"power over" can be found anywhere, including the historical (or real) applications
of the principle-oriented patterns.
Civilizational thought, under my investigation, represents well-known cultures
of the ancient world. The ideas were born and grew to full maturity in about a thousand
years between the sixth century B.C.E. and the fifth century C.E. Therefore, this
book looks like a study in ancient history or ancient religions. Why does a scholar
in peace and international studies, a political scientist, write such a book? Why should
another social scientist or anybody interested in post-Cold War international affairs
read it?

The questions might be justified only if the present work is defined as a study of
ancient history and religions. The point is, however, that this book neither can nor
must be categorized as a study of ancient history and ancient religions, but as a modest
interdisciplinary contribution to peace and international studies, that is, as a work
in international political theory. In fact, all the basic texts discussed are still in existence
and recognized as basic works in contemporary civilizations. Furthermore, all the
discussed civilizations either still exist--Confucian, Hindu, and Western civilizations;
Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity--or have had considerable influence and impact
others, including Islam. That is, the relevant modern civilizations still respect or at
least indirectly share the basic values of the ancient texts. Indeed, the long life span
of civilizations makes the distinction between the past and the present irrelevant.
Materials born in the genesis of the civilizations are still fully present in current thought.
On the other hand, this is not a study of contemporary civilizational values, but it
is based on works written or composed about two thousand years ago. Therefore,
some justifications for this book must be made explicit.

First, according to recent popular claims civilizational values and traditions have
become increasingly relevant in post-Cold War international politics (e.g., The
Economist, November 9, 1996). Samuel P. Huntington ( 1993, 1996) well-known
thesis about the clash of civilizations is the best known of such visions. Huntington's
thesis represents a widely shared conventional wisdom, not likely to be dismissed
by an extensive academic criticism (cf. Ajami 1993; Halliday 1995 and 1996). There
is also an increasing number of academic works that claim ancient traditions have
a striking, if undeniably complex, role in contemporary, international politics. For
example, Dorraj presents a systematic investigation into ancient Iranian and Islamist
traditions and their role in the Iranian revolution of 1989 ( Dorraj 1990: 5, 32; cf. Lewis
1994: 157; Taheri 1985: 120-21). Similarly, Sicker and others have discussed the
case of modern Israel in light of the continuity of the Judaic tradition and historical
experiences of external threats ( Sicker 1992; cf. Dossa 1988, 1990; Gorny 1994; Weiler
1990). Among other civilizations, the continuity between the past and the present
is the most conspicuous in China. This was illustrated, for example, by a debate on
Confucianism and Legalism during the Cultural Revolution and the current emphasis
on the unification of China (cf. Chen 1991). Concerning India, Nalini Kant Jha ( 1989),
in his systematic investigation into the cultural roots of India's foreign policy has
suggested that India's foreign policy is determined by the interplay of a large number
of factors, which include the cultural-philosophical values and traditions of the country.

-xiii-