In the aftermath of the fall of the Iron Curtain, prominent writer V. S. Naipaul declared the dawn of a "universal civilization." According to Naipaul's vision, the end of the Cold War was a signal that the entire planet was moving toward a single civilizational form that would transcend ethnic differences, ideological cleavages, and the fault lines that have separated cultures in the past.

As events were soon to demonstrate, this "universal civilization" did not come to pass. To the contrary, the fissures of our contemporary conflicts tend to fall precisely along civilizational lines. The great prophet of civilizational conflict is Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington, whose seminal 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, set the terms for a debate that, in our post 9/11 world, is still very much on the front burner.

Rejecting the idea of any comprehensive global civilization, Huntington argued that a clash between civilizations is the primary cause of conflict on the global scene today. While acknowledging that virtually all civilizations hold certain shared beliefs, Huntington argues that these beliefs are minimal and clearly insufficient to avoid deadly conflict.

Huntington, who directs the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies and also serves as chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, was director of security planning for the National Security Council during the Carter administration. His book and thesis set the table for a scholarly debate that raged on college campuses until it became a concern to millions on September 11, 2001.

Huntington argues that the West "is and will remain for years to come the most powerful civilization." Yet, Huntington sees Western power declining relative to other civilizations. Even as the West seeks to assert its worldview and interests, non-Western societies challenge its power and dominance.

As Huntington sees the world, the current pattern is a global structure of seven or eight major civilizations, each competing for its own interest and values. As he explains, the leading countries of the world represent different civilizations as well as different interests.

The potential for conflict becomes clear: "The local conflicts most likely to escalate into broader wars are those between groups and state from different civilizations. The predominant patterns of political and economic development differ from civilization to civilization. The key issues on the international agenda involve difference among civilizations. Power is shifting from the long predominant west to non-Western civilizations. Global politics has become multipolar and multicivilizational." Other scholars and strategic thinkers have argued with details in Huntington's analysis. Nevertheless, the basic structure of his argument is difficult to refute.

If any one civilizational conflict appears most likely to escalate into a broader threat to world peace, Huntington points to the clash between the West and the Islamic civilization.