In the realm of international relations theory, few concepts have sparked as much debate and controversy as American Political Scientist Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’. First articulated in 1993, his thesis posits that the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world would not be ideological or economic but cultural and civilisational. According to Huntington, the world would be divided along cultural fault lines, with different civilisations defined by religion, ethnicity, and historical heritage clashing with one another. Nearly three decades after its conception, Huntington’s theory is perhaps being put to test.
One of the most salient examples of the relevance of Huntington’s theory today is the ongoing tensions between the mostly Christian West and the Middle-Eastern Islamic civilisations and between democratic and authoritarian systems. From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the rise of jihadist terrorism – including the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict – to the refugee crisis in Europe, the clash between Western and Islamic civilisations remains a defining feature of the contemporary geopolitical landscape. Similarly, the rise of China as a global power has reignited debates about the clash between democratic and authoritarian systems, as China seeks to assert its influence and promote its own vision of the world order. A look at each of these, i.e. clashes between differing civilisations and systems would be in order.
In the convoluted landscape of international relations, few civilisational conflicts embody the intricate dance of geopolitical interests, historical grievances, and ideological clashes as vividly as the ongoing saga between Iran and Israel. At the heart of this confrontation lies not just the struggle for regional dominance, but a clash of civilizations, where ancient animosities and modern aspirations intertwine in a volatile embrace. Against the backdrop of tit-for-tat kinetic but non-contact strikes by Israel and Iran, leading to simmering tensions, the world watches with bated breath as these two nations navigate a perilous path fraught with consequences. What is lesser known though, is that Iran was the second Muslim-majority country after Turkey to recognise Israel as a sovereign state and that the two countries had robust diplomatic relations right up to 1979, which ended with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
A precarious balance of power
The current escalation of hostilities between Iran and Israel can be traced to a complex web of factors, chief among them being Iran’s quest for regional hegemony and Israel’s existential security concerns. Iran’s support for militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, coupled with its pursuit of nuclear capabilities, has fuelled Israeli apprehensions of an existential threat looming on its doorstep. Meanwhile, Israel’s military strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, aimed at thwarting Iran’s entrenchment in the region, have further stoked tensions.
The reciprocal nature of the conflict is evident in the relentless cycle of provocations and retaliations that characterise the geo-political strategy of the region. Missile attacks on Israeli territory by Iranian proxies, followed by Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian assets in Syria, have become routine. These are punctuated by occasional graver provocations such as Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023, which threaten to spiral out of control. Each strike serves as a grim reminder of the precarious balance of power and the ever-present spectre of escalation. As the Iran-Israel conflict continues to simmer, the imperative for dialogue and diplomacy becomes ever more urgent. The path to peace may be riddled with obstacles, but the alternative, namely a descent into full-scale war with catastrophic consequences, is unthinkable. Both Iran and Israel must recognise the futility of perpetual conflict and the imperative of finding common ground to address their legitimate security concerns.
Similarly, the relationship between China and India, two ancient civilisations with rich histories and vibrant cultures, is shaped by a complex interplay of factors ranging from historical grievances to contemporary geopolitical realities. At the heart of this intricate relationship lies a clash of systems — the contrasting political, economic, and social models embraced by the two countries. Against the backdrop of territorial disputes, economic competition, and regional ambitions, the clash of systems has emerged as a defining feature of China-India relations, shaping the trajectory of their interactions and the prospects for cooperation and conflict.
Also read: Why India’s strategic depth is of little value—from Pakistan to China borders
Clash of systems, civilisations
The clash of systems is, perhaps, most pronounced in the realm of governance and ideology. China’s one-party authoritarian system, characterised by tight control over political dissent and limited freedom of expression, stands in stark contrast to India’s vibrant democracy, where multiparty competition, an independent judiciary, an apolitical military and a free press are fundamental pillars of the political order. The Chinese government’s suppression of dissent in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as its crackdown on pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong and its continued bullying of democratic Taiwan, has drawn condemnation from India and the international community, highlighting the ideological divide between Beijing and New Delhi.
This divergence also extends to the geopolitics and security arenas. China’s assertive behaviour in the South China Sea and its territorial disputes with neighbouring countries including India, reflects its pursuit of regional hegemony and its willingness to use military force to unilaterally change the status quo. The border standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in the Himalayas, particularly in the disputed region of Eastern Ladakh, underscores the deep-seated mistrust and strategic rivalry between the two Asian giants. Despite periodic efforts to de-escalate tensions and maintain peace along the border, the underlying dynamics of the China-India relationship remain fraught with uncertainty and volatility.
In the face of such collective global challenges, navigating the clash of civilisations and systems requires a nuanced and pragmatic approach that balances competition with cooperation for the sake of lasting peace. By focusing on areas of mutual benefit and creating confidence-building measures, countries and alliances can mitigate the risk of conflict, and lay the groundwork for a more stable and prosperous future. In the crucible of conflict, there lies an opportunity for reconciliation and coexistence, where the wounds of the past can be healed, and a future of peace and prosperity can be forged. Only then will we be able to realise our goal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam as it emphasises a global perspective, prioritising the collective well-being over individual, family or group interests. ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)