Back in the good old days of bi-polar superpowerdom the USSR and the USA engaged in a series of “proxy wars” around the globe. Sometimes these conflicts pitted countries against each other or were “internal” affairs within one nation. Sometimes the Superpowers got directly involved usually to their cost (USA in Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan). Often though, the great powers provided diplomatic, financial and logistical support without direct military intervention. Most of the proxy wars were fought in the two-thirds world. Countries could even switch allegiances. Ethiopia went from the US camp (under Haile Salaisse) to the USSR orbit (under Menghistu). Egypt went from being a staunch Soviet ally (Nasser) to being a firm friend of the USA (under Sadat). The ideological clash between the USSR and the USA led to strange bedfellows. Extreme Islamic militants in Afghanistan were dependent of massive US military aid in their struggle to oust the Soviets from their country.
Now in the Middle East we are alledgedly witnessing the proxy war between two competing ideologies. The conflict between Israel and Hizb’allah is already portrayed in the rhetoric of both sides as a clash of two competing world views. Israel is portraying itself as a front line state in the “War on Terror” defending the values of freedom, human rights and secularism against the threat of “Islamofacism”. Hizb’allah and many in the Muslim world see the conflict as yet another example of the hegemonic strategy of the West to ensure its continuing domination of the region through its proxy – Israel. Other armed conflicts fuelled by the emerging ideological clash argument include those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The West’s running dispute with Iran over nuclear issues is another manifestation of the struggle. Just as in the 1950’s there was the identification of “Reds under the beds” in many Western countries and their proxies with oppressive measures of varying degrees used against such dissent; we now have the fifth column of “home-grown” Islamicist extremism in many Western countries with the use of various means to deal with this phenomenon. Some of the West’s most cherished liberties are even viewed as contingent in the “fight against terrorism”.
The trend now looks set for continued conflict. The “Clash of Civilisations” prophesised by Huntington looks set to be fulfilled. Fulfilled in what sense though? Is Huntington’s theory a self-fufilling prophecy adopted by various interests to bolster their own ambitions and politics? For instance, the Israeli propagandists’ representation of the military action in Lebanon as part of a great noble struggle against the forces of evil attempts to mask the sordid and brutal real politik nature of the aggression.
The questions confronting everyone now are: how do we prevent ourselves becoming “proxies” in the ideological conflict now being constructed by the forces of extremism both East and West? How do we resist the “Clash of Ignorance”? How can we best proclaim and celebrate the interdependency and interaction of civilisations and cultures?
Read the original paper by Huntington.
A response to the Huntington thesis.
