In his book the clash of civilizations and the new world order, Huntington argues a clash of civilizations is probable. He argues that 'there can be no true friends, without true enemies' and then argues that there are seven civilizations. These civilizations are Japanese, Hindu, Sinic, Islamic, Orthodox, Western and African (maybe). I consider this thesis a simplification, moreover dangerous and unhelpful in understanding what constitutes a threat to security in the future. I don't think that societies can be categorised this easily, and think that Huntington is overestimating the support a civilization could get from one of its state's. For example, contrary to Huntington's thesis of Sinic civilizations being hierarchical, Having lived in Taiwan I have reason to believe that those in the periphery would have a profound effect on the core decision makers, in terms of homeland and foreign security policies, which leads me to believe that there would be internal divides within the Sinic community.
Huntington writes a long selective history which argues that fault lines divide civilizations, and prevents any unification between states because peace is temporary, and that Western universalism will contribute to a clash of civilizations on these fault lines. On the contrary evidence suggests this is utter nonsense, the enlargement of the European Union is a good example of a supra-state including non-Western civilizations into its Political and economic system i.e. Bulgaria and Romania and perhaps Turkey in the near future, as their support network grows.
Huntington argues that the Demographic explosion of Islam (population boom) will hasten the clash. He considers the Muslims of being guilty of using hard power (terrorism) to achieve its end whilst the West does not. What Huntington ironically doesn't consider in this context is that soft power follows hard power. Muslim societies haven't the option of soft power, therefore what is their alternative? He also argues that these fault line wars are not economical or ideological but cultural. I think that this is a narrow perspective because he doesn't consider the broader security issues i.e. neither poverty nor environmental and technological disassociation.
He argues that the way to avoid conflict and maintain security is simple, 'in the emerging era, clashes of civilizations are the greatest threat to world peace, and an international order based on civilizations is the surest safeguard against world war' I disagree because his analysis of the past is very selective, and doesn't consider the challenges of net wars, climate change or poverty or even the curiosity of human being to know the other as security threats.