Since the September 2001 attacks on New York, Terrorism has been ever expanding and has become an everyday threat to much of the West, with ‘terror’ attacks being more frequent than ever before. Terrorism can be defined as the ‘“unauthorised or unofficial act of violence in the use of political gain” (Fowler, Fowler and Thompson. 1995). Disagreements are common as to how terrorism is best defined, with the reasoning behind terrorism also being heavily debated. Through the analysis of relevant literature, I shall conclude as to what extent the UK’s 21st century experience of terrorism fits with Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations thesis’.
Huntington’s article is perhaps one of the most significant thesis’ as to why terrorism occurs and why it is becoming more prevalent in the 21st century. He suggests that the fundamental source of conflict in the post-Cold War order is not economic but rather cultural and that the ‘clash of the civilisations will dominate global politics and the fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines in the future’ (Huntington, 1993). Huntington maintains that the end of the confrontation between communism and liberal democracy, brought about by the cease of the cold war, will lead to future conflicts due to the overlaps of civilisations along border lines. On a major scale, conflict occurring between states from different civilizations for control of international institutions and for economic and military power, something which arguably can be seen through the rise of modern terrorism in the West.
Abrahamian (2005:29) believes that the US media adopted Huntingon’s paradigm to explain September 2001, and arguably this can be seen further through the UK governments and media responses to more recent terrorist attacks on Britian. Stephen Vertigans builds on such an argument, whereby he sets out to distinguish whether the terrorism experienced within the UK does indeed represent a clash of civilisations or rather an emergent de-civilising process. He analyses the government response (the War on Terror), and looks to characterize what the UK government are actually doing in response, suggesting that there is a clash of civilisations. He states that it would be ‘premature to declare the UK has introduced a ‘de-civilising’ offensive or is experience a spurt of de-civilisation.
One of the primary dynamics in the rise of terrorism, and a key influence in the argument for a clash of civilisations is the rise of islamophobia in the UK and the rest of the West. Following the September 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda hatred towards such organisations and Islam itself saw a massive rise. Mass islamophobia in the West, it could be argued, has resulted in a greater divide between the two civilisations. Religion in the 21st century is at the forefront of civilisation divide, as Huntington put it ‘In the modern world, religion is a central, perhaps the central, force that motivates and mobilizes people.’(Huntington,1993) Radicalisation is something that is heavily present in the UK. As such an argument can be easily formulated to suggest that the clash of civilisations in not just the West vs the Rest, but rather within the west and civilians who have come from different civilisations. This would lead one to suggest that the UK’s experience of terrorism does fit within the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis.
Huntington’s ‘Civilisation Paradigm’ primary aim was to enable us to understand the post-Cold War order. Within his paradigm he classifies 8 separate civilisations that exist in the modern world. Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin America and Africa. Whilst each has its own subdivisions, these were primarily the 8 civilisations that are present in the 21st century world. One of the primary critics of this particular aspect of Huntington’s paradigm is economist Amartya Sen, who forms an argument in his book ‘Identities and violence’. Sen questions the notion from a number of different dimensions. He primarily questions whether any group of people can be distinguished as a civilisation, and whether Huntington’s identification of characteristics is defendable. Sen sees Huntington’s approach to modern civilisations as one-dimension and that it allows for the ‘Civilizational and religious partitioning of the world’ (Sen, 2007) something which can only lead to further global disorder.
In their study of International Terrorism and the Clash of Civilisations Eric Neumayer and Thomas Plumper heavily examine Huntington’s paradigm. Huntington’s claims that the two primary weapons used and easily accessible to the non-Western weak are Nuclear Weapons and indeed terrorism. With specific regard to the Islamic proportion of civilisation, he stressed the use of terrorism when analysing the asymmetric clash between the West and Islam. He believed Islam to be ‘‘religion of the sword’ with an absolutist ideology that makes cohabitation with other religions extremely difficult’ (Neumayer and Plumper, 2009). Huntington argued that the primary issue with Islam is not the mass fundamentalism present within the civilisation, but rather the people who ‘are conviced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power’(Neumayer and Plumper, 2009). This again would lead one to assume the opinion that it is indeed the clash of civilisaiton and primarily the clash of Islam and the West.
However, in his analysis Huntington assumes that position that the conflict has moved past the ‘West vs the Rest’ and now preserves that cultural influence is interdependent. Western civilisations influence and are influenced by smaller, less powerful civilisations around the World. He further refutes that idea of a Western culture hegemony and the instituting of a universal civilisation. He claims that ‘global communications are dominated by the West’, and that leads to a ‘resentment and hostility of non-Western peoples against the West.
Neumayer and Plumper examine the relationship between terrorist leaders and their followers, in order to establish an understanding as to why terrorism occurs and is so prevalent in the UK amongst other Western countries. They claim that ‘Terrorist followers are individuals who are attracted to the leader’s ideology, but are not in decisive or crucial position within the terrorist organisation’ (Neumayer and Plumper, 2009). They state there are three primary factors that are essential in the ‘successful recruitment of terrorists. Firstly, the ‘more appealing the terrorist’s ideology’. The radical left terrorist groups of the past failed primarily due to the lack of appeal to the wider population due to their ideology. Secondly, peer acknowledgment. The ‘more one can feel justified in perpetrating acts that are normally regarding as heinous’(Moghadam, 2003), the more appealing it will be. The more peer acknowledgment they receive and media attention then the easier it is to spread propaganda and gain new recruits. Finally, and perhaps the most pressing in the 21st century, Political Grievances. Bueno de Mesquita claims that ‘the ideological benefits that individuals derive from joining terrorist groups increase with reprisals from a regime ‘blamed for the loss of freedom, dignity and rights’’ (de Mesquita, 2006). Whilst this is primarily to distinguish the ways in which terrorist organisations can draw in new recruits, it can also be analysed to suggest why they engage in acts of terror. Primarily this can be attributed to the resentment of many Muslims amongst other civilisations towards the west.
Stephen Vertigans in his concluding analysis alludes to the fact that many Muslim communities, especially in the UK and the US are living in times of ‘uncertainty, insecurity and perceived threats that fragment previous forms of constraint and consensus based around long established norms, values and practices’ (Vertigans, 2010). This can once again be linked back to the growing islamophobia in the UK and how this is causing significant resentment towards the establishment. This fits into the idea of Huntington’s paradigm, with Muslims facing times of uncertainty their resentment is often demonstrated through acts of terrors perpetrated against the West.
Neumayer and Plumber also draw upon Huntington’s lack of provision of ‘a systematic explanation of why terrorism is a favourite weapon employed in these clashes’(Neumayer and Plumper, 2009). The only reasoning that he provides is that ‘terrorism historically is the weapon of the weak.’(Huntington, 1993). When examining as to why Islam as a civilisation is perhaps the most associated with terrorism, he points to the lack of clear borders. The impact this has is that it lacks a core states, and often overlaps with over civilisation, this is clearly demonstrated in the rising radicalization in the UK. The resentment towards the west, generated in Huntington’s eyes by the dominance of the west in global communications, creates a pathway for hate, which, it could be argued, is the main cause of terrorism in the UK. This further suggests that the UK’s experience of terrorism fits in, to a large extent with the clash of civilisations thesis.
To conclude, through the analysis of the relevant studies, the experience of terrorism in the UK to a large extent fits in with the clash of the civilisation thesis. The rising islamophobia and the growing resentment towards the Western civilisation has resulted in a growth in the prevalence of terrorist attacks in the UK. Huntington primarily argues that the post-Cold War order is 8 civilisations whose ‘borders’ overlap, and it is these overlaps that are the reason for terrorism in my opinion within the UK. Neumayer and Plumber, question some of the aspects of Huntington’s paradigm with Amartya Sen rejecting his claims. However, I believe the clash of the civilisation thesis is the best explanation for the UK’s experience of terrorism.