By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi
Samuel Huntington riled many minds in the international relations circles when in 1993, he published “The Clash of Civilizations?”, a controversial article which he later expanded (and I would add, “escalated”) into a book in 1996. In the article cum book, he theorized that cultural and religious identities rather than ideological differences would define the post–Cold War conflicts among nations.
Whereas so much ink has flowed in critiquing Huntington, some people still believe him, especially on the lines that conflict in the 21st century is likely to flare up between the world’s major civilizations i.e., the Western (USA and allies) and the Sinic (Chinese) civilizations. It was Huntington’s view that current and future conflicts among sovereign states would best be understood on the contours of cultural differences.
As for Africa, Huntington did not even find us to be a necessary part of his global analysis. He said so little and yet so much by being conceptually inattentive to the place of Africa in the debate of global civilizations.
It is that gap in his analysis that I seek to add a whisper to. I think that we as Africans stand at the center of global civilization because of the unique and complicated history we are walking from and the undetermined future we are walking to. I observe Africa as the fallopian tube where the cross-fertilization of competing civilizations is happening currently.
This fertilization is happening generally in these ways. Whereas Western civilization seems to compete more forcefully through the superimposition of assumed Western values onto African societies, China has on the other end established principles of sharing its civilization not by prescribing its domestic values and systems for Africa but by respecting African values and autonomy. This way, the cross-pollination of Chinese and African civilizations is based on respect and mutual benefits.
The danger of Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory is that it offered a brand-new excuse for the United States to justify any atrocious confrontation they may have wished to execute in the absence of the Soviet Union, which had been the perfect excuse for a threat during the Cold War.
Huntington had a very narrow and limited appreciation of identities and civilizations. He determined the result of their intersection as violent, ipso facto. He only anticipated adverse effects from the interactive competition of diversity. And yet history has limitless evidence of the harmony and development that came from inter-cultural and inter-civilizational exchanges. He saw no “conversation of civilizations”. He ignored all substantive evidence to that effect and instead earnestly highlighted the “clash of civilization” – by which he meant catastrophic warfare. Surely, the interdependence of our time and the intersectionality of our global challenges deserve better analysis of our diversity.
In politicizing civilizations, Huntington dangerously attempted to rationalize and passively encourage political violence on the global landscape. The logic of monopolizing violence was already an inherent nature of the modern state. These nation-states customarily inflict violence on both internal political minorities during state formation and also violate foreign subjects during external imperial expansion. We in Africa are still coming to terms with both the violence of state formation as well as recovering from that of colonial expansion. But along with this trauma, we are also offering a safe space for Western and Sinic civilizations to peacefully meet as they interact with us on our journey to socio-economic transformation.
China and the West should exploit the opportunity of partnering with Africa on its development course to diffuse their intercultural tensions by viewing Africa not as a place for rivalry but one for cooperation. I believe that this would align well with the objectives of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC).
Africa is home to millions of the youngest people in the world. These youths are negotiating a multicultural, fast-changing world with open arms. Those arms must be bestowed with tolerance, not the cultural prejudices fraught in Huntington’s clash of civilizations.
We should be more invested in urging for dialogue among civilizations like never before. As a venue where various civilizations now meet on development agendas, Africa should inspire dialogue, mutual understanding, peaceful coexistence and cooperation among these civilizations.
Let us not seek to remake the World Order along lines of cultural confrontation. Huntington’s theoretical legitimization of Western aggression against Islamic cultures and China should be buried in the unmarked graves of history where it belongs. I hope that the United States’s foreign policy actors desist from conducting it under the intellectual enlightenment of thoughts like Huntington’s. Future history will kindly remember them for that.
The author is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Center.
