The basis of association and antagonism among countries has changed over time.

I think fundamentalism is this radical attitude toward one's own identity and civilization as compared to other people's identities and cultures.

It will take a long time, and certainly the West will remain the dominant civilization well into the next century, but the decline is occurring.

Many of the most difficult questions concerning the role of ethnic minorities centers on language.

I think in theory, the United States finds it much easier to deal with situations where there is a leading country. You can go to the leaders of that country and say, for example, to India, "There are all these problems in Bangladesh, we really have to do something about it, what do you suggest we can do to work out a common policy?" But when you don't have the equivalent of India, you have to go capital to capital trying to put together a coalition, which is extraordinarily difficult, especially in the Arab world, because of the historic rivalries and branches of Islam.

It was one thing to contain the Soviet Union in Europe because Britain, France, and Germany were all willing to join in. But will Japan and other Asian countries be willing to join in the containment of China?

The question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades and my argument is that cultural identities and cultural antagonisms and affiliations will play not the only role but a major role.