Widya Puspitasari201405100611. The term of colonialism came in 15th century in where which the term explains a country conquers and rules over other regions. There are three characteristics which regularly emerge in descriptions of colonialism: domination, cultural imposition, and exploitation. Ronald Horvath writes, It seems generally, if not universally, agreed that colonialism is a form of dominationthe control by individuals or groups over the territory and/or behaviour of other individuals or groups[footnoteRef:1]. Colonialism also is seen as an act that frequently involve attempts to impose the colonial powers culture and customs into the colonized, whether as a result of a belief in the racial or cultural superiority of the colonizing power; there seems to be a strong desire to influence religious beliefs and cultural practices in order to establish full political control. When Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch, not only they were oppressed and exploited, they were also the object of influence for Christianity and western culture such as the introducing of beers, prostitution, etc. Finally, the history of colonialism is deeply linked to the exploitation of colonized peoples. The history of colonialism is also deeply linked to the exploitation of colonized peoples. This exploitation has taken many different forms for example the slave trade, the forced labours, exploitation of human and natural resources, and many more[footnoteRef:2]. Colonialism also is indicated by significant settlements by the colonizers to the colonized state. Even so, these permanent settlers of colonizers still maintain allegiance with their mother land. The concrete example of colonialism is Indonesia who was colonized by the Dutch. Indonesia both in natural and human resources were exploited in favour of the colonizers. Economy and politic was controlled by Dutch whom at that time had significant settlements to Indonesia. Approximately, for 350 years Dutchs arrival to Indonesia, the Dutch step by step took over Indonesia. At the time, the Dutch had no place to gain allspices as King Phillip succeeded to unite Portuguese and Spain. Thus, the Dutch began an expedition to find a place to get allspices. Dutchs first arrival was in Banten, and that was the beginning of Dutchs colonization in Indonesia. Precisely, Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for 279 years (1670-1949)[footnoteRef:3]. As there were many Dutch merchantmen that settled in Indonesia, the Dutch established commerce association called VOC in 1602. VOC ruled the economy of Indonesia that was only benefited for the Dutch for 197 years. They had their own money, rights, fortress, they also can establish wars and statement of peace. They exploited the people of Indonesia by taxing them, ruling them to plant and work. Not only was the economy, Indonesia at the time directly ruled by the Dutch government through an institution called Aziatische Raad (Dutchs board for Asia). It was ruled by a general governor. Every field of the country was ruled and controlled by the Dutch. In bureaucracy, all the workers are the Dutch; they divided Java to 9 prefectures and 31 regions which each region is ruled by a regent from the Dutch as well. In laws and judicatures, the Dutch maintained to establish 3 types of judicatures which were classified for the Europeans, foreigners from Middle East, and for the Indonesian. The Dutch also paid attention in military as they increased war armies to 20.000 people. They also constructed roads and bridges for the importance of economy and defenses. There were many policies that benefited the Dutch at the same time as exploiting and had suffered Indonesia. One of them is Cultuur Stelsel (forced cultivation for the indigenes), which was against humanity as there were poverty, hunger and deaths everywhere caused by this policy[footnoteRef:4]. [1: Horvath, Ronald J. (1972). A Definition of Colonialism, Current Anthropology Vol. 13 (p.47), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ] [2: Butt, Daniel. (2013). Colonialism and Post-colonialism. The International Encyclopedia of Ethics (p.2). ] [3: Indonesia Profil Timeline. (2015, May 21). BBC News. Retreived from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15114517 ] [4: Mustopo, M. Habib (2011). Perkembangan Kolonialisme Barat di Indonesia. Sejarah 2 SMA Kelas XI Program IPS (p.93-105). Indonesia: Yudhistira. ]

Many have argued that Papua is now internally colonized by Indonesia. Looking at the history of the process of Indonesia united with Papua, we can see that there are still many controversies in whether or not Papua is oppressed and exploited by its own state or not. Papua has effectively been governed by Indonesia since May 1963. However, the bargain was thought to be one-sided in a number of important ways. The people of Papua were never properly consulted on the issue of their accession to the Republic of Indonesia, and it is highly questionable whether the majority of Papuans were in favour of this political deal[footnoteRef:5]. In 1969, Indonesia under Soehartos government and UN held Acts of Free Choice in which it invited 1025 traditional leaders from Papua where they finally voted to be a part of Republic of Indonesia. However this was thought to be manipulative as in the Second Papuan Congress in 2000, it was agreed that Papua wanted to be a sovereign Nation and state. They rejected the 1962 New York Agreement; an agreement between the Dutch and Indonesia which transferred the administration of Papua to Indonesia as they think that the agreement did not have any Papuan representation[footnoteRef:6]. They advocated also that the Acts of Free Choice in 1969 was manipulative as it was conducted under coercion, intimidation, violence, massive killings, and etc. This has shown that in the very first beginning, Papua has rejected to be part of Indonesia and is now under control by Indonesia by force. Furthermore in making sure how this is a form of colonization, Papua Papuas natural resources have also been heavily extracted, yet demonstrably the revenues and returns from the extraction have, on the whole, not benefited the Papuan people. There is a domination of economy by the Indonesian government toward the Papuans as the Indonesian government has benefited massively from Papua but outcome to Papua is more or less pathetic. Papua is in the retarded education, sanitation, health, condition. Moreover, the influx of Indonesian settlers and their dominance of the economy, contribute much to the Papuan sense of no longer being in control of their homeland. The 1990 census indicates that 16.13 percent of the population were born outside the province. The figure was higher for urban areas of the province at 35.1 per cent. The capital Jayapura is where the settler communities are most evident. Settler communities from outside Papua constituted about 49,5% of the total population in Papua[footnoteRef:7]. This is indeed a very massive amount of settlers and fulfilled the points of colonization. [5: Smith, Anthony L. (2002). Papua: Moving Beyond Internal Colonialism? (p.91). New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 4: 90-114] [6: International Crisis Group Asia Report (2001). Indonesia: Ending Repression in Irian Jaya (p.3-4). ICG, Brussels. ] [7: M. C. Rumbiak (2000). Sumber Daya Manusia Papua (p.2). Indonesia: Faculty of Economy of Universitas Cendrawasih, Jayapura. ]

In contrast with colonialism, imperialism is a form of domination and exploitation where foreign rulers governs a territory without significant settlements and occurs mostly indirectly. After World War II, imperialism becomes a theory that refers to the relations between developed and underdeveloped countries. Different from colonization which is a practice of domination in a country colonized by directly ruling all the political and economical sectors, imperialism exercises power through mostly indirect economic, military and political means[footnoteRef:8]. As an example, the Freeport Company - U.S mining company that invests in Indonesia only gives 4% royalties to Indonesia and gain 96% of the income or laws on foreign direct investment in Indonesia which regulate the multinational corporations that invested in Indonesia to have 95% shares of the total investments. Indeed, these are forms of imperialism. The power of domination by the multinational corporations can indirectly affect the political and economic condition of Indonesia anytime as they have the power to take in or out their investment which can later on impact to the stability of Indonesia. [8: Stathakis, George. (2000). Imperialism: Old and New Theories (p. 102). International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research 1 (1): 100-124]

2. Marxism is the term used to explain Karl Marxs thoughts. Karl Marx is one of the most influential social scientist of the last two centuries. Marx most be numbered among the founders of the modern study of history, sociology, and economics. But he is most often remembered as the prophet of proletarian revolution[footnoteRef:9]. There are two basic principles that were brought by Karl Marx; The principle of materialism and the principle of class struggle[footnoteRef:10]. [9: Proletariat is one of a social class where the people classified in it fully live depending on the demand of services they offer. They do not take any profit from any capital and its economy depends on the condition of the market. ] [10: The Role of Ideas. (n.d). In Karl Marx and Marxism. Retreived from http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KARLMARXANDMARXISM.pdf ]

Marx brought the revolutionary idea called Material Conditions. A material condition is what determines thoughts and ideas of people. How we think and how we act are influenced by what we are or our positions in the society; our class in the society determines how we see things. Marx argued that the basic material condition is eat or in other words surviving. How we survive to eat are our social classes and thus it influences our ideas. According to Marx, we think and believe the way we do because we are products of the mode of production (i.e. we are all products of capitalism). Men eat before they reason. Marx used one historical event as an example: In 1846, a failure of the potato crop in Ireland led to widespread faminethe population of Ireland was reduced by 20%The Irish potato famine killed a million people, but it killed poor devils only. To the wealthy it did not have the slightest effect. It made no difference if the victims were Catholic or Protestant, or liberal or conservative, man or woman. In other words, ideas played no role here whatsoever: those who could afford food lived. Ideas do not move the world; rather it is the other way around. Marxism also highlights the phenomena of class struggle. Marx thought that in this world there is only competition which is between the labours and landlords (capital). This competition is aimed for states control. He thinks that political life or institution is an illusion and that the real struggle is only between the two actors. Generally it can be concluded that Marxism is a combination of these two basic ideas: everything is a product of the Mode of Production (capitalism) and the whole process of history is characterized by endless competition between antagonistic economic classes[footnoteRef:11]. [11: Ibid. ]

In a sense, what Marx thought about whats driving our ideas is true. Sometimes, our status determines how we act and think. However, it shouldnt be oversimplified that how we think is only based on economy. People do live depending on the economy, but how we think is not entirely driven by it. Faiths, beliefs or our historical background can also influence in a part. People dont only act according to economic motives.Marxs ideas have been very phenomenal that it can be interpreted in many ways. The most dangerous thing about it is when it is interpreted radically. It is possible that people who are in deep frustration about social classes can conduct revolutionary actions through rebellion to government and those landlords. This rebellion can kill millions of people and destroy states just as what happened in World War II. Marxism has been phenomenal thoughts in which it has brought great things out of it. Marxism has advocated those who were in the low classes and has questioned justice for them. Its critics toward social classes and struggles have impact to the awareness of people toward how state should act regarding this social inequality. If Marxism beliefs in its principle of class struggle that political life is only the veil of the class struggle and that democracy is a sham (workers cannot expect things from state), then socialism is the idea where state is not governed by the government but the people. The idea of democracy strongly correlates with socialism in which everything are from, by and for the people. In socialism, all the means of production, outcome is managed by the community which in the end will bring equality. Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization. Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. Socialism, as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people and for the people only. Meaning, it does not allow free market. Socialism brings out that free market is a source of oppression and limits the freedom as workers are commodities and are sold and bought in the labour market. In socialism as a theory, all citizens would work for the benefit of all; those with more ability would contribute more work and time for the benefit of those without, for sick and old, and for children or the disabled. This would ensure that every person in the society had an equal share of benefits, and an equal sense of responsibility. A little different with socialism in a way of who runs the state, communism is identified by one major party ruling. In a communist country, the state owns all the means of production in order to achieve common good[footnoteRef:12]. In true communism just as the idea of socialism, it is the people particularly the workers that should rule and own the means of production. However, these people are not ready yet and thus the people who truly understand and follow Marxism should run the state while the workers are preparing to be truly communists. These people run the state through the communist party which is seen as the guard the guard the proletarian society. This system ensures fair distribution of wealth and property so that no one person, family, or business controlled or hoarded an unequal share[footnoteRef:13]. People work and gain income from the state collectively. Since every single working citizen has a role in the collective outcome, and their own outcome is dependent of the collective outcome, thus everyone would put their best effort in working and will benefit everyone. [12: Lovell, D.W. (n.d). Socialism and Communism. Government and Politics Vol III (p.3). University of New South Wales. Australia. ] [13: Ghosh, Shibdas. (1990). Some Aspects of Marxism and Dialectical Marxism. Marxists Internet Archieve. Retreived from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/shibdas-ghosh/1964/06/26.htm ]

Communism has been a very controversial ideology until this second. Indonesia, as one of the country with tragedy of communism influence is opposed to it. The values of communism which topple the religion beliefs are what is considered dangerous for Indonesians ideology; Pancasila. In communist country, religion is thought to be a deviation. Religion is seen as the opium of people in which it is used by the powerful to keep the weak from protesting and to have freedom. Not only that, the existence of communist party is also seen as a deviation and is back lashing the goals of communism itself. Marxs ideas were to be revolutionary in which people are to be free from the oppression of capitalism. However, in practice, communist party doesnt free people but they rule and control what people believe and think. This is very contradictive values of freedom and human rights. 3. The term terrorism is derived from the word terror which is over 2,100 years old and was used firstly in ancient Rome. According to General Assemblys Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, terrorism is the use of violence to create fear (terror, psychical fear) for political, religious, or ideological reasons (ideologies are systems of belief derived from worldviews that frame human social and political conditions). The terror is intentionally aimed at innocent targets (i.e., civilians or iconic symbols), and the objective is to achieve the greatest attainable publicity and attention for a group, cause, or individual[footnoteRef:14]. Walter Laqueur said Terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a method of combat, or a strategy to achieve certain targets. It aims to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and does not conform to humanitarian rules and publicity is an essential factor in the terrorist strategy[footnoteRef:15].Terrorism is often correlated strongly with religion. This is because the intensity of terrorism acts and groups proved to be coming from religious group. From 52 identified foreign terrorist groups, 35 groups of it are groups associated with particular religious beliefs specifically Islam[footnoteRef:16]. Terrorism acts are conducted under the reason of clashes between values inside society/government policies and the values of radical terrorist groups upon the name of religion. Religion is the highest faith one could have as they practice and mentally and spiritually attached with it. Sometimes, the fundamentalists of religion believers become to fanatic or exaggerate the values of religion and become fanatic believers. As they are fundamentalists, their stance is to the root values of the religion and one of their characters is lack of tolerance for new values. When the values of the extremists are in contrast with the values perceived by the society or the policies of the government, they want to topple it down for a change back to the roots and they are willing to do anything about it. One of their ways is through public violence in order to get publics attention and have the power to fear people and use it to get obedience for one particular religion[footnoteRef:17]. Furthermore, terrorism activities that recently happen in this globalization era are often attached with the involvement of radical religious organizations. In addition, mass media also plays significant role in driving the peoples attention toward this paradigm of religion associated with terrorist actions. [14: Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism (2008), Document of Office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights (p.5), United Nations Office, Geneva. ] [15: Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Age of Terrorism. 2nd ed (p.143). Boston: Little & Brown. ] [16: Strentz, Thomas (1981). The Terrorist Organizational Profile: A Psychological Role Model. Behavioral and Quantitative Perspectives on Terrorism (p. 86104). New York: Pergamon. Retreived from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s1_9446.pdf] [17: Winchester, Donald (2007). Terror: Can we blame religion? Religion and Spirituality. Retrieved from donald.winchester@visionjournal.org/terrorism-and-religion ]

Since the Westphalia treaty in 1648, it was agreed that state should separate religious authorities and the political power of the state. However, there were many debates upon the existence of internal institution within state concerning on religion. It should be understood that in every state, religion diversity exists. Specific religion governing the state would create chaos as there will be imbalance of power and jealousy. Though so, we should not let off control of the religion inside the state therefore there still needs to be an institution in state governing and regulating religions so things like civil war under the name of religion would not happen. Every religion basically leads to good and are principally regulating people to be civilized human beings. These values of religion within state should not be ignored. Religion should not rule or have the highest authority, but the values, norms, morals inside religion should hand in hand tag along politics. As politics can be war without bloodshed or even create bloodshed war, there should be guidance or contracting principles regarding to morality in politics. If terrorism was to be associated with such kind of radical actions purposed to terror innocent society to get acknowledgments, then its concept is different with war crimes and rebellions. When war occurs, it does not necessarily mean the countries in war are to attack as violently as possible in order to win the war, but rules also exist within the war. War crimes are the actions that are against the rule of war done by the country or its soldiers. War crimes are acts or omissions committed during an armed conflict (war between states and civil war) which violate the rules of law as defined by international law. These acts or omissions include the ill-treatment of civilians within occupied territories, the violation and exploitation of individuals and private property, and the torture and execution of prisoners. It should be understood that war between states means it is the soldiers that fight without violating the civilians. According to Geneva Conventions, war crimes are; Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, and devastation not justified by military necessity[footnoteRef:18]. The difference of war crimes with terrorism is that terrorism is a wider application of war crimes. Terrorism can be done in times of peace or war. [18: War Crimes (n.d). In Ethics Guide. BBC Website. Retreived from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes_1.shtml ]

Rebellion is action undertaken by a group aiming to replace the government in a state or to secede from the state to form a new one[footnoteRef:19]. The main difference between terrorism and rebellion is that rebellion is a movement. It has specific political aims and is gathering populations. The main difference with terrorism acts is that rebellion has a specific target which is the government. Rebellion acts are considered a rebellion to the government as it refuses to obey but to the people, their actions are revolutionary. In contrast with terrorism which tries to terror innocent society, rebellion is the action where the rebels amass society or population to fight against. The reason behind the attacking of the government more or less is because the government isnt legitimate. [19: Jaffer, Tariq (n.d). Rebellion. (p.459) Princeton University Press. Retreived from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s1_9446.pdf]

4. Samuel P. Huntington argued in his book called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of New World Order that the most inevitable and major clash of civilizations that will likely to happen is between Islam and the West. It became clear after reading his book to the last page, that Huntington has created bipolar world in which he proposed that the major clash happens with Islam and the West. According to Huntington, Islam is an expansionists and prone to violence. It is one of the least of dangerous civilizations that is radical and it has bloody borders[footnoteRef:20]. In this book, Huntington pointed specifically to Muslims who would be clashing with the West, unlike the followers of other civilizations such as Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. His proof was that Muslims are basically antagonistic to the concept of nationalism. Their traditions are antithetical to the very basis of Western democratic ideals, such as individual freedom to even choose to not believe in God or change ones religion and allow for the separation of religion from politics which would lead to the protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. [20: Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of New World Order, Touchstone Edition (p.327). ISBN: 0-684-811642. New York: Simon & Schuster. Downloaded from: http://www.tuebl.com/download-clash-epub 987epubversion98]

The news and facts are full in exposing how Islam and the West are opposing each other. The history has proved how Islam and West have prolonged continuous conflicts between each other. The battle in conquering Constantinople, the Crusades and the tension of 9/11tragedy, these are some of the major visible historical evidence of the clash. Conflicts along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations have been going on for 1,300 years. Several wars occurred between Arabs and Israel which was created by the West (UK); France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces went into Lebanon in 1958; subsequently American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages[footnoteRef:21]. These are the prominent facts showing how hard the tensions between the Western world and the Islamic world have become. [21: Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations?. Journal of Foreign Affairs. . Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations ]

Indeed, a clash is happening between the Islamic and Western world. The contrast values between these two actors and the growing consciousness of differences among have created competition upon which is going to rule, who is the most righteous and whose values are going to be used. The values and ideologies of the West that is moving beyond liberalization and has gone over modernization, upholding the rights of LGBTQ groups, capitalism for example, is clashing with the values of Islam which is more likely to rule based on its religious and what the West calls as conservative and oppressing people. It is more likely to say that clash between them is inevitable as a very different characteristics are there its less mutable hence its hard to be compromised and resolved. The facts this paper have shown above of how clash between the Islamic and Western world are about to happen however, is not siding on Huntington. In a general point, clashes would be or is now happening, but it would not be as exaggerating as Huntington constructed on how these clash will be the fundamental source of conflict. This paper argues that there will not be one primary and dominating source of conflict which Huntington believed to be cultural, but conflicts in global politics will vary. I think that in global politics, economy plays an important part as well as values. Sometimes, one has to give up some values in order to survive. Realistically, states in order to cooperate in international economy would need to trade values. We see many cooperation between the west and Islamic countries in favour of economy, the U.S and Saudi Arabia for example is in contract to cooperate in the field of oil or Indonesias economic cooperation with Netherlands in Coffee investments. It needs to be considered that the status quo right now advocates that in some aspects of life states, people dont bring out religion differences or civilization differences in interacting with others. Religion is becoming more individualistic in daily life. In working places, conflicts dont happen just because people realize they are Muslim and they are opposed to the West because of their different ideology. We see massive amount of Muslim students studying abroad in the Western country funded by the Western. Along with the value of liberalism, values of rights to hold religion and to practice it are also growing which allows people to be more respectful and tolerating one another. Most importantly, people are not simply defined from their ethnic groups or even religious believe. As a persons identity is a singular phenomenon meaning it is defined by that person itself. It is conceivable for an individual to be a Muslim, a Western citizen, a believer in democracy, at the same time he respects difference and human rights and advocates for the LGBTQ which is actually opposed in Islamic teachings. Concluding, conflicts between any civilizations or so to say between Islamic and Western world are going to happen just as conflicts between western countries are going to happen as well. It should not be over simplified that major and dominating conflict is only caused by different values and religion beliefs (even though this is inevitable as well). Conflicts can happen because of economy or simply different opinions and this eliminates values inside religions. Simplifying that clash between Islam and Western world are going to happen because both of these actors have mostly different characters and Islam has this bloody borders and is a radical and fundamentalist religion is the same as simplifying all Muslims are terrorists because some terrorism actions were caused by Muslim radical organization. 5. The world is getting more integrated as the needs and possessions of each state vary from one another. There are states that have rich natural resources like Thailand, there are states that are in need of the natural resources like Singapore and there are also states that possess rich oil resource which is the need of almost every state right now, and so on. The global world is now no longer between states only but accompanied by one of the most powerful actors in global world; MNCs. The MNCs have created a way more sophisticated economic liberalization and integration in which foreigners invest, work in our country and have opened many job vacancies, opportunities for the local people. Cooperation in economy is inevitable as trading what we need and what we have is need in times of the declining of natural resources. Indeed, in terms of economy nation states are now depending on each other. Free trade, foreign direct investments, policies and international institutions regulating the interaction of dependencies or what I more likely to call mutualism cooperation have shown how states are realizing and admitting the need of others. However, the multi-polar worlds in which states are to have power in different fields are now shifting to a world in phase of neo colonization and domination. We do not realize how there are countries who may have the potential to have power but have lack modals or there exists countries who may not possess rich natural resources and is in poverty. These states cant join the trading as they dont have things to offer. Take Africa for example, specifically countries like Gambia, Senegal or Swaziland which are under poverty, deathly diseases, and bad governance. They are countries in a mess and with lots of needs to develop yet they cant trade as they have nothing to begin with. Analyzing Indonesia, which its economic cooperation mostly benefits the foreign investors and MNCs rather than benefiting themselves. We do live by in interdependencies, however the countries who are depending on scarce materials in developing countries like the U.S, Europe or Australia are not the dependent countries, but it is the other way around. It is the developing countries that possess scarce materials and natural resources that are dependent to the countries that need them. This is caused by many factors including sophisticated military security owned by developed countries; economic security possessed by the developed countries and is needed by the developing countries and many others. The powerful countries are free to break the laws they make because they are powerful. It is Huntington that argued about the clash between the good and evil and he was literally talking about the West and the Islamic countries. He argued, just as I have mentioned in my previous statements that there is on-going clash between these two actors. He claimed that Islam was a monolithic force, which was hostile to the West due to wounded pride and deep feelings of inadequacy. Islam is evil as it is not democratic, it is a religion full of violence and it is a threat. West in contrast is democratic; it upholds the human rights and is civilized. Huntington has divided the world into two sides; good and evil. The good is the West and the evil is the Islamic world. I think this is just wrong and very destructive in the way it tries to argue that possibly there will not be any peace between the West and the Islamic world. The mistakes of Huntingtons thoughts are the notion bringing forward that good only belongs to one side, and the other side must be the evil. The thing is, this is just a destructive oversimplification of the term good and evil. I think that Western world in general points of view has both good and evil and this is valid to the Islamic world as well. The dividing of world in terms of evil and good cant be justified. If it is valid, then the Western world and Islam world should be experiencing war right now as good and evil clashes. In fact, western and Islamic world are having many cooperation in economy, education and social life.

BibliographyButt, D. (2013). Colonialism and Post-colonialism. The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2-6.Ethics Guide - War Crimes. (n.d.). Retrieved from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes_1.shtml Ghosh, S. (1990). Some Aspects of Marxism and Dialectical Marxism. Retrieved May 21, 2015, from Marxists Internet Archieve: https://www.marxists.org/archive/shibdas-ghosh/1964/06/26.htmHorvath, R. J. (1947). Current Anthropology (Vol. 13). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. (2008). Document of Office of th UN High Commisioner of Human Rights, 5. Retrieved May 21, 2015Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Journal of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizationsHuntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of New World Order (Touchstone ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. Retrieved from http://www.tuebl.com/download-clash-epub987epubversion98Indonesia Profil - Timeline. (2015, May 21). Retrieved from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15114517Jaffer, T. (n.d.). Rebellion. 459-460. Retrieved from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s1_9446.pdfLaquer, W. (1987). The Age of Terrorism (2nd ed.). Boston: Little & Brown.Lovell, D. W. (n.d.). Socialism and Communism. In Government and Politics Vol III (p. 3). New South Wales, Australia: University of New South Wales.Mustopo, M. H. (2011). Sejarah 2 SMA Kelas XI Program IPS. Indonesia: Yudhistira.Report, I. C. (2001). Indonesia: Ending Repression in Irian Jaya . Brussels: ICG.Rumbiak, M. C. (2000). Sumber Daya Manusia Papua. 100-124.Smith, A. L. (2002). Papua: Moving Beyond Internal Colonialism? New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 4, 90-114.Stathakis, G. (2000). Imperialism: Old and New Theories. International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 100-124.Strentz, T. (1981). Behavioural and Quantitative Perspectives on Terrorism. 86-104. Retrieved from http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s1_9446.pdfThe Role of Ideas. (n.d.). Karl Marx and Marxism. Retrieved from http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KARLMARXANDMARXISM.pdfWinchester, D. (2007). Terror: Can We Blame Religion? Retrieved from donald.winchester@visionjournal.org/terrorism-and-religion

Political IdeasFinal Examination