Abstract :
Huntington referred to a ‘clash of civilizations’ revealing itself in international terrorism, particularly in
the clash between the Islamic civilization and the West. The authors confront his hypotheses with ones
derived from the strategic logic of international terrorism. They predict more terrorism against nationals
from countries whose governments support the government of the terrorists’ home country. Like
Huntington, they also predict excessive terrorism on Western targets, not because of inter-civilizational
conflict per se, but because of the strategic value of Western targets. Contra Huntington, their theory does
not suggest that Islamic civilization groups commit more terrorist acts against nationals from other
civilizations in general, nor a general increase in inter-civilizational terrorism after the Cold War. The
empirical analysis – based on estimations in a directed dyadic country sample, 1969–2005 – broadly
supports their theory. In particular, there is not significantly more terrorism from the Islamic against other
civilizations in general, nor a structural break in the pattern of international terrorism after the Cold War.
‘This is no less than a clash of civilizations – the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction
of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide
expansion of both.’
