Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Religion: the smartest power of all
Q: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is recommending that the U.S. government develop a strategy to make religion 'integral' to American foreign policy. Should U.S. foreign policy get religion?
Religion is a growth industry around the world and the invisibility of religion as a factor not only in conflict, but also in cultural transformation, is no longer a safe option in American foreign policy considerations. Religion, properly understood, can become the "smartest" power of all in international affairs. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has done important work in bringing this subject to the forefront. Their report is very much needed. American foreign policy has been seriously debilitated from the lack of sustained analyses of the multiple roles religion plays around the world.
Religion is often not seen for the powerful force it exerts in foreign affairs, both in terms of military power, what is sometimes called "hard power," as well as a force in the way societies make meaning through culture, what is called "soft power." Together, "hard" and "soft" power are called "smart power" in the words of Hillary Clinton in her Senate testimony to become Secretary of State.
The invisibility of religion as a powerful force in U.S. foreign affairs was identified as a serious problem by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright several years ago, but it is becoming a bigger problem every day because the issue still remains largely unaddressed.
When religion has been studied as an aspect of culture in relationship to international relations, it has been Europeans rather than Americans who have been doing the research. On the face of it, this seems surprising as American culture is soaked in religion. But that is actually part of the problem. Religion is such a significant factor in American culture that it actually prevents many Americans from seeing religion as simply one of many factors in culture both at home and abroad. This is true as much for Americans who consider themselves secular as it is for those who consider themselves religious.
For Americans, noticing religion as a powerful factor in culture has been like a fish noticing water. This is also the case for other cultures where religion is ubiquitous; the very embedded nature of religious faith, for example in Muslim countries, can make it all that much more difficult for Muslims to see well. But what we cannot see, we cannot engage effectively.
Religion can be shown to be a significant aspect of both parts of the "smart power" concept, hard and soft power. The effectiveness trajectory of the concept of smart power, therefore, requires that religious analysis be factored in to all calculations. This cannot be just a way to 'get the religion out of it so we can make policy' as has been a frequent response on the part of policymakers to the rise of religion as a major factor in world affairs. The needed work is to not only see religion as a powerful aspect of culture in both hard and soft power analyses, but also to see it as an asset, not simply as a liability.
A recognition of how great a role religion plays in hard power justifications (the justification for war and terrorism) is crucial so that soft power (economic, political, legal, and cultural) can be employed to de-legitimate those religious justifications in an effective way. Furthermore, it is important to see religion as an integral part of culture. This insight is critical for foreign policy experts to make informed judgments about how cultural transformation can best be facilitated. Religion can be a significant asset in cultural and even civic transformation.
The posture of 'just get the religion out of it' has never been more risky for the United States and the world. This is a totally unnecessary risk. Religious leaders and foreign policy experts should (and sometimes do) work towards each other in bringing religious assets to the table where they can support rational policy. We also need to do more together so that we can really see the religious assets that are all around as we seek culturally appropriate ways to transform situations, nations and even whole regions of the world. It's smart to include religion in our "smart power" calculations. Religion can be shown to be the smartest power of all.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
February 22, 2010; 9:22 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Does the Constitution assume Christianity? |
Next: Practical religious contributions to policy
Posted by: reformuscirf | February 26, 2010 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Shrub's "crusade" against Iraq, Pat Robertson's call for assignation of foreign leaders, the mullahs of Saudi Arabia fomenting terrorism and the spread of their Arabic centric version of islam, Iran's theocracy doing the same for Persians, all prove that religion is the cause not the cure of much of the worlds ills. Religious minioms of the worlds political powers are tools used to keep the world at war, its citizens from questioning the never ending wars for politica power and to keep them supportive of the vilification and destruction of other humans and other cultures. We need only look at history to show that the "Religulous" have no business in foreign policy and are in fact the the main reason the world's citizens do not put a stop to the madness that lets us hate and kill to increase the power of a few.
There will never be peace as long as the Cults of Abraham keep the fires of hatred burning brightly.
Posted by: ender2 | February 25, 2010 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
look at the esseys
Posted by: concord1 | February 24, 2010 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Analyzing religion as a factor in global politics is one thing. Bullying foreign policy to adhere to a theocratical intent is quite another.
Posted by: coloradodog | February 23, 2010 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
he current Federal policy of involving religion in foreign policy is guided by IRFA 1998 law and USCIRF report. It is fraught with conflict of interest and many other problems.
There is a quite a difference between theory (i.e. IRFA 1998 law) and practice (i.e. USCIRF).
In theory, All USCIRF report must comply with IRFA 1998 but reality is some what different.
In theory, Religion in foreign policy would serve national interest. However, In practice, What would stop it from serving religious interest and harming national interest?
Both "chicago council" and USCIRF are misrepresenting and painting negative portrait of Hinduity.
Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.