture destroys the sense of personal independence and individual identity, which turns a person from a free citizen of a democracy into a submissive and zombified subject of a totalitarian regime. One of the external reasons for the weakening of the West, mentioned in the book, is: "With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only serious competitor of the West disappeared." This led the West (especially Europe, previously always under the threat of the Union) to the loss of the need for defense and ideological confrontation. The West has lost the need to assert itself in the superiority of its culture - the core of its development. The collapse of culture has led to a decrease in work ethic and a slowdown in economic growth, the disintegration of morality, the family and a decrease in the birth rate, it is accompanied by unemployment, budget deficits, social disintegration, drug addiction and crime. As a result, “Economic power is moving to East Asia, and military power and political influence begin to follow ... The readiness of other societies ( and countries, - V.R.) accept the dictates of the West or obey its teachings evaporates quickly, like self-confidence West and its will to dominate ( or, at least, to leadership, - V.R.). Now ( Bye, - V.R.) the dominance of the West is undeniable, but fundamental changes are already taking place”… “The decline of the West is still in its slow phase, but at some point it may suddenly pick up speed. In general, the author predicts: “The West will remain the most powerful civilization in the first decades of the 21st century and occupy leading positions in science, technology and the military field, but control over other important resources will be dispersed among the core states of non-Western civilizations.” In other words, the West will lose influence, as we already see today. The author notes two features of this (our, today's) period: “The weakening of economic and military power, which leads to self-doubt and an identity crisis ...” and, in my opinion, is especially important: “The acceptance by non-Western societies Western democratic institutions encourages and gives way to power for national and anti-Western political movements" This is exactly what happened in South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and in the countries of the "Arab spring", which strengthened Islam, which for Muslims, "Islam is a source of identity, meaning, legitimacy , development, power and hope”, a sense of security, belonging to a powerful community of many millions. For all these countries and peoples, the Koran and Sharia, hostile to any manifestation of freedom, replace the constitution and demand the elimination of Western civilization. "Islamic revival is a mainstream, not extremism, it is a comprehensive, not an isolated process" ( there are no extremists and moderate Muslims, there are only more or less active ones. - V.R.). Islamic revolutions (like other revolutionary movements) are started by students and intellectuals, with the support of the West, seeking elections, although during the same period the majority of voters (rural and urban residents) are traditional Muslims, and the results of democratic elections are unambiguously predictable. Today's Islamic renaissance is a consequence of the West's loss of its own landmarks, the growth of the oil wealth of Islamic countries, demographics and, above all, the erroneous policies of Western leaders: a typical, but not the only example is Iran, where US President Carter brought the leader of the Islamic Revolution to power in 1979 , Ayatollah Khomeini, or the US refusal to support its ally, the President of Pakistan, General Musharraf (due to the violation of democracy), who, under pressure from the opposition, was forced to resign and the West lost an ally. On the whole, this book is so saturated with Huntington's own thoughts and quotes from other authors that its summary, of course, cannot replace the original. Moreover, in order to understand today's world, in addition to reading this book, it is desirable to supplement it with relevant books already of our time. The best of them, in my opinion, are Yury Okunev's Axis of World History, Yulia Latynina's The Russian Baker and Boris Gulko's World of the Jew. In conclusion, I want to cite, in my opinion, the historical law formulated by the real statesman P.A. Stolypin (killed by a revolutionary terrorist in 1911): “A people that does not have a national identity is manure on which other peoples grow” - today, Islamic. To prevent this from happening: “We need a statesman who knows how to bake pies, and not share them” (Yu. Latynina, Russian Baker)

In the modern world, when vital decisions are made every day in every corner of the world and significant events occur every minute, knowledge of the basic theories of international relations can help in a comprehensive understanding of certain situations. One of the most famous theories today is Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" theory, which, from its inception until today, has been a sharp and increasingly active controversy among specialists in the field of international relations: some agree with its provisions, others however, it is strongly criticized as an insufficiently substantiated theory.

Initially, it should be studied “first hand” by the author himself and his book “Clash of Civilizations”, since many territorial and religious conflicts that have arisen and developed sharply are explained from the point of view of this theory, so its significance cannot be underestimated. Perhaps this theory can reveal the root cause of some of today's international conflicts.

S. Huntington is a significant figure in modern sociology and political science. His article "A Clash of Civilizations?" caused a lot of controversy in the circles of modern political scientists, due to such a high interest, a more substantiated and expanded historical and philosophical treatise "The Clash of Civilizations" was written on the basis of the article. The work was written in 1996 and is devoted to the current situation after the end of the Cold War.

In the very first chapter of his treatise, S. Huntington describes the situation that developed in the early 1990s. 20th century The world is becoming multipolar, polycivilizational. It is worth noting that the Cold War period is characterized by a bipolar political system: on the one hand, capitalist, developed countries led by the United States, and on the other hand, poor communist countries led by the Soviet Union. It is worth mentioning also the so-called Third World countries, which are poor and politically unstable and unable to participate in world politics. In addition, during the period of bipolar relations, political, ideological and economic differences prevailed.

In the 90s. priority is given to cultural, national values, when, after the collapse of the USSR, new states appear on the world map, self-identification of peoples begins. National, ethnic and cultural ties are growing. And not three blocs of states are already being formed, but eight or seven different civilizations. Henry Kissinger identified six: the US, Europe, Japan, China, Russia and India, perhaps. According to G. Kissinger, they are bright representatives of different civilizations. Do not forget also about the Islamic countries, whose influence is growing more and more.

The great danger today is not the class clashes between the rich and the poor, but between peoples of different cultural identities. The interconnection of peoples makes these conflicts larger and more bloody. A striking example is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has not been resolved for many years now. The fundamental problem is national. None of the parties wants to make concessions, therefore, the problem is complex and ambiguous, today it is at an impasse, and there is a possibility of resolving the problem by military means, despite the fact that military attacks occur periodically from one side, then from the other.

The idea of ​​civilization was developed by French scientists in the 18th century. As a contrast to the concept of "barbarism".

However, with the development of views, as well as in general, the concept has acquired a slightly different meaning: “the highest cultural community of people and the widest level of cultural identification, in addition to what distinguishes a person from other biological species. It is determined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, social institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. It is civilizations as the highest cultural communities that are the subject of this book; however, not all, but those that are considered to be the main civilizations in the history of mankind. Civilizations are dynamic, they resist the onslaught of time, thereby developing. Carroll Quigley (a well-known American historian, theorist and scientist of the evolution of civilizations) identified seven phases in the development of civilization: mixing, maturation, expansion, a period of conflict, a universal empire, decline and conquest.

A special role belongs to Western civilization. For several hundred years, there was a subordination of other civilizations to the Western one. Western civilization has come to regard itself as the center around which the rest of the world revolves. The formation of such a civilization is a long process, despite the power of this civilization, wars were constantly going on inside it, conflicts, both religious and dynastic.

In the XX century. another policy is formed, aimed at all other civilizations, and the concept of the central western disappears, "a stage of diverse, intense and continuous relationships between all civilizations" begins. The international system has gone beyond the West, has become polycivilizational. Today, each civilization considers itself the center of the world and "writes its history as the central history of all mankind."

Today, the concept of a universal civilization is extremely relevant. This concept is a product of Western civilization. The point is that all mankind is united under common values, beliefs, orders, etc. It is possible that universalism is present in some civilizations, as there are, for example, common moral principles; the process of globalization - the creation of a single economic, political system, international media, etc. All this is due to historical development, as well as the interaction between civilizations, which is inevitable. Language and religion are the central elements of any civilization and culture. Today, “English is an international language, the language of world communication” is increasingly heard. Professor S. Culbert's table shows that the proportion of the population who speak English is declining. Indeed, English helps people of different nationalities and cultures understand each other. However, the author noted that today the language is enriched, acquires new forms, dialects, develops. In some areas of the world it is more difficult to understand each other in English, because in each country it acquires the features inherent in this country. And this is just a means of communication, and not a sign of identity, which is necessary for the establishment of a universal civilization. The same is true with religion. Religion is the foundation of a separate civilization, and the creation of a universal religion, it seems to me, is impossible. Although all the religions of the world have something in common, however, there are nuances that play a very important role in each religion. I think that religion is too important, a unique element, to be universalized.

The author discusses the influence of the West on the development of other civilizations. Undoubtedly, the West is one of the strongest influential forces on the development of other civilizations. The concepts of modernization and westernization are associated with such a phenomenon. It seemed to me noteworthy that some civilizations reject both phenomena, while others, on the contrary, accept both Westernization and modernization, believing that "in order to modernize, you need to Westernize."

To be sure, the influence of Western civilization on others caused a reaction. In total, the book describes three ways: rejection of everything, "herodianism", that is, the acceptance of both modernization and westernization, and reformism, that is, the acceptance of only modernization. Japan is a vivid example of a rejectionist foreign policy that has been in political isolation for a long time, but the development of transport and communications has made the isolation of the state impossible. Therefore, Japan had no other choice but to embark on the path of modernization and Westernization offered to it by the West. As for “herodianism”, Türkiye is an example here. At the end of the 19th century, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, realizing the importance and necessity of industrialization, took a number of measures to modernize and westernize his country. The result was such a situation that Türkiye became a "torn off country". Other countries also tried to abandon their identity, replacing it with a Western one. Of course, this had a positive impact on the overall economic situation in the countries, however, it made them dependent on the West.

And, finally, the third variant of the reaction is reformism, an attempt to combine modernization with the preservation of the main values, institutions of the native culture of a given society. Many non-Western states have chosen this path. Among them was Egypt.

You can't argue with the role of the West in the formation of other civilizations, it is very great. However, with the gradual development of other civilizations, it is natural that the role of the Western civilization is reduced, and sometimes even goes to the background. This is due, first of all, to the fact that the West has already experienced the peak of its development, and is now beginning to reduce its position, of course, not of its own accord. Certainly for the 21st century. The West has a pretty good position, because today the West still dominates in international relations, in the economic and military spheres, but looking from the other side, you can see how other countries are gaining their power, their influence is also increasing.

In general, economic development and a rapidly growing demographic situation are very important for a country's position on the world stage. A striking example is the Asian countries, the pace of economic development of which exceeds the pace of Western countries. Economic cooperation is more productive and successful when the participants have a common cultural basis. As the author writes, “people separated by ideology, but feeling cultural affinity, unite ... Societies united by ideology, but culturally separated due to historical circumstances, disintegrate.”

Prosperous economic development says S. Huntington is impossible without the correct definition of the boundaries of the state. It is noteworthy that, according to the author, political boundaries today are increasingly being adjusted in order to coincide with cultural ones. Everything is quite understandable. As mentioned earlier, culture is of great importance in intra- and inter-civilizational relations. In modern times, the process of a broad civilizational identity begins, the author gives the following example: Russians identify themselves with Serbs and other Orthodox peoples. It is worth noting, I think, that such a trend was present at the beginning of the 20th century. The same Balkan wars are a vivid confirmation of the example of S. Huntington.

Indeed, economic cooperation arises only when all members trust each other, and trust, in turn, easily arises against the background of common values ​​and cultures. The creation of an alliance consisting of different civilizations is quite difficult, due to the contradictions of cultures and religions. Those economic unions that are created for economic cooperation can exist and be multicultural, but the integration of the economic space in such unions is impossible. Thus, the political scientist comes to the conclusion that "the basis of economic cooperation is a cultural community."

As mentioned earlier, the differences between civilizations are extremely significant in religion and language. However, if it is possible to “find a common language” in a language, then it is quite difficult to do this in religion, due to completely different doctrines. The main clash that continues today is the clash of Western civilization and religion with Islamic. We can safely say that this is a global conflict, and the degree of escalation of the conflict is very high, there is so little in common between them and so many disagreements. Therefore, the West and the Islamic world are in a quasi-war, which is also destructive and negative for both sides. This is more of a civilizational war than an ideological one. Ideology only feeds this conflict. Both civilizations are convinced of their power, each of them is trying to expand the range of its influence. It is difficult to predict what this confrontation will lead to, however, there is no doubt that Islam is spreading wider and wider today.

Thus, the development of civilizations leads to the disorganization of the already existing order, and it is still difficult to say what this will lead to in the end.

A very contradictory picture emerges. On the one hand, a multi-civilizational world is a step towards interaction between civilizations, and, accordingly, towards their development; on the other hand, new, sharper contradictions and conflicts are emerging that threaten the security of the world.

The modern West is a mature society at the epic of its development. In the mid-1990s, the West exhibited many of the characteristics identified by K. Quigley as characteristic of a mature civilization on the verge of decay. The most important of them (to a greater extent than economics and demography) are the problems of moral degradation, cultural suicide and social disunity.

The fallacy of believing in the universality of Western culture is the cornerstone of Huntington's book. Western civilization is valuable not because it is universal, but because it is truly unique. Western Christianity, pluralism, individual freedom, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights - these are the fundamental values ​​and key characteristics of Western civilization, and not of any other civilization. Therefore, the main responsibility of Western leaders is not at all to try to reshape other civilizations in the image of the West - above its declining power - but to preserve, protect and renew the unique qualities of Western civilization.

Universal civilization can denote what civilized societies have in common, what distinguishes them from primitive societies and barbarians. In this sense, a universal civilization is indeed emerging as primitive peoples disappear. Civilization in this sense has been constantly expanding throughout the history of mankind, and the growth of civilization was quite compatible with the existence of many civilizations.

Thus, in his work, S. Huntington considered different types of civilizational contradictions, which confirm the term about the absence of a universal civilization, as generally accepted for all. Each civilization is unique and in order to prevent conflicts it is worth looking for those common sides that can unite them. The West should start to support other civilizations, build relationships, strengthen international institutions, and not try to adjust other civilizations in its own way.

Demyanova Anna

Samuel Huntington

[Article by Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University S. Huntington "The Clash of Civilizations?" (1993) is one of the most cited in political science. It builds approaches to the theory of world politics after the Cold War. What will the new phase of world development lead to when the interaction between different civilizations is intensifying and at the same time the differences between them are deepening? The author does not answer this question, but the terrorist attacks in America on September 11, 2001 and the events that followed them testify to the exceptional relevance of the problems raised.]

MODEL OF THE COMING CONFLICT

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals immediately unleashed on us a stream of versions about its future appearance: the end of history, the return to traditional rivalry between nation-states, the decline of nation-states under the pressure of multidirectional trends - towards tribalism and globalism - and others. of these versions captures certain aspects of the emerging reality. But in this case, the most essential, axial aspect of the problem is lost.

I believe that in the emerging world, the main source of conflict will no longer be ideology or economics. The major boundaries that divide humanity and the predominant sources of conflict will be determined by culture. The nation-state will remain the main actor in international affairs, but the most significant conflicts of global politics will unfold between nations and groups belonging to different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will become the dominant factor in world politics. The fault lines between civilizations are the lines of future fronts.

The coming conflict between civilizations is the final phase in the evolution of global conflicts in the modern world. For a century and a half after the Peace of Westphalia, which shaped the modern international system, conflicts in the western area unfolded mainly between sovereigns - kings, emperors, absolute and constitutional monarchs, who sought to expand their bureaucratic apparatus, increase armies, strengthen economic power, and most importantly - to add new lands to their possessions. This process gave birth to nation-states, and, starting with the French Revolution, the main lines of conflict began to lie not so much between rulers as between nations. In 1793, in the words of R. R. Palmer, "wars between kings ceased, and wars began between nations."

This pattern continued throughout the 19th century. The First World War put an end to it. And then, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the reaction to it, the conflict of nations gave way to a conflict of ideologies. The parties to such a conflict were first communism, Nazism and liberal democracy, and then communism and liberal democracy. During the Cold War, this conflict culminated in a struggle between two superpowers, neither of which was a nation-state in the classical European sense. Their self-identification was formulated in ideological categories.

The conflicts between rulers, nation-states and ideologies were mainly the conflicts of Western civilization. W. Lind called them "civil wars of the West." This is just as true of the Cold War as it is of the world wars and the wars of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. With the end of the Cold War, the Western phase of the development of international politics is also coming to an end. The interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations is brought to the center. At this new stage, the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer act as objects of history - the target of Western colonial policy, but along with the West, they themselves begin to move and create history.

THE NATURE OF CIVILIZATIONS

During the Cold War, the world was divided into "first", "second" and "third". But then such a division lost its meaning. Now it is much more appropriate to group countries based not on their political or economic systems, not on the level of economic development, but on the basis of cultural and civilizational criteria.

What is meant when we talk about civilization? Civilization is a kind of cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, peoples, religious communities - they all have their own specific culture, reflecting different levels of cultural heterogeneity. A village in Southern Italy may differ in its culture from the same village in Northern Italy, but at the same time they remain Italian villages, they cannot be confused with German ones. In turn, European countries have common cultural features that distinguish them from the Chinese or Arab world.

Here we get to the heart of the matter. For the Western world, the Arab region and China are not part of a larger cultural community. They are civilizations. We can define civilization as the cultural community of the highest rank, as the broadest level of cultural identity of people. The next step is already what distinguishes the human race from other types of living beings. Civilizations are determined by the presence of common features of an objective order, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, as well as by the subjective self-identification of people. There are different levels of self-identification: so a resident of Rome can characterize himself as a Roman, Italian, Catholic, Christian, European, a person of the Western world. Civilization is the broadest level of community to which he relates himself. The cultural self-identification of people can change, and as a result, the composition and boundaries of a particular civilization change.

Civilization can cover a large mass of people - for example, China, about which L. Pye once said: "This is a civilization that pretends to be a country."

But it can also be very small - like the civilization of the English-speaking inhabitants of the islands of the Caribbean. A civilization can include several nation-states, as in the case of Western, Latin American, or Arab civilizations, or a single one, as in the case of Japan. Obviously, civilizations can mix, overlap, include sub-civilizations. Western civilization exists in two main varieties: European and North American, while Islamic civilization is divided into Arabic, Turkish and Malay. Despite all this, civilizations represent certain wholes. The boundaries between them are rarely clear cut, but they are real. Civilizations are dynamic: they rise and fall, they fall apart and merge. And, as every student of history knows, civilizations disappear, being sucked into the sands of time.

In the West, it is generally accepted that nation-states are the main actors in the international arena. But they act in this role for only a few centuries. Much of human history is the history of civilizations. According to A. Toynbee, the history of mankind has known 21 civilizations. Only six of them exist in the modern world.

WHY IS THE COLLISION OF CIVILIZATIONS INEVITABLE?

Identity at the level of civilization will become increasingly important, and the face of the world will be largely shaped by the interaction of seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic Orthodox, Latin American, and possibly African civilizations. The most significant conflicts of the future will unfold along the fault lines between civilizations. Why?

First, the differences between civilizations are not just real. They are the most significant. Civilizations are dissimilar in their history, language, culture, traditions and, most importantly, religion. People of different civilizations have different views on the relationship between God and man, individual and group, citizen and state, parents and children, husband and wife, have different ideas about the relative importance of rights and duties, freedom and coercion, equality and hierarchy. These differences have developed over the centuries. They will not disappear in the foreseeable future. They are more fundamental than the differences between political ideologies and political regimes. Of course, differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. However, for centuries, the most protracted and bloody conflicts were generated precisely by the differences between civilizations.

Second, the world is getting smaller. Interaction between peoples of different civilizations is intensifying. This leads to the growth of civilizational self-awareness, to a deeper understanding of the differences between civilizations and commonality within civilization. North African immigration to France evoked hostility among the French, and at the same time strengthened goodwill towards other immigrants - "good Catholics and Europeans from Poland." Americans react much more painfully to Japanese investment than to much larger investments from Canada and European countries. Everything happens according to the scenario described by D. Horwitz: “In the eastern regions of Nigeria, a people of nationality, because it can be ibo-ouerri, or ibo-onicha. But in Lagos it will be just for. In London, he will be Nigerian. And in New York, an African.” Interaction between representatives of different civilizations strengthens their civilizational self-awareness, and this, in turn, exacerbates the differences and hostility that go back into the depths of history, or at least are perceived in this way.

Thirdly, the processes of economic modernization and social changes around the world are blurring the traditional identification of people with a place of residence, while the role of the nation-state as a source of identification is also weakening. The resulting gaps are largely filled by religion, often in the form of fundamentalist movements. Similar movements have developed not only in Islam, but also in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In most countries and confessions, fundamentalism is supported by educated young people, highly qualified specialists from the middle classes, freelancers, and businessmen. As G. Weigel noted, “the desecularization of the world is one of the dominant social phenomena of the late 20th century.” The revival of religion, or, in the words of J. Kepel, "God's revenge", creates the basis for identification and involvement with a community that goes beyond national borders - for the unification of civilizations.

Fourth, the growth of civilizational self-awareness is dictated by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at the height of its power, and on the other hand, and perhaps just for this reason, among non-Western civilizations there is a return to their own roots. Increasingly, one hears about the "return to Asia" of Japan, the end of the influence of Nehru's ideas and the "Hinduization" of India, the failure of Western ideas of socialism and nationalism to "re-Islamize" the Middle East, and more recently, disputes about Westernization or Russification of the country of Boris Yeltsin. At the height of its power, the West is confronted by non-Western nations that have the drive, will, and resources to make the world look non-Western.

In the past, the elites of non-Western countries usually consisted of people with the most Western connections, who were educated at Oxford, Sorbonne or Sandhurst, and who adopted Western values ​​and lifestyles. The population of these countries, as a rule, maintained an inseparable connection with their original culture. But now everything has changed. In many non-Western countries, there is an intensive process of de-westernization of elites and their return to their own cultural roots. And at the same time, Western, mainly American customs, lifestyle and culture are gaining popularity among the general population.

Fifth, cultural differences and differences are less subject to change than economic and political ones, and as a result, they are more difficult to resolve or reduce to a compromise. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor can become rich, but Russians can't become Estonians and Azeris can't become Armenians.

In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was: "Which side are you on?" And a person could choose which side he was on, as well as change once chosen positions. In the conflict of civilizations, the question is put differently: “Who are you?” It is about what is given and cannot be changed. And, as we know from the experience of Bosnia, the Caucasus, Sudan, by giving an inappropriate answer to this question, you can immediately get a bullet in the forehead. Religion divides people even more sharply than ethnicity. A person can be half-French and half-Arab, and even a citizen of both of these countries. It's much harder to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.

And finally, economic regionalism is on the rise. The share of intraregional trade turnover increased between 1980 and 1989 from 51% to 59% in Europe, from 33% to 37% in Southeast Asia, and from 32% to 36% in North America. To all appearances, the role of regional economic ties will increase. On the one hand, the success of economic regionalism strengthens the consciousness of belonging to one civilization. On the other hand, economic regionalism can be successful only if it is rooted in the commonality of civilization. The European Community rests on the common foundations of European culture and Western Christianity. The success of » NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) depends on the continued convergence of the cultures of Mexico, Canada and America. Japan, on the other hand, is having difficulty creating the same economic community in Southeast Asia, because Japan is a one-of-a-kind society and civilization. As strong as Japan's trade and financial ties with the rest of Southeast Asia are, cultural differences between them hinder progress towards regional economic integration along the lines of Western Europe or North America.

The commonality of culture, on the contrary, clearly contributes to the rapid growth of economic ties between the People's Republic of China, on the one hand, and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and overseas Chinese communities in other Asian countries, on the other. With the end of the Cold War, cultural commonality is rapidly replacing ideological differences. Mainland China and Taiwan are getting closer. If a common culture is a prerequisite for economic integration, then the center of the future East Asian economic bloc is likely to be in China. In fact, this block is already taking shape. Here is what M. Weidenbaum writes about this: “Although Japan dominates in the region, a new center of industry, trade and financial capital in Asia is rapidly emerging on the basis of China. This strategic space has a strong technological and manufacturing potential (Taiwan), a workforce with outstanding skills in the field of organization, marketing and services (Hong Kong), a dense network of communications (Singapore), strong financial capital (all three countries), as well as vast land, natural and labor resources (Mainland China)... This influential community, largely built on the development of a traditional clan base, stretches from Guangzhou to Singapore and from Kuala Lumpur to Manila. This is the backbone of the East Asian economy” (1).

Cultural and religious similarity also underlies the Economic Cooperation Organization, which unites 10 non-Arab Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. This organization was created in the 60s by three countries: Turkey, Pakistan and Iran. An important impetus to its revival and expansion was given by the realization by the leaders of some of its member countries of the fact that the path to the European Community was closed to them. Similarly, CARICOM, the Central American Common Market and MERCOSUR are based on a common cultural basis. But attempts to create a broader economic community that would unite the countries of the Caribbean islands and Central America have not been successful - bridges between English and Latin culture have not yet been succeeded.

Defining their own identity in ethnic or religious terms, people tend to view the relationship between themselves and people of another ethnicity and confession as a relationship of "us" and "them". The end of ideologized states in Eastern Europe and the territory of the former USSR allowed traditional forms of ethnic identity and contradictions to come to the fore. Differences in culture and religion give rise to disagreements on a wide range of political issues, whether it is human rights or emigration, commerce or the environment. Geographical proximity stimulates mutual territorial claims from Bosnia to Mindanao. But what is most important - the attempts of the West to spread its values: democracy and liberalism - as universal to all mankind, to maintain military superiority and assert its economic interests, run into resistance from other civilizations. Governments and political groups are less and less able to mobilize the population and form coalitions based on ideologies, and they are increasingly trying to win support by appealing to the commonality of religion and civilization.

Thus, the conflict of civilizations unfolds on two levels. At the micro level, groups that live along the fault lines between civilizations are fighting, often bloody, for land and power over each other. At the macro level, countries belonging to different civilizations compete for influence in the military and economic spheres, fight for control over international organizations and third countries, trying to assert their own political and religious values.

FAULT LINES BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

If in the years of the Cold War the main centers of crises and bloodshed were concentrated along political and ideological borders, now they are moving along the fault lines between civilizations. The Cold War began when the Iron Curtain divided Europe politically and ideologically. The Cold War ended with the disappearance of the Iron Curtain. But as soon as the ideological division of Europe was eliminated, its cultural division into Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodoxy and Islam, on the other, revived again. Perhaps the most important dividing line in Europe is, according to W. Wallis, the eastern border of Western Christianity, which took shape by 1500. It runs along the current borders between Russia and Finland, between the Baltic countries and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine, turns west , separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then passing through Yugoslavia, coincides almost exactly with the line now separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia. In the Balkans, this line, of course, coincides with the historical border between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. Protestants and Catholics live north and west of this line. They share the experience of European history: feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution. Their economic situation is usually much better than that of people living to the east. Now they can count on closer cooperation within the framework of a single European economy and the consolidation of democratic political systems. East and south of this line live Orthodox Christians and Muslims. Historically, they belonged to the Ottoman or tsarist empire, and only the echo of historical events that determined the fate of the West reached them. Economically, they lag behind the West, and appear to be less equipped to build sustainable democratic political systems. And now the "velvet curtain" of culture has replaced the "iron curtain" of ideology as the main demarcation line in Europe. Events in Yugoslavia have shown that this is a line not only of cultural differences, but at times of bloody conflicts.

For 13 centuries, conflict has dragged along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations. The advance of the Arabs and Moors to the West and the North, which began with the emergence of Islam, ended only in 732. During the 11th-13th centuries, the crusaders tried with varying success to bring Christianity to the Holy Land and establish Christian rule there. In the XIV-XVII centuries, the Ottoman Turks seized the initiative. They extended their dominance to the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople and twice besieged Vienna. But in the XIX - early XX century. the power of the Ottoman Turks began to decline. Most of North Africa and the Middle East came under the control of England, France and Italy.

With the end of World War II, it was the turn of the West to retreat. Colonial empires have disappeared. Arab nationalism first made itself known, and then Islamic fundamentalism. The West fell into a heavy dependence on the countries of the Persian Gulf, which supplied it with energy resources - Muslim countries rich in oil, rich in money, and if they wished, then in weapons. There were several wars between the Arabs and Israel, created at the initiative of the West. Throughout the 1950s, France waged an almost continuous bloody war in Algeria. In 1956 British and French troops invaded Egypt. In 1958 the Americans entered Lebanon. Subsequently, they repeatedly returned there, and also carried out attacks on Libya and participated in numerous military clashes with Iran. In response, Arab and Islamic terrorists, backed by at least three Middle Eastern governments, took advantage of the weapons of the weak to blow up Western planes, buildings, and take hostages. The state of war between the West and the Arab countries reached a climax in 1990, when the US sent a large army to the Persian Gulf to protect some Arab countries from the aggression of others. At the end of this war, NATO's plans are designed to take into account the potential danger and instability along the "southern borders".

The military confrontation between the West and the Islamic world has been going on for a century, and there is no sign of its easing. On the contrary, it can become even more aggravated. The Gulf War made many Arabs feel proud - Saddam Hussein attacked Israel and resisted the West. But it also gave rise to feelings of humiliation and resentment caused by the Western military presence in the Persian Gulf, its superiority in power and its apparent inability to determine its own fate. In addition, many Arab countries - not only oil exporters - have reached a level of economic and social development that is incompatible with autocratic forms of government. Attempts to introduce democracy there are becoming more insistent. The political systems of some Arab countries have acquired a certain degree of openness. But it benefits mainly Islamic fundamentalists. In short, in the Arab world, Western democracy is strengthening anti-Western political forces. Perhaps this is a transient phenomenon, but it certainly complicates relations between Islamic countries and the West.

These relations are complicated by demographic factors. The rapid growth of the population in the Arab countries, especially in North Africa, increases emigration to the countries of Western Europe. In turn, the influx of emigrants, taking place against the backdrop of the gradual elimination of internal borders between Western European countries, caused acute political rejection. In Italy, France and Germany, racist sentiments are becoming more open, and since 1990 there has been an ever-increasing political backlash and violence against Arab and Turkish émigrés.

Both sides see the interaction between the Islamic and Western worlds as a conflict of civilizations. “The West will most certainly face a confrontation with the Muslim world,” writes M. Akbar, an Indian journalist of the Muslim faith. “The very fact of the widespread expansion of the Islamic world from the Maghreb to Pakistan will lead to a struggle for a new world order.” B. Lewis comes to similar conclusions: “We have a mood and a movement of a completely different level, beyond the control of politicians and governments that want to use them. It is nothing less than a clash of civilizations—perhaps an irrational but historically determined reaction of our ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian tradition, our secular present, and the global expansion of both” (2).

Throughout history, Arab-Islamic civilization has been in constant antagonistic interaction with the pagan, animistic, and now predominantly Christian black population of the South. In the past, this antagonism was personified in the form of an Arab slave trader and a black slave. Now it manifests itself in the protracted civil war between the Arab and black population in Sudan, in the armed struggle between the insurgents (who are supported by Libya) and the government in Chad, in strained relations between Orthodox Christians and Muslims on Cape Horn, as well as in political conflicts reaching bloody clashes between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The process of modernization and the spread of Christianity on the African continent is likely to only increase the likelihood of violence along this line of inter-civilizational faults. A symptom of the aggravation of the situation was the speech of Pope John Paul II in February 1993 in Khartoum. In it, he attacked the actions of the Sudanese Islamist government against the Christian minority in Sudan.

On the northern borders of the Islamic region, the conflict unfolds mainly between the Orthodox population and the Muslim population. Mention should be made here of the massacre in Bosnia and Sarajevo, the ongoing struggle between Serbs and Albanians, strained relations between Bulgarians and the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, bloody clashes between Ossetians and Ingush, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, conflicts between Russians and Muslims in Central Asia, the deployment of Russian troops in Central Asia and the Caucasus in order to protect the interests of Russia. Religion is fueling a resurgent ethnic identity, all of which heightens Russian fears about the security of their southern borders. A. Roosevelt felt this concern. Here is what he writes: “A significant part of the history of Russia is filled with frontier struggles between Slavs and Turks. This struggle began since the founding of the Russian state more than a thousand years ago. In the thousand-year struggle of the Slavs with their eastern neighbors, this is the key to understanding not only Russian history, but also the Russian character. To understand the current Russian realities, one must not forget about the Turkic ethnic group, which has absorbed the attention of Russians for many centuries” (3).

The conflict of civilizations has deep roots in other regions of Asia as well. The historical struggle between Muslims and Hindus is expressed today not only in the rivalry between Pakistan and India, but also in the intensification of religious strife within India between the increasingly militant Hindu factions and a significant Muslim minority. In December 1992, after the destruction of the Ayodha mosque, the question arose of whether India would remain secular and democratic, or become a Hindu state. In East Asia, China has territorial claims on almost all of its neighbors. He dealt mercilessly with the Buddhists in Tibet, and now he is ready to deal just as decisively with the Turkic-Islamic minority. Since the end of the Cold War, tensions between China and the United States have emerged with particular force in areas such as human rights, trade, and the problem of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and there is no hope of easing them. As Deng Xiaoping said in 1991, "the new cold war between China and America continues."

Deng Xiaoping's statement can also be attributed to the increasingly complicated relations between Japan and the United States. Cultural differences increase the economic conflict between these countries. Each side accuses the other of racism, but at least on the part of the US, the rejection is not racial but cultural. It is difficult to imagine two societies that are more distant from each other in fundamental values, attitudes and behavior. The economic disagreements between the US and Europe are no less serious, but they are not as politically prominent and emotionally colored, because the contradictions between American and European cultures are much less dramatic than between American and Japanese civilizations.

The level of potential for violence in the interaction of different civilizations may vary. Economic competition prevails between American and European sub-civilizations, as does relations between the West in general and Japan. At the same time, spreading ethnic conflicts, culminating in “ethnic cleansing,” are by no means uncommon in Eurasia. Most often they occur between groups belonging to different civilizations, and in this case they take the most extreme forms. The historically established borders between the civilizations of the Eurasian continent are once again blazing in the fire of conflicts. These conflicts reach a particular intensity along the borders of the Islamic world, which stretches like a crescent between North Africa and Central Asia. But violence is also practiced in conflicts between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma, and Catholics in the Philippines, on the other. The borders of the Islamic world are everywhere covered with blood.

UNION OF CIVILIZATIONS: SYNDROME OF "BROTHER COUNTRIES"

Groups or countries belonging to one civilization, being involved in a war with people of another civilization, naturally try to enlist the support of representatives of their civilization. At the end of the Cold War, a new world order is taking shape, and as it emerges, belonging to one civilization or, as H. D. S. principle of cooperation and coalitions. The gradual emergence of this syndrome is evidenced by all the recent conflicts - in the Persian Gulf, in the Caucasus, in Bosnia. True, none of these conflicts was a full-scale war between civilizations, but each included elements of the internal consolidation of civilizations. As conflicts develop, this factor seems to become more important. His current role is a harbinger of what is to come.

First. During the conflict in the Persian Gulf, one Arab country invaded another, and then entered the fight against a coalition of Arab, Western and other countries. Although only a few Muslim governments openly sided with Saddam Hussein, he was unofficially supported by the ruling elites of many Arab countries, and he gained immense popularity among the broad sections of the Arab population. Islamic fundamentalists were all over the place supporting Iraq, not the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who were backed by the West. Warming up Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein openly appealed to Islam. He and his supporters tried to present this war as a war between civilizations. “It is not the world that is at war against Iraq,” said Safar Al Khawali, dean of the Islamic Studies Department at Um Al Qura University in Mecca, in a well-known speech, “it is the West that is at war against Islam.” Stepping over the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, Iran's religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini called for a holy war against the West: "The fight against American aggression, greed, plans and policies will be considered jihad, and everyone who dies in this war will be counted among the martyrs." . "This war," said King Hussein of Jordan, "is being waged against all Arabs and Muslims, not just against Iraq."

The rallying of a significant part of the Arab elite and the population in their support of Saddam Hussein forced the Arab governments, which initially joined the anti-Iraq coalition, to limit their actions and soften their public statements. Arab governments have distanced themselves or opposed further Western attempts to put pressure on Iraq, including the imposition of a no-fly zone in the summer of 1992 and the bombing of Iraq in January 1993. In 1990, the anti-Iraq coalition included the West, the Soviet Union, Turkey and Arab countries. In 1993, practically only the West and Kuwait remained in it.

Comparing the West's decisiveness in the case of Iraq with its inability to protect the Bosnian Muslims from the Serbs and impose sanctions on Israel for non-compliance with UN resolutions, Muslims accuse the West of double morality. But the world where the clash of civilizations takes place is inevitably a world with double morality: one is used in relation to "fraternal countries", and the other - in relation to everyone else.

Second. The “brotherly countries” syndrome also manifests itself in conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The military successes of the Armenians in 1992-1993 prompted Turkey to strengthen its support for Azerbaijan, which is related to it religiously, ethnically and linguistically. “The people of Turkey have the same feelings as the Azerbaijanis,” said a senior Turkish official in 1992. “We are under pressure. Our newspapers are full of photographs depicting the atrocities of the Armenians. We are asked the question: are we seriously going to continue to pursue a policy of neutrality? Perhaps we should show Armenia that there is a great Turkey in this region.” Turkish President Turgut Ozal agreed with this, noting that Armenia should be scared a little. In 1993, he repeated the threat: "Türkiye will still show its fangs!" The Turkish Air Force conducts reconnaissance flights along the Armenian border. Türkiye delays food supplies and air flights to Armenia. Türkiye and Iran have announced that they will not allow the dismemberment of Azerbaijan. In the last years of its existence, the Soviet government supported Azerbaijan, where the Communists were still in power. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, political motives were replaced by religious ones. Now Russian troops are fighting on the side of the Armenians, and Azerbaijan accuses the Russian government of having made a 180-degree turn and is now supporting a Christian Armenia.

Third. If you look at the war in the former Yugoslavia, here the Western public showed sympathy and support for the Bosnian Muslims, as well as horror and disgust for the atrocities committed by the Serbs. At the same time, it was relatively unconcerned about the attacks on Muslims by the Croats and the dismemberment of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the early stages of Yugoslavia's disintegration, unusual for her diplomatic initiative and pressure was shown by Germany, which persuaded the other 11 EU member states to follow its example and recognize Slovenia and Croatia. In an effort to strengthen the position of these two Catholic countries, the Vatican recognized Slovenia and Croatia even before the European Community did. The United States followed suit. Thus, the leading countries of European civilization rallied to support their co-religionists. And then there were reports that Croatia was receiving weapons in large quantities from Central Europe and other Western countries. On the other hand, Boris Yeltsin's government tried to stick to a middle ground policy so as not to spoil relations with the Orthodox Serbs and at the same time not to pit Russia against the West. Nevertheless, Russian conservatives and nationalists, among whom there were many people's deputies, attacked the government for insufficient support for the Serbs. By the beginning of 1993, several hundred Russian citizens were serving in Serbian forces and, according to reports, Russian weapons were being supplied to Serbia.

Islamic governments and political groups, in turn, stigmatize the West for not coming to the defense of Bosnian Muslims. Iranian leaders are calling on Muslims around the world to help Bosnia. Despite the UN embargo, Iran supplies soldiers and weapons to Bosnia. Iranian-backed Lebanese factions are sending fighters to train and organize the Bosnian armed forces. In 1993, up to 4,000 Muslims from more than twenty Islamic countries were reported to have fought in Bosnia. Governments in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are under increasing pressure from fundamentalist groups for stronger support for Bosnia. By the end of 1992, Saudi Arabia was reportedly funding the supply of arms and food to the Bosnian Muslims. This greatly increased their combat capability in the face of the Serbs.

In the 1930s, the Spanish Civil War caused the intervention of countries that were politically fascist, communist and democratic. Today, in the 90s, the conflict in Yugoslavia causes the intervention of countries that are divided into Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian. This parallel has not gone unnoticed. “The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has become the emotional equivalent of the fight against fascism during the Spanish Civil War,” observed one Saudi observer. “Those who die in this war are considered martyrs who gave their lives to save the Muslim brothers.”

Conflicts and violence are also possible between countries belonging to the same civilization, as well as within these countries. But they are usually not as intense and all-encompassing as conflicts between civilizations. Belonging to one civilization reduces the likelihood of violence in those cases where, were it not for this circumstance, it would certainly have come to it. In 1991-92, many were worried about the possibility of a military clash between Russia and Ukraine over disputed territories - primarily Crimea - as well as the Black Sea Fleet, nuclear arsenals and economic problems. But if belonging to the same civilization means anything, the likelihood of an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not very high. These are two Slavic, mostly Orthodox peoples who have had close ties for centuries. And so in early 1993, despite all the reasons for the conflict, the leaders of both countries successfully negotiated, eliminating differences. At this time, there were serious battles between Muslims and Christians in the territory of the former Soviet Union; tension, reaching to direct clashes, determined the relationship between Western and Orthodox Christians in the Baltics; - but between the Russians and Ukrainians, the matter did not come to violence.

Until now, the rallying of civilizations has taken limited forms, but the process is developing, and it has significant potential for the future. As the conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia continued, the positions of different countries and the differences between them were increasingly determined by civilizational affiliation. Populist politicians, religious leaders and the media have found a powerful tool in this, securing the support of the masses of the population and allowing them to put pressure on wavering governments. In the near future, the greatest threat of escalation into large-scale wars will be those local conflicts that, like the conflicts in Bosnia and the Caucasus, began along the fault lines between civilizations. The next world war, if it breaks out, will be a war between civilizations.

THE WEST VS THE REST OF THE WORLD

In relation to other civilizations, the West is now at the height of its power. The second superpower, in the past his opponent, has disappeared from the political map of the world. A military conflict between Western countries is unthinkable, the military power of the West has no equal. Apart from Japan, the West has no economic rivals. He dominates in the political sphere, in the sphere of security, and, together with Japan, in the sphere of the economy. World political and security problems are effectively resolved under the leadership of the USA, Great Britain and France, world economic problems - under the leadership of the USA, Germany and Japan. All these countries have the closest relations with each other, not admitting to their circle the smaller countries, almost all the countries of the non-Western world. Decisions taken by the UN Security Council or the International Monetary Fund and reflecting the interests of the West are presented to the world community as corresponding to the urgent needs of the world community. The very expression "world community" has become a euphemism, replacing the expression "free world". It is designed to give global legitimacy to actions that reflect the interests of the United States and other Western countries (4). Through the IMF and other international economic organizations, the West pursues its economic interests and imposes economic policies on other countries at its own discretion. In non-Western countries, the IMF undoubtedly has the support of finance ministers and a few others, but the vast majority of the population has the most unflattering opinion of it. G. Arbatov described the IMF officials as "neo-Bolsheviks who take pleasure in taking money from other people, imposing on them undemocratic and alien rules of economic and political behavior and depriving them of economic freedom."

The West dominates the UN Security Council, and its decisions, only occasionally overridden by Chinese vetoes, have provided the West with legal grounds for using force on behalf of the UN to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and destroy its sophisticated weapons and ability to produce such weapons. The United States, Great Britain and France, on behalf of the Security Council, demanded that Libya extradite the suspects in the explosion of the Pan American airliner plane was also unprecedented. When Libya refused to comply with this demand, sanctions were imposed on it. Having defeated the most powerful of the Arab armies, the West did not hesitate to put all its weight on the Arab world. In essence, the West is using international organizations, military power and financial resources to rule the world, asserting its superiority, protecting Western interests and asserting Western political and economic values.

This is at least how non-Western countries see the world today, and there is a significant amount of truth in their view. Differences in the scale of power and the struggle for military, economic and political power are thus one of the sources of conflict between the West and other civilizations. Another source of conflict is differences in culture, in basic values ​​and beliefs. V. S. Naipol argued that Western civilization is universal and suitable for all peoples. On a superficial level, much of Western culture has indeed infiltrated the rest of the world. But at a deep level, Western ideas and ideas are fundamentally different from those that are inherent in other civilizations. In Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist, and Orthodox cultures, Western ideas such as individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, freedom, the rule of law, democracy, the free market, and the separation of church and state, hardly resonate. The efforts of the West to propagate these ideas often provoke a hostile reaction against "human rights imperialism" and help to strengthen the primordial values ​​of their own culture. This, in particular, is evidenced by the support of religious fundamentalism by the youth of non-Western countries. And the very thesis about the possibility of a “universal civilization” is a Western idea. It is in direct conflict with the particularism of most Asian cultures, with their emphasis on the differences that separate people from others. Indeed, as a comparative study of the importance of one hundred values ​​in different societies has shown, “values ​​that are of paramount importance in the West are much less important in the rest of the world” (5). In the political realm, these differences are most evident in the attempts of the United States and other Western countries to impose Western ideas of democracy and human rights on the peoples of other countries. The modern democratic form of government has historically developed in the West. If it has established itself here and there in non-Western countries, it is only as a result of Western colonialism or pressure.

Apparently, the central axis of world politics in the future will be the conflict between “the West and the rest of the world,” as K. Mahbubani put it, and the reaction of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values ​​(6). This kind of reaction, as a rule, takes one of three forms, or a combination of them.

First, and at its most extreme, non-Western countries could follow the example of North Korea or Burma and take a course of isolation - insulating their countries from Western penetration and decay, and essentially withdrawing from participation in the Western-dominated world community. But such a policy comes at a high price, and few countries have adopted it in its entirety.

The second possibility is to try to join the West and accept its values ​​and institutions. In the language of international relations theory, this is called "jumping on the bandwagon of the train."

A third possibility is to try to create a counterbalance to the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western countries against the West. At the same time, it is possible to preserve the original national values ​​and institutions - in other words, to modernize, but not to westernize.

DIVIDED COUNTRIES

In the future, when belonging to a certain civilization becomes the basis of people's self-identification, countries whose population includes several civilizational groups, such as the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, will be doomed to disintegration. But there are also internally divided countries - relatively homogeneous culturally, but in which there is no agreement on the question of which civilization they belong to. Their governments, as a rule, want to "jump on the bandwagon" and join the West, but the history, culture and traditions of these countries have nothing to do with the West.

The most striking and typical example of a country split from within is Türkiye. Turkish leadership at the end of the 20th century. remains faithful to the tradition of Atatürk and ranks his country among the modern, secularized nation-states of the Western type. It has made Turkey a NATO ally of the West and during the Gulf War, it seeks the country's admission to the European Community. At the same time, elements of Turkish society support the revival of Islamic traditions and argue that Turkey is fundamentally a Middle Eastern Muslim state. Moreover, while the political elite of Turkey considers their country a Western society, the political elite of the West does not recognize this. Turkey is not accepted into the EU, and the real reason for this, according to President Ozal, "is that we are Muslims and they are Christians, but they do not say it openly." Where should Turkey go, which has rejected Mecca and itself has been rejected by Brussels? It is possible that the answer reads: "Tashkent". The collapse of the USSR opens up a unique opportunity for Turkey to become the leader of a resurgent Turkic civilization spanning seven countries from the coast of Greece to China. Encouraged by the West, Turkey is working hard to build this new identity for itself.

Mexico has found itself in a similar position in the last decade. If Turkey abandoned its historical opposition to Europe and tried to join it, then Mexico, which previously identified itself through opposition to the United States, is now trying to emulate this country and seeks to enter the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA). Mexican politicians are engaged in the daunting task of redefining Mexico's identity, and to this end they are pursuing fundamental economic reforms that, over time, should also lead to fundamental political transformations. In 1991, the first adviser to President Carlos Salinas described to me in detail the changes being made by the Salinas government. When he finished, I said, “Your words made a strong impression on me. It seems that basically you would like to turn Mexico from a Latin American to a North American country.” He looked at me in surprise and exclaimed: “Exactly! That is what we are trying to do, but of course, no one talks about it openly!” This remark shows that in Mexico, as in Turkey, powerful social forces are opposed to the new definition of national identity. In Turkey, politicians of European orientation are forced to make gestures towards Islam (Ozal makes a Hajj to Mecca). Similarly, Mexico's North American leaders are forced to make gestures towards those who consider Mexico a Latin American country (Ibero-American summit hosted by Salinas in Guadalajara).

Historically, internal divisions have affected Turkey most deeply. For the United States, the closest internally divided country is Mexico. On a global scale, Russia remains the most significant divided country. The question of whether Russia is part of the West, or whether it leads its own special, Orthodox-Slavic civilization, has been repeatedly raised throughout Russian history. After the victory of the communists, the problem became even more confused: having adopted a Western ideology, the communists adapted it to Russian conditions and then, in the name of this ideology, challenged the West. Communist domination removed the historic dispute between Westernizers and Slavophiles from the agenda. But after the discrediting of communism, the Russian people again faced this problem.

President Yeltsin borrows Western principles and goals, trying to turn Russia into a "normal" country in the Western world. However, both the ruling elite and the broad masses of Russian society disagree on this point. One of the moderate opponents of the Westernization of Russia, S. Stankevich, believes that Russia should abandon the course towards "Atlanticism", which will make it a European country, part of the world economic system and number eight in the current G-7 of developed countries, that it should not rely on Germany and The United States is the leading member of the Atlantic Alliance. While rejecting a purely "Eurasian" policy, Stankevich nonetheless believes that Russia should prioritize the protection of Russians living abroad. He emphasizes the Turkic and Muslim ties of Russia and insists “on a more acceptable redistribution of Russian resources, a revision of priorities, ties and interests in favor of Asia - towards the East. People of this kind criticize Yeltsin for subordinating Russia's interests to the West, for reducing its defense power, for refusing to support traditional allies such as Serbia, and for the path he chose to carry out economic and political reforms, causing untold suffering to the people. A manifestation of this trend is the revival of interest in the ideas of P. Savitsky, who wrote back in the 1920s that Russia is “a unique Eurasian civilization” (7). There are also harsher voices, sometimes openly nationalistic, anti-Western and anti-Semitic. They call for a revival of Russia's military power and for closer ties with China and Muslim countries. The people of Russia are divided no less than the political elite. A public opinion poll in the European part of the country in the spring of 1992 showed that 40% of the population was positively disposed toward the West, and 36% were negative. In the early 1990s, as throughout almost its entire history, Russia remained an internally divided country.

In order for a country divided from within to be able to regain its cultural identity, three conditions must be met. First, it is necessary that the political and economic elite of this country as a whole support and welcome such a move. Second, its people must be willing, however reluctantly, to adopt a new identity. Thirdly, the dominant groups of the civilization into which the divided country is trying to merge must be ready to accept the “new convert”. In the case of Mexico, all three conditions are met. In the case of Turkey, the first two. And it is not at all clear what the situation is with Russia, which wants to join the West. The conflict between liberal democracy and Marxism-Leninism was a conflict of ideologies that, despite all the differences, at least superficially set the same basic goals: freedom, equality and prosperity. But traditionalist, authoritarian, nationalist Russia will strive for completely different goals. A Western democrat could well have an intellectual dispute with a Soviet Marxist. But this would be unthinkable with a Russian traditionalist. And if Russians, having ceased to be Marxists, do not accept liberal democracy and start behaving like Russians and not like Westerners, relations between Russia and the West may again become distant and hostile (8).

CONFUCIAN-ISLAMIC BLOCK

The barriers to non-Western countries joining the West vary in depth and complexity. For the countries of Latin America and Eastern Europe, they are not so great. For the Orthodox countries of the former Soviet Union, it is much more significant. But the most serious obstacles face the Muslim, Confucian, Hindu and Buddhist peoples. Japan has succeeded in achieving a unique position as an associate member of the Western world: in some respects it is among the Western countries, but it certainly differs from them in its most important dimensions. Those countries that, for reasons of culture or power, do not want or cannot join the West, compete with it, building up their own economic, military and political power. They achieve this both through internal development and through cooperation with other non-Western countries. The best-known example of such cooperation is the Confucian-Islamic bloc, which emerged as a challenge to Western interests, values, and power.

Almost without exception, Western countries are now reducing their military arsenals. Russia under Yeltsin is doing the same. And China, North Korea and a number of Middle Eastern countries are significantly increasing their military potential. To this end, they import weapons from Western and non-Western countries and develop their own military industry. As a result, a phenomenon arose that C. Crowthemm called the phenomenon of "armed countries", and "armed countries" are by no means the countries of the West. Another result is a rethinking of the concept of arms control. The idea of ​​arms control was put forward by the West. Throughout the Cold War, the primary goal of such control was to achieve a stable military balance between the United States and its allies, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and its allies, on the other. In the post-Cold War era, the primary goal of arms control is to prevent non-Western countries from building up their military capabilities as a potential threat to Western interests. To achieve this, the West uses international agreements, economic pressure, control over the movement of weapons and military technology.

The conflict between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states is largely (though not exclusively) centered around the problems of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and other sophisticated delivery vehicles for such weapons, as well as control systems, tracking and other electronic means of target destruction. The West proclaims the principle of non-proliferation as a universal and binding norm, and treaties on non-proliferation and control as a means of implementing this norm. A system of various sanctions is envisaged against those who contribute to the proliferation of modern types of weapons, and privileges for those who observe the principle of non-proliferation. Naturally, the focus is on countries that are hostile to the West or are potentially prone to it.

For their part, non-Western countries are asserting their right to acquire, manufacture and deploy any weapon they deem necessary for their own security. They fully absorbed the truth expressed by the Indian Defense Minister in response to the question of what lesson he learned from the Gulf War: "Don't mess with the United States if you don't have nuclear weapons." Nuclear, chemical, and missile weapons are seen—perhaps erroneously—as potential counterbalances to the West's colossal conventional superiority. Of course, China already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India can place it on their territories. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Algeria are clearly trying to acquire it. A senior Iranian official declared that all Muslim countries should have nuclear weapons, and in 1988 the President of Iran allegedly issued a decree calling for the production of "chemical, biological and radiological weapons, offensive and defensive."

An important role in the creation of an anti-Western military potential is played by the expansion of China's military power and its ability to build it up in the future. With its successful economic development, China is constantly increasing its military spending and vigorously modernizing its army. It buys weapons from the countries of the former Soviet Union, is working on building its own long-range ballistic missiles, and in 1992 carried out a one-megaton nuclear test explosion. Pursuing a policy of expanding its influence, China is developing aerial refueling systems and acquiring aircraft carriers. China's military power and its claim to dominance in the South China Sea is fueling an arms race in Southeast Asia. China is a major exporter of weapons and military technology. It supplies Libya and Iraq with raw materials that can be used to produce nuclear weapons and nerve gases. With his help, a reactor suitable for research and production of nuclear weapons was built in Algeria. China has sold Iran nuclear technology that US experts say can only be used to produce weapons. To Pakistan, China has supplied missile parts with a 300-mile radius of action. For some time now, a nuclear weapons program has been developed in North Korea - the country is known to have sold the latest types of missiles and missile technology to Syria and Iran. As a rule, the flow of weapons and military technologies goes from Southeast Asia towards the Middle East. But there is also some movement in the opposite direction. Stinger missiles, for example, China received from Pakistan.

Thus, a Confucian-Islamic military bloc was formed. Its purpose is to assist its members in acquiring the weapons and military technology needed to counterbalance the military might of the West. Whether it will last is unknown. But today, it is, as D. McCurdy put it, "an alliance of traitors, led by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their supporters." A new arms race is unfolding between the Islamic-Confucian countries and the West. In the previous phase, each side developed and manufactured weapons in order to achieve a balance or superiority over the other side. Now, one side is developing and producing new types of weapons, while the other is trying to limit and prevent such a buildup of weapons, while reducing its own military potential.

CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WEST

This article does not at all assert that civilizational identity will replace all other forms of identity, that nation-states will disappear, that each civilization will become politically unified and integral, and that conflicts and struggles between different groups within civilizations will cease. I am only hypothesizing that 1) contradictions between civilizations are important and real; 2) civilizational self-awareness increases; 3) conflict between civilizations will replace ideological and other forms of conflict as the predominant form of global conflict; 4) international relations, historically a game within Western civilization, will increasingly de-Westernize and turn into a game where non-Western civilizations will act not as passive objects, but as active actors; 5) effective international institutions in the field of politics, economics and security will develop within civilizations rather than between them; 6) conflicts between groups belonging to different civilizations will be more frequent, protracted and bloody than conflicts within one civilization; 7) armed conflicts between groups belonging to different civilizations will become the most likely and dangerous source of tension, a potential source of world wars; 8) the main axes of international politics will be relations between the West and the rest of the world; 9) the political elites of some divided non-Western countries will try to include them among the Western countries, but in most cases they will have to face serious obstacles; 10) in the near future, the main focus of conflicts will be the relationship between the West and a number of Islamic-Confucian countries.

This is not a justification for the desirability of conflict between civilizations, but a conjectural picture of the future. But if my hypothesis is convincing, we need to think about what this means for Western politics. A clear distinction should be made here between short-term gain and long-term settlement. Based on positions of short-term gain, the interests of the West clearly require: 1) strengthening cooperation and unity within the framework of their own civilization, primarily between Europe and North America; 2) integration into the West of the countries of Eastern Europe and Latin America, whose culture is close to Western; 3) maintaining and expanding cooperation with Russia and Japan; 4) prevention, escalation of local inter-civilizational conflicts into full-scale wars between civilizations; 5) limiting the growth of the military power of Confucian and Islamic countries; 6) slowing down the decline in the military power of the West and maintaining its military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; 7) use of conflicts and disagreements between Confucian and Islamic countries; 8) support for representatives of other civilizations sympathetic to Western values ​​and interests; 9) strengthening international institutions that reflect and legitimize Western interests and values, and attracting non-Western countries to participate in these institutions.

In the long term, it is necessary to focus on other criteria. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. But so far only Japan has managed to achieve complete success in this. Non-Western civilizations will continue their attempts to acquire wealth, technology, skills, equipment, weapons - all that is included in the concept of "being modern". But at the same time, they will try to combine modernization with their traditional values ​​and culture. Their economic and military power will increase, the gap from the West will be reduced. More and more, the West will have to reckon with these civilizations, close in their power, but very different in their values ​​and interests. This will require maintaining its potential at a level that will protect the interests of the West in relations with other civilizations. But the West will also need a deeper understanding of the fundamental religious and philosophical foundations of these civilizations. He will have to understand how the people of these civilizations imagine their own interests. It will be necessary to find elements of similarity between Western and other civilizations. For in the foreseeable future there will not be a single universal civilization. On the contrary, the world will consist of different civilizations, and each of them will have to learn to coexist with all the others.

Notes

HUNTINGTON Samuel is a professor at Harvard University and director of the Institute for Strategic Studies. J. Olin at Harvard University.

1. Weidenbaum M. Greater China: The Next Economic Superpower? — Washington University Center for the Study of American Business. Contemporary Issues. Series 57, Feb. 1993, p.2-3.

2. Lewis B. The Roots of Muslim Rage. — Atlantic Monthly. Vol.266, Sept. 1990; p.60; Time, June 15,1992, p. 24-28.

3. Roosevelt A. For Lust of Knowing. Boston, 1988, p.332-333.

4. Western leaders almost always refer to the fact that they act on behalf of the "world community". Significant, however, is the caveat that British Prime Minister John Major escaped in December 1990 during an interview with Good Morning America. Speaking about the actions being taken against Saddam Hussein, Major used the word "West". And although he quickly recovered and later spoke of the "world community", he was right when he misspoke.

5. New York Times, Dec. 25, 1990, p. 41; Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism. — Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 1989, vol. 37, p. 41-133.

6. Mahbubani K. The West and the Rest. — National Interest, Summer 1992, p. 3-13.

7. Stankevich S. Russia in Search of Itself. — National Interest, Summer 1992, p. 47-51; Schneider D.A. Russian Movement Rejects Western Tilt. — Christian Science Monitor, Febr. 5, 1993, p. 5-7.

8. As O. Horris notes, Australia is also trying to become a country split from within. Although this country is a full member of the Western world, its current leadership is actually suggesting that it should backtrack from the West, adopt a new identity as an Asian country, and develop close ties with its neighbors. The future of Australia, they argue, is with the dynamic economies of East Asia. However, as I have already said, close economic cooperation usually implies a common cultural basis. Among other things, in the case of Australia, all three conditions necessary for an internally divided country to join another civilization seem to be missing.

From the Polis magazine (http://www.politstudies.ru/), 1994, No. 1, pp. 33-48.