This paper evaluates two competing theories of global conflict in the age of globalization: Francis Fukuyama's "End of History," which posits that economic interdependence reduces conflict, and Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations," which argues that cultural and civilizational differences drive contemporary conflicts. Using examples such as the China-Japan Senkaku Islands dispute, the Iran-Iraq War, and the 9/11 attacks, the paper examines the strengths and limitations of both frameworks. While acknowledging that civilizational differences can fuel tension, the paper concludes that mutual understanding and shared economic interests can mitigate conflict between cultures, suggesting that globalization creates opportunities for cooperation despite fundamental differences.
Francis Fukuyama has proposed the theory of the "End of History," which holds that under economic globalization, countries pursue the development of market economies and that globalization brings countries closer together. As international cooperation increases, the world has become more homogeneous compared to the past. With countries increasingly interdependent under economic globalization, and as different countries share common economic interests, the theory suggests that conflicts and even war will be avoided.
The conflict between China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands illustrates this dynamic. Both countries contest the ownership of the islands, yet they tend not to resort to violence. Japan maintains restraint, while China takes provocative actions that stop short of violence. Even though the conflict remains unresolved, direct harm is avoided because both countries benefit economically from each other. Countries tend to resolve disputes through peaceful means—for example, through United Nations Economic and Social Council intervention—to avoid causing harm to all sides. This trend helps countries restrain each other, maintaining world peace and stability and making large-scale conflict outbreaks less likely.
However, Fukuyama's theory has significant shortcomings. Even if countries adopt the same liberal democratic mode of capitalism, their economic and political systems are not entirely identical. Large-scale conflicts can still break out due to differing national interests. Globalization may not create a harmonious situation, as transnational rules cannot resolve all conflicts. There are still countries—such as Cuba, North Korea, and some Muslim-majority nations—that have not adopted liberal democratic capitalism. The world has not yet formed a unified political consensus.
Fukuyama may place too much emphasis on the harmonious situations brought about by technological and economic development. In response to these limitations, Samuel Huntington proposed the theory of "Clash of Civilizations," arguing that Fukuyama ignores the conflicts arising from differences between civilizations.
Huntington believes that civilization can be reflected in values, institutions, and religions. Under globalization, conflicts arising from civilizational differences become a new focus in international affairs. The theory can still explain many ongoing conflicts today and in the foreseeable future, as religious tensions persist. Huntington's approach explains some contemporary conflicts by distinguishing different civilizations. The 9/11 attacks in 2001, for example, were evidence of conflict between Western civilization and Islamic civilization, with various social and political factors creating opposition between extreme Islamic fundamentalists and Christian Western civilization.
Although Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" can explain some sources of hostility between different civilizations—especially between the West and Muslim-majority countries—the theory has significant limitations.
Huntington develops a model that describes how the world should be rather than how it actually is. While he acknowledges that civilizational boundaries are not clear-cut and may change over time, he ignores the ever-changing and diverse cultures within civilizations, treating them as static and fixed. Huntington states that cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable, suggesting that people cannot fundamentally change. However, this assumption is questionable.
In reality, internal conflicts within civilizations contradict this framework. The Iran-Iraq War demonstrates conflict between two nations sharing the same Islamic civilization. Malala Yousafzai's struggle for women's education in Pakistan provides another example of internal civilizational conflict, as she challenged Taliban practices within her own cultural context. These examples reveal contradictions within civilizations themselves. The internal conflicts within Islamic civilization—particularly historical rivalries between Arabs, Turks, and Persians—demonstrate that Islam is not monolithic, contradicting Huntington's assumption of civilizational homogeneity.
Furthermore, Huntington argues that globalization and information technology increase communication between civilizations, making it easier for them to adopt distrustful attitudes toward one another. Because civilization involves deep-rooted values, compromise becomes difficult, and civilizational differences often become immediate causes of conflict. Yet this reasoning overlooks how shared interests and mutual understanding can bridge such divides.
"Mutual understanding and economic benefit can overcome civilizational division"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.