Huntington's "prophesies" as regards the clash of civilisations, were only superficially appealing. For example, how can one explain in Huntington' terms the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, when many moderate Hutus as well as innumerable Tutsis were massacred? Both the Hutu and the Tutsi shared the same beleif system.

Conflict developes where there is an absence or the denial of the ability to access, to analyse, to synthesise and to disseminate information freely. The absence or the denial of social progress, for groups or for society as a whole can also lead to violence.

For example, in Northern Ireland the conflict that started in 1968 was portrayed as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, (The two cultures?) Why were Catholics an Protestants living peacably in the rest of Europe? Could it be that job and educational opportunities were not dependent on one's beleif system in those countries? - Whereas in Northern Ireland segragation was institutionalised both as regards jobs and education.

It happens that many of the conflicts today involve Muslims. Part of the reason may be that the illiteracy rate in many of the Muslim countries, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, is very high. This prevents the adequate access, analysis and the dissemination of information. Many of the Muslim countries also have a very hierarchical and feudalistic system. This is hardly a recipe for social advancement. Globalisation, especially the global media merely highlighted these anomalies.

The salient causes of past and present conflicts are economic. All other factors are merely coincidental or convenient for logistic ourposes. The grievancies felt by many of the Muslims are to be found in their own country.