It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Source B
Why has civilization analysis become so popular in the post-Cold War world, particularly in the wake of 11 September and in the context of the ensuing 'war on terror'? One reason is that civilization analysis has provided language and concepts through which to understand and explain 11 September. Civilization analysis provides a useful middle range theory between state and globalization. The events of 11 September demonstrated the limits of seeking to understand world politics as simply the interaction between nation-states. Nor could it be understood simply in terms of the impact of the forces of globalization. The attack and its response drew upon broad cultural and religious sources of identity that civilization analysis can address. Civilization analysis provides the capacity to envisage contemporary political identities not confined by territory, and broad in historical scale that draw on deep and powerful resources from history, culture and religion that go beyond the state. Civilization analysis also allows us to think about localization: how different societies have experienced and interpreted contemporary or similar processes with different or parallel effects.
Source C
Dominant International norms and central international organizations reflect to a large extent the values of the most powerful members of the international community. The OECD coalition has been the most powerful, and particularly in terms of basic norms and diplomatic practices, OECD states, along with certain other actors, have made a liberal imprint on international relations. At least in this one sense, and for limited purposes, it is correct to view international relations sometimes as a clash of civilizations. For all their domestic imperfections and imperialistic foreign policies, the liberal democracies have advanced the notion of the equal autonomy of and respect for the individual. History does not move in straight lines, but certain ideas do advance. Should an authoritarian China come to dominate international relations, the place of human rights in world affairs would change?
Other troubling factors can also be briefly noted - e.g. repressive trends in Russia, the growing power of authoritarian Iran, Pakistan's inability to suppress illiberal Islamist movements, India's colonial experience and hence its distaste for western-inspired review of national policies (not to mention its highly repressive control of Kashmir), and so on.
Using the sources above and your own knowledge evaluate Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis.