The thesis of the provocative and potentially important Clash of Civilizations is that the increasing threat of violence arising from renewed conflicts between countries and cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures--Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu and African--in current struggles across the globe. Samuel P Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy aide to President Clinton, argues that policymakers should be mindful of this development when they interfere in other nations' affairs. --Christine Buttery

This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.

While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?