Political Science

Samuel Huntington is one of the renowned political scientists of our time. He wrote The Clash of the Civilization at the time when the world has just ended the decades long of Cold War that divided the world from East and West. While the world is still fresh from the war that made the political paradigm of upfront distrust to camps which is not your friend, Huntington (1993) suggested that the next war will be fought not between nations but between civilizations. He has stressed on the identification of countries to where they will fight in return of self-preservation.

This paper will critique on this momentous work of Samuel Huntington The Clash of the Civilization The paper will review on some of Huntingtons key arguments on how his predicted next war. Also, it will assess whether his general theory of war fought between civilizations applies to the current undertakings of states in their International Relations (IR). Furthermore, it will present whether the relationship between countries are still within the context of within civilization or it has been another international relations paradigm coating the existing friction andor good understanding of nation-states.

As subjects in this paper, United States and United Kingdom are the nation-states that will be studied. United States and United Kingdom are two powerful countries in the world now when it comes to political influence, military force and economic progress. Both countries are part of one civilization that has been into war together in the recent years, excluding the past non-harmonious colonial relationship of the two countries. The two countries will be presented in both harmonious and dissonant relationship in the world stage. It will address how and why United States and United Kingdom have established a special relationship in the present.  The two countries Trusting Relationship are seen in the currently established foreign policies that they have agreed and argued with. By placing the United States and United Kingdom side by side in a concept of two nations within one civilization in relation to their current foreign policies and its future directions, this paper will be able to present that it could be andor could be not about being from one heritage that really makes their current relationship as it is.

Background Samuel Huntingtons Clash of Civilization.
It was 1993 and the Cold War has just ended  in thought but not how the states are interacting - when Samuel Huntington published Clash of Civilizations. It is widely read by most political scientists and scholars in general to understand the future of International Relations (IR). The material dealt and expound on the next war that will be fought by nations. Huntington (1993) hypothesized that it is not going to be economic nor ideological that will spark the next conflict and will divide the world, instead it is our cultural differences. At the end of history, Huntington expects that nations will cluster according to their highest cultural grouping and the broadest level of cultural identity that separates them from others (Huntington 1993), and that was well epitomized by the war that has just ended at that time.

The international stage has changed, and many scholars have unrestricted and continuous interest on how the end of history will be, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the tribal conflicts. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a very significant and core aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is Huntingtons theory that the core source of conflict in the new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The grouping among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs however the core conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.
With the West currently at its peak of power in relation to other civilizations as its superpower opponent has disappeared from the map. It is unlikely to have military conflict among nation-states in the western civilization. Western military power is unrivaled, strong and advanced. Also, it dominates international economic institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Global political and security issues are successfully settled with the dictation of strong countries such as those who are from the western countries. Decisions reached at top world organizations such as U.N. Security Council and International Monetary Fund. As a result, western ideas are reflected in the world as the democratic popular interest, which actually not. Via the Monetary Fund and other international economic organizations, the West promotes their economic interests. They have a strong hand to impose economic policies towards other nations to cater personal interest.

In most events, First world or Western countries claims that what they are doing are but world peace and order. Western domination of the UN Security Council and its decisions produced United Nations legitimation of the Wests use of force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and its elimination of Iraqs humanity unsafe weapons and capacity to produce such weapons. It also said that the unprecedented action by the United States and its allies such as Britain and France in getting the Security Council to demand that Libya hand over the Pan Am 103 bombing suspects and then to impose sanctions when Libya refused (Huntington 2010). After conquering the largest Arab army, the West did not falter to throw its weight around in the Arab world (Huntington 2010). The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to shape the world as they wanted to preserve and expand their authority. It has become visible that the West is successful in this. Many non-west countries are now western in political and economic values.
On the other hand, the way non-Western countries perceive the strong western civilization is at some point true. Unequal distribution of power and struggles for military, economic and institutional power are one of the many reasons why there is conflict between the West and other civilizations. Differences in our basic way of life, values and beliefs are a second source of conflict. V. S. Naipaul has argued that Western civilization is the universal civilization that fits all men. (Huntington 2010). Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures (Huntington 2010).

Samuel Huntingtons The Clash of Civilization also became a very good material in his comprehensive discussion on defining what civilization is. According to Huntington (1993), civilization is

The highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people has that differentiate us from other species.

It is defined by both shared objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs, and institutions and by personal belongingness of the people.

It involves a large number or a small number of people.

It is dynamic. They rise and fall. They divide and merge.

The Transatlantic Drift
Samuel Huntington (1993) claimed that nations will fight together with the other nations coming from same grouping called civilization. United States and United Kingdom as clustered to be members of the Western Civilization has major and significant differences as well to consider, it is in terms of executing Foreign Policy direction or in its core Schools of Thought that governs the more primitive way of thinking of its legislators. These differences that will be discussed are basic hindrances in the United States  United Kingdom relations that has been to be toppled down or over come first to further the two countries same pacing in international politics and preserve their special relations.

Foreign Policy Differences of America and Europe.
Robert Kagan (2003) argued that American and European foreign affairs have been a huge transatlantic rift. American policy of being bold in the value of force does not actually convene with the Europeans commitment to diplomacy and consensual multilateralism (Nincic and Datta 2007). The divide that is presented by Kagan is attributed to the different schools of thought, primarily based on the most recent experiences of these countries.

United States as the only superpower left in the international political stage with the downfall of other strong countries in due course of history. United Kingdom was devastated by the loss of its Commonwealth. USSR disintegrated by the independence of its confederation. With United States primacy in world politics and economy, the countrys primary focus is hegemony. According to Stalen (2008), hegemony is the institution or the relationship that is established between anarchy and empire. The relationship established between the two is characterized by the ability of A to regulate behaviors of B. In this case, with the primary focus of maintaining and expanding the authoritative role towards other states in the world stage, United States felt that the mass of weapons of countries such as Iraq and North Korea have will destabilize the existing status quo. This critique does not argue whether United States implemented its hegemony to Iraq and North Korea. The example epitomizes the convening United States forces to make Western Countries (their allies and well represented by Great Britain) maintain their current authority in the international politics.  The above mentioned actions were more on promotion of personal interest to preserve and expand rather than to put forward the interest and the protection of all countries in general.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom convention with United States policies towards the so-called members of the axis of evil on their War on Terror could be well explained by their conventional pragmatic nature and adherence to moral philosophy (Cohen 2007). United Kingdom sees themselves as important actors in the world stage that should take part in the preservation of the security, both the national level and as well as in the international scene. It has been a long tradition for the United Kingdom that their foreign policy direction is well-governed by the moral philosophy, putting forward common good. In this case, United Kingdom sees that by openly supporting the actions of United States in the peace-keeping efforts  War on Terror - in Middle East, the country is being humanitarian. The preservation of humanity that United Kingdom is pursuing, together with other personal interest of the state, has been the countrys endowed moral philosophy that they live by and has become the countrys basic guide in their foreign policy direction.

Through there is a significant and noticeable difference between foreign policies features of United States and United Kingdom, the two remains to be each others most important bilateral relation. The lead of one has become the others pacing as well. That is why, it is impossible to see Britain joining any side that views the United States as a strategic rival rather than a strategic collaborator (Childs 2006). On the other hand, United States needs the support of United Kingdom to pursue offshore goals.

According to Gilbert (2003) in his Stranded Between Two Receding Shorelines The Anglo-American Special Relations After May 5, 2005 Elections Any regular reader of the quality press, or even The Times, could easily give out a list  of reasons (a) The United States needs British support in Iraq to  help maintain order and to ease the transition to democracy of this former autocratic country run by a known anti-Western government (b) The United States needs Britain to do something, in Tony Blairs somewhat clichd metaphor, as a bridge between the two banks of the Atlantic (c) the two countries cooperate over intelligence matters to ensure the relationship that has been established (d) Britain is a very important ally in the in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with regards to giving out veto during concerns of high alarm.

These two Western country has been a package deal when in comes to international conventions  of course except during the Kyoto Protocol. It is more rational for the two countries to support each other rather than the other way even though perception into an issue and foreign policy direction is way different. A special relationship with the reality of non-uniformity between the two is a political paradigm that will be a status quo for our time.

Difference in School of Thought of between the countries.
A scholar in the name of Benjamin Cohen (2007) has contended that there is a huge difference in the conception of thoughts between United States and United Kingdom. In International Political Economy (IPE), a distinguished subject in International Relations, American Schools has been named-up as those whom aspire to objectivity of conventional social science Cohen (2007). The British, on the other hand, has been identified to be more normative in the tradition of pragmatism and classical moral philosophy. Furthermore, Cohen (2007) contends that the mutual insularity of two nation-states has grown deeper due to unshared exposure to different socialization. The political past of these two countries is dissimilar. While United States was trying to cure its wound from the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth where pushing for autonomous rule. United States has once despised the repressive of taxation of United Kingdoms monarchy and until now, many universities in the United Kingdom disliked the American way.

Many scholars have contended that the structure of governance of United States is more on top to bottom, and United Kingdom as bottom to top. Civic action is both strong in these countries however, in United Kingdom the dislike and the wants of the people are more visible and reflected in the policies pushed by their government in the international stage.

Same Pacing Among the Western Countries Towards Securitization Efforts
Huntington (1993) contended that Western countries share the same personal interest. It manifest in their foreign policies and other conducts of international affairs. Western countries are led by the worlds superpower in the form of United States. There has been many instances wherein United States initiated policies are being supported by other western countries, perhaps these countries were negotiated to be on this side of the block or they take part to the cause of United States.

United States together with United Kingdom attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003 after many months of security threat. It was said it was a preventive war that is an action to the non-proliferation mechanism of the western countries. Both countries realized that was necessary at that time. Iraq was tagged as a part of the axis of evil and should be one of the targets on its War on Terror. It was and still is United States defense to all the criticism to the invasion of Iraq. The worlds current superpower claims that it is merely a precautionary action to avoid further insecurity to the world with arms lying on Iraqs grounds. United Kingdom, as United States close ally, went to war with the same reason. United Kingdom also claimed that the country should both be engaged to monitoring to keep and address insurgency issue.

Back in United Kingdom, public dislike in governments support to United States war on terror lead to loss of votes for the Labor Party. In response to this event, the United Kingdoms government has maneuvered its foreign policy direction to reduce it level of cooperation with United States forces in ongoing or possible future military offensives implementation of recent initiatives to restructure United Kingdoms non-nuclear forces and capabilities and looming future issues pertaining to the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent and role in missile defense (Michel 2006). Ironically, these developments coincide with a marked increase in explicit and implied United States interest in broader and deeper security and defense cooperation with allies and partners, especially thoseheaded by the UKwith proven capabilities and a demonstrated political will to use them (Michel 2006). In return, the US-UK special relationship has become an expensive and noteworthy preservation of the First World countries interest.

Just like what Huntington predicted, the two countries have fought the war together. Huntington claimed that it is due to the grouping that both are a member of. However, it does not include the reason why other countries such as Israel and South Korea are fighting their side as well. The thought of shared interest or ally-hood beyond civilization was not encompassed by Huntingtons writing.
Institutionalized Trusting Relationship between Western Countries.

In studying International Politics, what is considered most is trusting relationships rather than trust (Hoffman 2007). According to Hoffman (2007), trust is a cognitive notion while trusting relationships involve actions that are why governments have trust matters policy. They manifest when actors delegate control over their interest to others, in part because they believe in the dependability and rectitude of their counterparts.

Aaron M. Hoffman (2007) study The Structural Cause of Trusting Relationships Why Rivals Do Not Overcome Suspicion Step by Step expounded on the relationship of countries on why they keep on trusting each and why trust has become a very significant matter to consider in International Relations. He did not linked, unlike Huntington, this kind of relational behavior of states to the cultural and heritage attributes of states. According to this study, trusting relationships develop in response to distinct sequences of events (Hoffman, 2007). In this case, it refers to recent interactions that directly influence foreign policy direction of United States and United Kingdom. Most of the time, it makes the two countries keep their good relationship.

It has been claimed in the same study that it is incentives to the actors that keep them in this kind of status quo. Furthermore, in an anarchic set-up, actors are anxious that entrusting their interest to others brings with it an unacceptable chance of domination or destruction (Hoffman, 2007).  An important realization was also reached by Hoffmans research that will indirectly answer this papers enquiry. Hoffman (2007) concluded that in successful trust-building strategies, it is the hardest issue first that should be addressed. According to Hoffman (2007), it is through the provision of rules and procedures that enable actors to reliably influence and defend their core interests. It is through these informal bargains in the face of formal protocols and conventions that the each country could be able to put forward what the countrys interest.

Hoffmans argument was also supported by John Dumbrell (2008) in his US-UK Relations The Current Situation and Prospects for the Future. According to Dumbrell (2008), the special relationship established by United States and United Kingdom is something that is very recent. To consider that sentiment-wise both countries are in incongruence in concerns and focus.

Dumbell (2008) have directly criticized the thought the current relationship of United States and United Kingdom is based on the culture (language, attributes, colors etc.) and sentiment that they share. The recent history of World War II could be attributed to the creation of the Special Relationship of the two countries. The shared military tasks dated back wartime has established the current cooperation of United States and United Kingdom in international politics. Dumbell (2008) furthers that the reason that this special relationship is kept because of inertia and is well manifested in the joint efforts of United States and United Kingdom on their War on Terror.

Furthermore, to see United States and United Kingdom defense cooperation in an organized fashion is manifested in their Mutual Defense Agreement, last renewed in 2004. There are still a lot of United States military personnel based in the United Kingdom. Both countries are still very supportive on each others international security efforts both for home defense and offensive operations.
The United States and United Kingdom would like to keep the ties and this could not be because of what common heritage they have, but this is due to the demands of strategy game in international politics.

Conclusion
Huntington (1993) hypothesized that it is not going to be economic nor ideological that will encourage the next conflict and will divide the world, instead it is our cultural differences. At the end of history, Huntington expects that nations will cluster according to their highest cultural grouping and the broadest level of cultural identity that separates them from others (Huntington 1993).

The West is currently at its peak of power in relation to other civilizations and it is unlikely to have military conflict among these nation-states. Though there have been differences between United States and United Kingdom in their Foreign Policy direction and its Schools of Thought, the two countries remains to be keeping their special relationship. The certain special relationship that has been established between United States and United Kingdom, it is not primarily the clinging of shared heritage (culture and sentiments) that the two countries has kept a harmonious foreign relation with each other and made same pacing in the world stage when it comes to foreign policy directions  in securitization efforts and in economic policies. The recent past and the so-called strategic actions in the international politics created and configured the current United States-United Kingdom relations.

United Kingdom has been supportive to the War on Terror lead by the United States to the countries that are tagged to be a part of the axis of evil. Foreign policies, just like US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement, have been implemented to put forwarded the special relationship established by the two countries. The two countries special relationship has been enriched as well by their common membership to international organizations such as Bank for International Settlements, British-American Project, Food and Agriculture Organization, Group of Eight, Group of Ten, Group of Twenty, Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Justice, International Electro technical Commission, International Energy Agency, International Monetary Fund, International Olympic Committee, International Renewable Energy Agency, International Telecommunication Union, Interpol, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Organization for Economic, Co-operation and Development,  Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Pilgrims Society, Rim of the Pacific Exercise, UK USA Community, United Nations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations Security Council, Universal Postal Union, World Bank, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization.

Huntington was not able to emphasize whether his claim that the war among nations and who is to fight side by side is concentrated and closed among the nations is due to the one civilization grouping. The currently established special relationship between United States and United Kingdom is brought about by the Trusting Relationship that has been created out of a structure recently formed. It is the distinct sequence of events, pertaining to recent interactions of United States and United Kingdom that lead to their current harmonious relationship - manifested by cooperation in securitization efforts, and as well as, cross-boundary economic policies. Furthermore, it is incentives out of trusting and cooperating that keeps the special relationship going for United States and United Kingdom.

The research has presented that the current good relationship between two countries is not primarily about that. This is about the recent events that brought out behaviors to keep a trusting relationship and go to war together, such as the war in Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan and other countries visited by the peace-keeping troops.

Another point to consider is that, the core-periphery (See Benjamin Cohens article for further discussion) mechanism in the international stage could also totally diminish Huntingtons claims. Non-Western countries have become more Western at this time due to international relations. A learned Third World elite could actually change policy directions in its home country. As well as, the effects of post-colonial set-up in the world stage leads contagious mind-set to the former colony. Considering United States and United Kingdom were once colonizers of the Old World, many of its former colonies andor annexes are still more Western than homegrown in the manner they think.
United States affiliation to other countries that are not exactly Western, just like Israel and South Korea, does not support the Huntingtons claims. Israel and South Korea have fought side by side with United States in their specific geographical locations, but they are not from the Western Civilization grouping discussed by Huntington. Many of United States allies are not from the Western block. The international stage has become drawn in superpower-follower fashion or in core-periphery manner, and not on geographical and heritage considerations.