Egypt’s parliament votes in support of expelling Israel’s ambassador

[grumbler]

The CoC thesis was dead on arrival and events since then have only confirmed the results of the autopsy.

Depending on what you consider Huntington's central thesis, I don't think that this is true at all.  In fact, I would argue that history has validated his thesis that cultural fault lines would define the areas of conflict in the post-ideological world.

I don't think his definitions of civilizations stood up very well, but I don't think those definitions were central to his thesis (I thought they were filler for the book).

[Neil]

Cause of death?

The fact that ours is the only true civilization.

[The Minsky Moment]

In fact, I would argue that history has validated his thesis that cultural fault lines would define the areas of conflict in the post-ideological world.

I can't agree.  Since 92/93, areas of conflict have revolved around  traditional geopolitical tensions and conflicts over resources and civil wars/wars of national liberation.  The Congolese Civil Wars, the Eritrean-Ethopian conflict, the condflicts in Sierra Leone, Buruni and Uganda, the wars arising from the break-up of Yugolslavia, both Gulf War conflicts; the various Lebanese civil wars, the Russia- Georgia conflict -- none of these were defined by cultural fault lines unless one defines cultural fault line in such a loose way as to be meaningless.   To take a simple example, under Huntington's thesis, "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist China should be most closely alined with "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist Vietnam.  In fact, they are and have been in a position of hostility, to the point where Vietnam has reached out politically to its former arch-enemy the US and raised the specter of military ties with China as the object.  The reason is that the geopolitical fault line of conflicting interests vis-a-via the South China Sea and its resorces trump cultutral differences, every time.

[Sheilbh]

I also think in discussing a post-ideological world he missed the ideological content of 'civilisational' identity.  So for example al-Qaeda and their supporters don't represent some general aspect of the 'Islamic world' (which apparently can be generalised about from Dakar to Dhaka) it represents a very specific, radical, global Islamist ideology.  It's no more an expression of Islamic civilisation than Trotskyism is of Western civilisation, it's an ideological movement emerging from a civilisation.  Similarly there are huge disagreements between Islamists who are activists in their country and ones who want a global perspective.  One striking feature of the Arab uprising has, so far, had lots of chants about watan (which means nation in a secular sense, ie. Syria or Egypt) but very few about ummah (the Muslim nation).  I think the clashes going on within Islamism and between Islamism secularism aren't civilisational but ideological conflicts.

Another example of the failure of culture or civilisation would be the EU which is basically a big chunk of his 'Western world'.  Again you see a similar movement to ideological and national identity over some general cultural based one.  In the original article Huntington suggested that there wouldn't be problems with a good, Catholic Polish immigrant moving into Western Europe in contrast with a non-Western migrant.  They may be more welcome but I think the last 10 years of slowly moving free movement for the EU-10 suggests that they're not benefiting from a massive amount of shared cultural identity.  I know Greece is in the Orthodox sphere but I think the situation of the bailout countries and the limits of fiscal transfers also reflect that.  In France, his example, the left candidate is running against the Fiscal Pact and the right candidate is running against the Schengen agreement.  So at a time of stress the national identity wins out.

[Razgovory]

What does running against Schengen agreement mean.  Can France nullify it?  What happens then?

[Sheilbh]

What does running against Schengen agreement mean.  Can France nullify it?  What happens then?

I don't know.  I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France.  Which I suppose he could.  I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.

[grumbler]

I can't agree.  Since 92/93, areas of conflict have revolved around  traditional geopolitical tensions and conflicts over resources and civil wars/wars of national liberation.  The Congolese Civil Wars, the Eritrean-Ethopian conflict, the condflicts in Sierra Leone, Buruni and Uganda, the wars arising from the break-up of Yugolslavia, both Gulf War conflicts; the various Lebanese civil wars, the Russia- Georgia conflict -- none of these were defined by cultural fault lines unless one defines cultural fault line in such a loose way as to be meaningless.   To take a simple example, under Huntington's thesis, "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist China should be most closely alined with "Sinic" neo-Confucian reformist post-Communist Vietnam.  In fact, they are and have been in a position of hostility, to the point where Vietnam has reached out politically to its former arch-enemy the US and raised the specter of military ties with China as the object.  The reason is that the geopolitical fault line of conflicting interests vis-a-via the South China Sea and its resorces trump cultutral differences, every time.

I can't agree.  The wars you mention were not, IMO, fought over resources.  The Congolese, Burundan, and Sierra-Leonean wars were fought over tribal competitions for power/avoidance of domination by other tribes; Eritria/Ethipia and Uganda were cultural conflicts (though not between the cultures defined by Huntington). Lebanon is much more complex; it combines a bit of cultural conflict, a fair amount of tribalism, and some ideology.

All of these conflicts existed before the end of the ideological era, of course, and no one argues that every conflict of the ideological era instantly ended in 1990 and was replaced by cultural conflicts.

The thesis is more along the lines that new conflicts that arise will be likelier to occur along the cultural fault lines that ideological or economic ones.  Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.

One can almost always make a case for the economic causes of conflict, of course; Marx proved that. 

[Razgovory]

What does running against Schengen agreement mean.  Can France nullify it?  What happens then?

I don't know.  I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France.  Which I suppose he could.  I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.

If they leave, can they vote to rejoin?  Or does that require a new treaty?  Could a country just sort of flit in and out various EU treaties at will?  That would be very weird.

[Sheilbh]

If they leave, can they vote to rejoin?  Or does that require a new treaty?  Could a country just sort of flit in and out various EU treaties at will?  That would be very weird.

Well Schengen isn't an EU treaty.  It includes non-EU states like Switzerland and Norway, but doesn't include EU member states like the UK and Ireland.  It was initially outside the EU framework, I think it's now mainly regulated within EU law and all future EU members will eventually join (Romania and the rest have to one day join) like the Euro. 

But obviously the meetings on Schengen policies aren't EU based because they've got different membership and, unlike non-EU states adopting the Euro, the Norwegians and Swiss do get a say.

I don't know what provisions there are for withdrawing or being removed from Schengen.  I imagine the French could withdraw but if they wanted to re-join the rest of the Schengen Area would make it very, very difficult. 

Really it's an electoral threat with little chance of being acted on.  It's more an attempt by Sarko to steal the votes of the far-right.  I don't think at this point that it's plausible that France, a founding member of the Schengen area, would withdraw.

[Zanza]

But obviously the meetings on Schengen policies aren't EU based because they've got different membership and, unlike non-EU states adopting the Euro, the Norwegians and Swiss do get a say.

No. Schengen is amended via the normal EU legislation mechanisms. Switzerland and Norway are basically just told the result. They can take it or leave.

[Zanza]

I don't know.  I think Sarko said that if Schengen wasn't sorted then he'd pull out France.  Which I suppose he could.  I think it would just mean that France was no longer part of Schengen which a core part of the EU but an extra level of integration - like the Euro.

Schengen is part of the acquis communitaire. France can't unilaterally withdraw in a legal way except by leaving the EU.

[Eddie Teach]

  Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.

Iranian nukes could be pretty bad for GNP. I think invasion's unnecessary though.

[Sheilbh]

No. Schengen is amended via the normal EU legislation mechanisms. Switzerland and Norway are basically just told the result. They can take it or leave.

Interesting.  I didn't know that.  I read recently that the Romanians were calling for a meeting of the Schengen area to discuss that they've been turned down by the Netherlands again.  Is that basically the Home Minister version of Euro-Fin?

[Sheilbh]

Schengen is part of the acquis communitaire. France can't unilaterally withdraw in a legal way except by leaving the EU.

I thought you disagreed when I made this argument about EMU.  But I imagine Sarko would negotiate an opt-out over the year and, being France, I wouldn't put it past them to do something unilaterally and then require the rest of Europe to catch up.  Which Europe would because no-one would really want to lose France.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Congolese, Burundan, and Sierra-Leonean wars were fought over tribal competitions for power/avoidance of domination by other tribes

I don't agree as "tribal competition for power/avoidance of domination" is just a traditional political power struggle.  Conflicts between self-identified tribes in these areas do not have any cognizable cultural basis I can discern, much less a conflict stemming from a "cultural fault line"

Eritria/Ethipia and Uganda were cultural conflicts (though not between the cultures defined by Huntington). Lebanon is much more complex; it combines a bit of cultural conflict, a fair amount of tribalism, and some ideology. 

Under what definition of "cutlure" are these cultural conflicts?  I can't think of one that has any useful limiting content to it that would encompass these conflicts.  The Eritrean-Ethiopian war was about as classic as a national boundary dispute as can be found.  Both are multi-ethnic and multi-confessional societies; the main cultural difference is the residual of Italian influence in Eritrea, which I doubt was a significant causal factor.  In Uganda, I really don't think the LRA's fight is based on some critical cultural cleavage.  In Lebanon, there is little if any cultural cleavage between the adversaries.

The thesis is more along the lines that new conflicts that arise will be likelier to occur along the cultural fault lines that ideological or economic ones.  Unless one wants to argue that the US invasion of Iran and Afghanistan was done for economic reasons, I think Huntington's idea has some merit.

The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were done primarily for geopolitical and security reasons, although economics did play a role in Iraq.  They can very easily be fit within traditional frameworks of traditional national interest power politics along the lines of the kinds of similar interventions conducted throughout the 19th and 20th centurie, without having to postulate a "conflict of civilizations."  Note that culturally speaking, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq could scarely be more dissimilar.  I don't see how cultural differences are an explanation why the US invaded those countries, but at the same time, did not invade Iran or Syria, and allied to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think if one is going to make the counter case that conflicts are likely to occur along "cultural fault lines," one has to define with some reasonable specificity what the concept of a cultural fault line is; otherwise there is no way to evaluate the argument.