CC BY
29CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS OR CLASH OF INTERESTS? REDEFINING THE CLASH AND REDEFINING THE CIVILIZATION
Anahit Parzyan
In the current world order, where nation states are no longer the only major players of the International Relations, but the emerged, developed super and supra-powers, there is a need to evaluate and define the scope of interests and possible clashes as results of those interests.
Samuel Huntington in his article "The Clash of Civilizations?" describes the World a place where in future states will clash based on differences in Civilizations. According to him, differences of the civilizations will stand as the main reason for the clash [4, p. 22].
The main goal of this article is to prove that people, nations and states clash because of interests and not because of the differences of civilizations. In the contemporary World Politics ideas and definitions of concepts are subjects to a fast change, thus this article aims to newly define the ideas of "Clash" and "Civilization." This article is reasoning that the clash may occur not because of the differences in civilizations, but because of differences in state interests. If a clash occurs and the reason of it is the difference of civilizations, then it is possible on the physiological level, which presupposes a change and not violence.
Throughout centuries as states struggled for their interests, they were in cooperation in case they have common interests. Religion, history, geography were just additional links to the cooperation. In case of different interests, the two parties might have found themselves quite dissimilar even in the areas where they once found similarities. Maybe this was the reason of the interpretation of different types of Christianity like Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Apostolic, or among Muslims Sunni and Shia...they could find common ground anytime they found mutual interests or they might find differences anytime their interests contradicted. Interests of
* Doctoral Student, Institute of International Studies, Nanjing University.
states always stand higher than any other element. In case of common interests, states may find necessary similarities to cooperate and in case of different interests, they will find dissimilarities to oppose each other. It is illustrated better in the Era of the Balance of Power in Europe.
Evan Luard brings a vivid example of this, "During the fifteenth century it was known that Florence had habitually allied herself with the power or powers opposed to the one which she saw as the greatest threat to herself and to the peace of the peninsula as a whole. At the time when Milan, under the Sforza, was the main threat, for example, Florence allied herself with Venice to resist her; from 1551, when Venice became the dominant power, she joined instead with Milan in opposition [1, p. 2]."
In order to understand the Clash of civilization in a broad way, there is a need to describe what is meant by the clash. Two types of clashes are specified herein: physical and psychological.
Psychological clash occurs when one part with its own ideas/conceptions of understanding the world and own response to the surrounding world encounters another party which has different, unpredictable (totally or partially) conceptions. This clash may be called psychological and does not presuppose any other action; this is a clash of yours and a different one. This kind of clash can be a clash of civilizations.
Physical clash, in turn, implies a physical action from one party to the other in order to conquer, win, jeopardize or the like. This clash may be called an act of violence and may occur because of the different needs and interests. Physical clash is possible between those who have different civilizations, or it may occur between those who belong to similar civilizations, who share the same civilization, because the reason is not to which grouping you belong, but what you want. For instance, when the first time the white men with their military clothes, ships, weapons, haircut and long boots met the red men with t,heir own way of living, the black men with their way of greeting, eating and living, when Mongols reached Europe or when Japanese met other nations, that was the clash of civilizations but that was no more than the Psychological Clash. It may refer to people, or to their ideas, to anything new and different that will always bring to the clash and this clash is psychological. But when a man belonging to some grouping; no matter national, international, kills or conquers others to take the gold or the lands, the economy, security,
the power to rule them, physical clash occurred and it is not the clash because of civilization, but it is the clash of nothing more than interest.
To justify this hypothesis, it will be interesting to examine the following example: if we consider the clash of civilizations the main reason for the clash in future, then we should firstly divide those who are the bearers of a certain civilization and those who are potentially under attack, because of having other civilization. The attackers can be called "Family" while those who are under attack will be called "Strangers". If the reason of the attack falls only on the fact that there is a difference of civilization than there should never be any contradictions within the "Family" because they share the same civilization. The clash may occur only between the "Family" and the "Stranger" while the cooperation of any "Family" member with any "Stranger" member is an issue of non-possibility, as they are of different civilizations and cannot be in cooperation but in a clash. From my point of view, though, if there is an interest that will influence any other member of the "Family" or "Stranger" or will be beneficial for the whole group, cooperation is possible.
In the Era of the Balance of Power in Christian Europe the differences were inside of the types of Christianity, but the allies were gathered only when they had state interests higher than their faith, and any other aspects. It was not one time that parties were united in one group to struggle against the third one and shortly after that former enemies could be united against former alley. Could civilization, stand as a reason? World history offers cogent examples to justify, that those were nothing but state interests that brought two parties to the clash.
The example of the war in Eastern Ukraine between Ukrainians and the Russian national minority in Ukraine illustrates how national interests overwhelm civilization. In this case the clash occurred in the "Family". It is interesting to note, that American scholar Huntington mentioned, that Russia and Ukraine would never have a real clash because they are "Family" and they would always find ways for solving their problems as they are representatives of the same civilization. He argued that they1 are two Slavic, primarily Orthodox peoples who have had close relationships with each other for centuries." Talking about the issue over Crimea Huntington mentioned, "As of early 1993, despite all the reasons for conflict, the leaders of the two countries were effectively negotiating and defusing the issues between
1 The author means Ukrainians and Russian national minority in Eastern Ukraine.
the two countries. While there has been serious fighting between Muslims and Christians elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and much tension and some fighting between Western and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic states, there has been virtually no violence between Russians and Ukrainians [4, p. 38]."
However, history shows that, unfortunately, they will, if there are the interests of states. They not only had a clash, they had a war. The war would be called "брат против брата" meaning a war of brother against brother. When interest brings to the physical clash, it does not differentiate between civilization, geography, strategy, it differentiates between interests.
The Armenian-Azerbaijani war over Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) is another example of a clash of interests and not the clash of civilizations as Huntington noted. The point of the author was that Russia was involved into the war on the side of Armenia because both of them were Christians and supported each other. Huntington mentioned, "With the end of the Soviet Union, however, political considerations gave way to religious ones. Russian troops fought on the side of the Armenians, and Azerbaijan accused the 'Russian government of turning 180 degrees' toward support for Christian Armenia [4, p. 37].1" This is one way to describe a situation that occurred, but if we examine deeply this conflict, we would see that Russia was involved after Turkey began to deploy its troops near Armenian borders. Of course, Russian troops had never been involved from the Armenian side. Russia was reaffirming its political supremacy over Caucasian region by balancing its forces against possible intervention of Turkey, thus preventing further possible developments and undermining the desire of Turkey to find its new identity in Pan-Turkism.
The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was not a religious war but an ethnic war that occurred because of territorial disputes. The justification of the religion issue was announced by Azerbaijan but remained on words because Armenia declared that had no other conflicts with other Muslim countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran, a neighboring country of Armenia, opened its borders with Armenia despite the desire of Azerbaijan and Turkey to impose blockade on Armenia, and subsequently this proves that it was an ethnic/territorial war, but not a religious one.
If we consider this a religious war, then we will have the following questions to answer: why Russia and other Western countries did not help Christian Arme-
1S. P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 1993, p. 37.
nia?Armenia is an Apostolic Oriental Orthodox country, and has as much in common with eastern Orthodox Russia, as it has with Protestant and Catholic West. So why wouldn't they get involved too? The question is why would they? By that time no other country was more interested in spreading its supremacy over that region than Russia, thus Russia was the main active player. For the centuries preceding the military conflict, South Caucasus was the part of Russian Empire, as thereafter it emerged in the Soviet Union. Thus it is evident, that Russia had more interests than "Family" story to be involved into this crisis. The Armenian-Azerbaijani war was not a religious war, as Huntington mentions, it was an ethnic one, and it was based on state interests. There is another important factor to mention: the war occurred just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, another big "Family" where Armenia and Azerbaijan, together with other members, shared the same way of living and ideology (communism).They had the same education, the same perception of life, the same perception of "right" and "wrong", the same New Year celebrations. When the war started, it was difficult to believe that after 70 years of no religion those countries found themselves so deeply in faith to support or oppose because of religion. The examples prove the hypothesis that the interest and not the civilization brings to the clash.
What is the civilization? Classical approach and New Era of Civilization
In International Relations where the subjects of investigations are no more nations but states, and these states are not necessarily supposed to be national, the idea and the description of the civilization goes beyond the classical one, which is described by a combination of various factors including culture, religion, history, etc.
Speaking about civilization Samuel Huntington defines it in the following way, "A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people [4, p.25]." He then adds, "Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion [4]."
In classical definition civilization can be described as the highest grouping of people that include religion, history, language, culture, traditions, etc. These values
are common for nation-states while in current world order civilizations are beyond national peculiarities. They may include one common element, but may miss other or others. The combination of all together in a specific geography in a specific nation is no more of high importance.
James M. Roberts's ideas about Western civilization as a whole are illuminating. He specifies ideas and thoughts, attitudes and behavior, rather than subjects that are linked to history. Referring to civilization and the role of religions Roberts speaks about the decrease of the value of Christianity in Europe in 1920-30s..."Striving to grapping with Freud's alarming suggestions....the conscious intellectual life of Europe seemed to indicate that little excitement could still be aroused by tolerance, democracy, or the old liberal absolutes set up to protect the individ-ual.For a long time, only a minority of Europeans, even in Roman Catholic countries, had been regularly attending religious worship. The masses of the industrial cities lived in post-Christian world of growing paganism. Whether or not the decline of church-going made much difference to their daily lives, a messentertainment industry was at work destroying or transforming much of the structure of festivals and commemoration embodies in the traditional calendar, and public law was cutting or by-passing the experience of the great traditional rites of marriage and baptism [3, p. 325]."
Generally speaking, the role of Christianity and the morality it has on social behavior of 1920-1930, inter-personal relations and attitudes based on these morals gave their turn to new ones, being displaced by new liberal certainties of the autonomy of the individual, new moral criteria, new concepts and order of life.
The classical approach of the description of what is civilization can be viewed from different perspectives and for different elements. There is a need to newly define what civilization is, that will have more inclusive approach. We will go beyond the classical description and will bring a new description of Civilization: New Era civilization.
The description of the civilization of New Era can be assumed as a response, the reaction of a person towards the world on the basis of Law (legal/illegal), Morality (good/bad, moral/immoral) and Human Rights (right or wrong).
Law coordinates actions of people based on local or international law and constitution. The attitude of a person towards these laws predicts his/her behavior that will
reflect as his/her civilization. The attitude towards laws predicts not only the civilization of people towards the power, but it is also formed by the attitude of a state towards citizens and laws. The attitude towards laws (respect or disrespect, follow or not follow, justify or not justify) formulates a civilization of a nation, country or state.
Morality is the second element of a civilization. What is good or bad, what is moral and immoral can be determined by a religion or by an ideology, which formulates the rules for a citizen to behave in a certain way, in the view of the public opinion formed and dictated by the state or the society. It can be based on religion, freedom, or on indifference.no matter what type of morality the society has, it still has it and that articulates the attitude and the behavior.
The third one is the Declaration of Human Right by the United Nations (UN) which navigates the laws and moralities of a human being. In the current world order UN is the highest level for all states to cooperate and to function according to its regulations. Declaration of Human Rights is the base for every human being to act in the world. Countries that adopted the declaration are guided to formulate laws and regulations for citizens in or out of their country. This is their attitude. Countries that refused to accept it, also demonstrated their attitude by rejecting and not respecting it. It is their standards of living. It is the highest regulations for a person to cooperate with other members of society and with the entire world. Countries which has similar attitude based on the above mentioned criteria can be grouped in one civilization. Western countries share these ideas, they accept and spread these standards of living. Their grouping is called Western Civilization.
Speaking and generalizing about Western culture J.M. Roberts mentioned about Sigmund Freud and his influence on the conception of an idea of Westerner. According to Roberts, Freud's ideas called in question the ideas of the rational, responsible, consciously motivated individual - a key notion of Western civilization and a presupposition of right of society to impose morality [3, p. 321].
According to Samuel Huntington, elements of the Western civilization are: Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state which, he thinks, has "little resonance" in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures, Western efforts to propagate such ideas produce instead a reaction against 'human rights imperialism' [4, p. 41].
In the modern world movement of people from one geographic place to another is a matter of their will, also confirmed by their right. In a new world order people can change the place they live and move to another place. When they appear in another place they have to follow the rules and regulations of that specific area, if they feel better and safe with that rules they will accept them freely and follow them easily and that will make their civilization different. If an Algerian comes to France and stays for decades and feels comfortable with those regulations, he/she faces a new position. Will he/she become the bearer of a civilization? The answer is no, if we consider that he/she is not Christian, has nothing in common with the history and is not the bearer of the culture he/she happened to be in. But if he/she has a French passport, he/she becomes the bearer of anything that is connected with that country, then he/she becomes a Westerner. Being physically in the West, he/she is a westerner by passport, so is he/she a bearer of Wwestern civilization? The answer is yes, if it is a conception of life, his/her response and actions are predictable, acceptable and understandable for the society he/she lives in. Even if he/she has different religion and listens to different music, even if his/her ancestors are buried not in the Western soil, he/she is still a westerner, according to the law, at least.
The USA, Australia, Canada are multinational countries and the selection of the nation is not based on their culture, rather than on their attitude and conception of the norms and ways of living and cooperation within a society by a new culture, in turn based on the above mentioned three criteria: Law, Morality and Human Rights. Only these three factors may formulate the civilization of the New Era.
In modern world though, it is the Western civilization that has the dominant impact on other civilizations. The question arises why specifically Western civilization has its influence on other parts of the world? Throughout history the greater is the power of the state, the more it will influence others. It will spread its language, music, religion, arts etc., currently new political system and the place of citizens in a state is also an important part of Western civilization. Moreover, if nowadays other elements are replaceable, changeable or missing completely, like religion is no more an obligation but a personal will, culture and the behavior, ethics and morality are no more the same (it can be hardly claimed that they could ever been: Frenchman and American are completely different in their behavior and taste), the only thing that will unite them and make one "Family", is the attitude towards free-
dom of rights, democracy as a political system of a country, attitude of a citizen towards the laws and justice, and the attitude of a state towards its citizens. These are the aspects that will always differentiate a Westerner in the terms of Western civilization, from bearers of civilizations of other parts of the world.
After defining the civilization of the New Era, it will be interesting to focus on the reason of the clash. Why would the Western world have any interest to spread its way of living, its civilization to other countries of the world? Why would they bring to the physical clash through civilization?
The interest may vary: starting from the defense issues, economic interests, spreading the influence and their power over other states. To control other parts or to have super power over them is an important issue in International Relations, as it gives capability to stand in better position and have more benefits.
Why there is the difference between the West civilization and other civilizations. Why there is the differentiation between two types? As Huntington mentioned, "The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values [4, p. 40]. According to Huntington, in contemporary International Relations international politics moves out of its Western phase, and its centerpiece becomes the interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations, and among non-Western civilizations", where the peoples and governments of non-Western civilizations are no longer the object for colonialism implemented by the West, but subjects on the political stage.
Huntington believes that, the conflict of the West and rest of the world may have responses which generally take one or a combination of three forms. At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or 'corruption' by the West, and, in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community. A second alternative, the equivalent of "band-wagoning" in international relations is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions. The third alternative is to attempt to 'balance' the West by developing economic and military power and cooperation with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions, or in short, to modernize but not to Westernize [4, p. 41].
Influence of the Western civilization over other civilizations can be defined differently. For the last decades the insertion of the Western civilization to the other parts of the World is implemented by different methods: political system, constitution, education, military aspects, cooperation in a political word arena, etc. The question is, will the state be open to accept or not accept the rules of the 'game' the West offers?
If a state accepts the rules of the game, then it should follow the rules of the game, it becomes predictable for the West; easy to predict the policy and steps the state will take. If the West is the author of the game and the introducer to other countries, then it is evident that it has its advantages, obviously, because it is stronger in any field then the state that will accept the rules of the game. The superpowers are spreading their way of living to others first of all to be able to make a good and effective defensive structure for themselves and to strengthen their economy and have benefits in other aspects.
Currently the input of Western civilization on other states can be observed in two levels:
1. Those who are closed and struggle against it.
2. Those who are open to accept the game rules.
Those who are open usually get some financial aid to support the reforms. Some countries use this support and make transformations and become family members easily (e.g. Croatia, Bulgaria) while others 'enjoy' the constant stable condition and spend money without an evident result. By all means despite of the decision makers' efforts, the transformations occur within the society. EU neighborhood Policy, Association Agreements, various education funding programs influence society and change their perception of democracy and freedoms, their rights as a member of a society.
Some programs are very effective, while ineffective in other countries, but the influence will bring to massive changes anyway. Among those changes the following have to be differentiated:
Constructive effective, these are the changes that bring reasonable changes to better condition, do not destabilize the society, but have an informative-educational approach.
Non-effective - financial aid to such spheres that are not efficient for a better change like financial aid to anti-corruption policy, which make the scales of the corruption even bigger, because in those countries where decision makers want to see the change, they will do that without additional financial aid, while where the decision-making elite is already under corruption, financial aid will just make them more powerful and richer, without any change inside of the society.
Destructive - when the information about the 'game' (new way of living) and its rules are introduced to the society where the system, especially judicial, is not in line with the desired introduced one, and will not help to overcome the situation. To tell to the lady from highest mountains, that she has the right not to overwork and her husband must share household duties and also compare her life within the frameworks of rights and freedoms with a lady living and working in Paris will not help her, because she would face misunderstanding in society as well as the judicial system would not help her legally. So it will bring to the distractions rather than to a good will.
Figure 1
Maslow's hierarchy of needs represented as a pyramid
Safety Needs Physiological Needs
The influence of other civilizations, especially the western civilization, is imported not only at the state level based on cooperation between states, but also at the state-personal or non-state to non-state level. In 21st century supra-powers like International Organizations (UN) internet networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google) Hollywood films, Alibaba can shape public opinion, change ideas and perceptions, connect people from all around the world, make connections between geographically unrelated parts and unite them in a new sphere. Some countries like Iran,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia would close specific channels and windows of the incoming information waves, but it is impossible to close them completely. The era of globalization, telecommunication technologies build new bridges and connect the entire world. Songs and film stars do not belong to their country of origin anymore, they are open to the world, and the same is true about ideas, thoughts and decisions.
The question is why would the change occur in a society?
Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs illustrates five levels of needs for people [7, pp. 370-396] and depending on which level people are, they will be easy and open to change or they will be conservative and constant to waves and changes. In this article it is suggested to look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs not as the needs of people, but as the needs and opportunities the citizens are provided by a state. If the state gives opportunities only for the first level of the hierarchy, then the society will be easy to deform and reconstruct, because socially unstable society is doubtful and open to changes especially dictated by a more prosperous and safer society. Accordingly, if they are on the second or up to the second level, then it will be possible to change, especially if the dictating or influencing civilization stands on the top of the pyramid. Those states which are on the top of the pyramid can also be influenced by the low levels but the effect is completely different. When civilization of the state on the lower level of the pyramid influences the state standing on the upper level, than the last one is enriching its culture, but when the upper level is influencing the lower level then the deformation of the latter takes place. This kind of clash of civilization can be fatal. It may result in lower levels to lose their cultural face, lose their language, and by that "lose" everything, as they will be undergoing the process of assimilation which will finally bring to their complete "loss" of identity. As it was mentioned before, this kind of clash of civilization is nothing, but the interests of the influencing party. The process for the party that is under influence may occur consciously or unconsciously. Unconsciously it may occur when influenced by ideas, myths, behavior and morality by the other part. When something occurs in one part of the world, news agencies of the West interpret the events the way it is beneficial to them by formulating specific ideas, attitudes, decisions and morality for the world.
Consciously it may occur by the comparison of the inserted/ imported values and ideas with those that you have. It can be defined as inter-personal clash of civilization, which may occur in the following forms:
1. Protection of your own - denial, or even struggle against the influencing civilization
2. Change to the new one - open acceptance
3. Ignoring - neither struggle nor under influence
It will be interesting to observe the reason why a person will be open to accept the new civilization without struggle. It can be reasoned it in the following way: if a person acknowledges that the new one will give him/her more good than the one he/she is in now. If we look again into the Hierarchy of needs that Maslow suggests and come to the reasoning that if a citizen is in upper levels of the pyramid his/her needs are more satisfied as human being rather than when he/she is in lower level. Thus, if a person realizes these factors, he/she would make a decision to undergo a change. The change may be:
• Inter-personal-passive change: when the change remains inside of a person without any evident change: these people can live in parallel worlds: the one they have in reality and the one they admire.
• Inter-personal active change:
a) directed to change personal space and surrounding civilization by moving and changing the place of living (migration to the countries from where the implemented civilization is coming)
b) directed to change the society
Figure 2
Possibility and reality circles
Your opportunities and capabilities become larger as the circle becomes
bigger
the possible existing ones
You have the best oppertunities and capabilities among
Inter-personal active change directed to changing the society may be realized within small groups, bigger groups (masses) and may become an ideology to struggle for a change in the entire population of a specific state.
The understanding what is good or what is bad is a question of life. Even if something is definitely better, it is difficult to understand how to take that good and how to make that change. Possibilities and reality can be expressed in the way shown on Figure 2.
When you are in the smallest space your circle is small and the angle you have is smaller as compared with other levels of the circle. If you realize this and that you have the right and possibilities to move from one circle into another from smaller into a bigger one, then you will move from the smallest to the middle, and the to the biggest if you still feel the second wave of the need. If there will be no need to change from the second one, then you will remain in the second one.
Referring to the influence of the Western civilization in the term and description of the civilization of New Era, the move from one circle to the other is possible. Current open telecommunication world provides opportunities to get acquainted with other cultures and Western culture offers the best opportunities and make others just admire the way people are treated in their countries within the framework of Human rights and Freedoms, or persuade that it offers and provides the best opportunities. Considering the military, economical, telecommunication supremacy over other states it sounds more persuasive. Since the "Universal Truth" of Aristotle is still undiscovered by Humanity, it seems that the concept of Sophists1 will work better, who believed that the relative nature of truth is a matter of arguments and effective and persuasive linguistics. Greek philosopher Poulakos described Sophists as those who believed and taught that "the world could always be recreated linguistically" and the reality itself is a linguistic construction rather than an objective fact." Thus if the society itself believed that truth, or even reality itself, were merely matters of who could speak most persuasively, what was to become justice, tradition, virtue, social order, or, eventually, society itself is a question to consider [2, p. 40-41].
As it becomes clear that in case a person undergoes changes and feels close and accepts these aspects of New Era civilization, then he/she becomes the follower in the first phase and may be bearer on the second one.
1 Sophists were teachers of rhetoric in the fifth and fourth centuries BC.
Conclusion
In summary, it can be stated that the clash never occurs between states and civilizations without interests. Civilizations within influenced states are also changed because of interests. Civilizations will never have any clash unless there is an interest. The physical or psychological clashes are about control, supremacy of one party over other. This never occurred without any interest and it will never be possible to imagine, in contrary to Huntington's ideas, because the clash itself implies forceful psychological and/or physical actions, so it will always occur even between those who share the same civilization when their interests clash.
The New Era civilization presupposes new concepts and aspects that formulate and define a type of civilization, which unites Western countries into one "Family", i.e. Western civilization. It implies elements which are not necessarily linked to such things as national characteristics. It is open to larger audiences and can fit all in it. It is the acceptance of ideas and world and personal behavior based on that acceptance. The New Era civilization description is based on three main aspects:
1. Legal and illegal (Laws and constitution)
2. Moral and immoral (ideology/religion/society)
3. Right and wrong (Human rights)
According to the attitude towards these three aspects, states function differently. In the modern world the clash may result in changes and transformations within certain society. The changes may be compulsory, while they can also be necessary, and finally they can be according to the will by some or all. The change may lead to not only ideological changes, but also to geographical changes which will on one hand make the world closer to a more identical type, on the other hand it will make a chaos of interactions, the results of which will bring to forming new civilization, removing or adding new elements, describing and formulating the new concept of civilization.
August, 2016
References
1. E Luard, The Balance of Power: The System of International Relations, 1648-1815, New York, St. Martin's Press, 1993.
2. J. A. Herrick, The history and Theory of Rhetoric: an introduction, Allyn and Bacon.
3. J M. Roberts, Twentieth Century: The History of the World, 1901 to 2000, New York, Penguin, 1999
4. S. P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 22-49
5. J. Baylis,, J. Wirtz, J., Gray, Colin S., Strategy in the contemporary world: an introduction to strategic studies, Oxford University Press 2010
6. Ch. Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press, 2008
7. A. H. Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 50, 1943, pp. 370-396.
