05-18-2005, 08:07 PM
Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik
by Douglas Johnston
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ce&s=books
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Editorial Reviews
Book Description
For most of the twentieth century, the most critical concerns of national security have been balance of power politics and the global arms race. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the motives behind them, however, demand a radical break with this tradition. If the United States is to prevail in its long-term contest with extremist Islam, it will need to re-examine old assumptions, expand the scope of its thinking to include religion and other ""irrational"" factors, and be willing to depart from past practice. A purely military response in reaction to such attacks will simply not suffice. What will be required is a long-term strategy of cultural engagement, backed by a deeper understanding of how others view the world and what is important to them. In non-Western cultures, religion is a primary motivation for political actions. Historically dismissed by Western policymakers as a divisive influence, religion in fact has significant potential for overcoming the obstacles that lead to paralysis and stalemate. The incorporation of religion as part of the solution to such problems is as simple as it is profound. It is long overdue. This book looks at five intractable conflicts and explores the possibility of drawing on religion as a force for peace. It builds upon the insights of Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft (OUP,1994)--which examined the role that religious or spiritual factors can play in preventing or resolving conflict--while achieving social change based on justice and reconciliation. The world-class authors writing in this volume suggest how the peacemaking tenets of five major world religions can be strategically applied in ongoing conflicts in which those religions are involved. Finally, the commonalities and differences between these religions are examined with an eye toward further applications in peacemaking and conflict resolution. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another Review
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion is a powerful factor in many conflicts around the world. Sometimes it is a cause for conflict, sometimes it simply helps sustain conflict, and other times it is used as a pretext for conflicts that have deeper roots in other issues. Considering just how much of a role religion plays here, is it at all reasonable to think that we can find solutions and resolutions that don't involve religion?
This is basically the question that Douglas Johnston asks in the book Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik. He and the other contributors all answer "no" - if any real solution is to be reached in religious conflicts, it will require that we engage people on a religious level. In other words, religion must be employed in order to help combatants achieve some sort of stable peace.
President and Founder of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, Johnston has brought together renowned scholars and diplomats for their insights into both how religion has contributed to five major conflicts and how the peacemaking attributes of five world religions might be applied in these situations. There is no attempt to sugarcoat the fact that religion contributes to violence and war, but there is also an emphasis on the fact that the negative attributes of religions which contribute to these conflicts are not those religions' only legacy.
In all cases, religions also have attributes which encourage peace and harmony. These may not be factors which receive the most attention or which get promoted by the loudest adherents, but they do exist. The question is, how can they be best employed as a counter-balance to the more violent tendencies? Of course, that question assumes that we pay any attention to religion at all, which is the first hurdle that Johnston and the other contributors recognize must be overcome.
For much of the twentieth century, Western diplomacy has been characterized by the principle of Realpolitik (although that term itself did not come into use until the latter twentieth century). In essence, Realpolitik stipulates that a priority must be a balance of power and influence on the international scene. These are the "rational" concerns of nation-states. There are of course other concerns, like religion or culture, but they are deemed "irrational" - which means that they must be subordinated to more rational interests. If religion of culture must be compromised in order to achieve stability, so be it.
There is a long tradition of this sort of practical approach to international relations and national politics in the West. King Henry IV effectively ended the French Wars of Religion on July 25, 1593 when he declared that Paris vaut bien une messe (Paris was worth a Mass) and permanently renounced Protestantism. This conversion to Roman Catholicism secured the allegiance most his subjects: rational political considerations forced a compromise of personal religious principles.
The Peace of Westphalia, which not only ended the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War but also formed the basis for diplomacy and relations among European states, was formally established a similar principle. No longer would there be conflict among the European powers based upon religious differences - in a sense, the rulers simply agreed to disagree on matters of religion and then relegate them to the list of things that just weren't worth fighting over.
While Europe may have decided that religion shouldn't be the basis for conflict and shouldn't become a foundation for national or international policies, much of the rest of the world never followed suit. In many non-Western cultures, there is no separation of church and state: religious beliefs remain a principle motivation for political or social action. {INCLUDING OUR OWN VERSION OF SECULARISM} While Western nations have long tried to ignore religious differences in order to achieve more "rational" goals, other nations will ignore "rational" goals in order to pursue "irrational" ends like religious solidarity and religious purity.
As a consequence, Western diplomats who try to work in such regions end up operating from a different set of premises and assumptions than everyone else; in the end, not much gets done. This is what Douglas Johnston hopes to change: to get Western diplomats and political leaders to understand that while religion may not play a significant role in the relations between Western nations, it can't be excluded in how they relate to other nations. In fact, excluding it may only exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve in the first place.
While these observations may be fine in principle, is there any realistic hope that they can be applied in practice? Johnston thinks so, although he also recognizes that he can't offer any final answers on how that might be achieved. He and Brian Cox describe in broad terms what faith-based diplomacy might look like while other contributors explain how those principles might be used in conflicts in Kashmir, Sudan, Sri Lanka, the Middle East, and Kosovo.
It certainly might be nice if peaceful religious ideas could be used to counter violent religious ideas, but I'm frankly skeptical about how well any of that would really work. For one thing, it would be difficult to ensure that anyone promoting peaceful religion isn't simply regarded by those personally involved in the conflict as a lackey for the godless West.
Another problem is the fact that if "faith-based diplomats" work for Western governments, those governments will have to make decisions about who represents the "right" kind of religion for their purposes - a task fraught with dangers. We really need to ask if the United States government, for example, has the authority to decide what the "right" Islam or the "right" Buddhism really is - and, assuming that such a decision is made, we are led back to the previous problem: how do we get those involved in religious conflicts to accept the person representing that "right" religion?
Despite my skepticism, though, I am glad that Johnston is trying to get people to think about these conflicts differently. Even if it isn't possible to realize all of his recommendations, it would still be a good idea to take them seriously and consider how we might, in some fashion, achieve the goals he outlines. Anyone interested in the role of religion in politics and international relations would do well to pick up this book and read it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
by Douglas Johnston
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ce&s=books
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Editorial Reviews
Book Description
For most of the twentieth century, the most critical concerns of national security have been balance of power politics and the global arms race. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the motives behind them, however, demand a radical break with this tradition. If the United States is to prevail in its long-term contest with extremist Islam, it will need to re-examine old assumptions, expand the scope of its thinking to include religion and other ""irrational"" factors, and be willing to depart from past practice. A purely military response in reaction to such attacks will simply not suffice. What will be required is a long-term strategy of cultural engagement, backed by a deeper understanding of how others view the world and what is important to them. In non-Western cultures, religion is a primary motivation for political actions. Historically dismissed by Western policymakers as a divisive influence, religion in fact has significant potential for overcoming the obstacles that lead to paralysis and stalemate. The incorporation of religion as part of the solution to such problems is as simple as it is profound. It is long overdue. This book looks at five intractable conflicts and explores the possibility of drawing on religion as a force for peace. It builds upon the insights of Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft (OUP,1994)--which examined the role that religious or spiritual factors can play in preventing or resolving conflict--while achieving social change based on justice and reconciliation. The world-class authors writing in this volume suggest how the peacemaking tenets of five major world religions can be strategically applied in ongoing conflicts in which those religions are involved. Finally, the commonalities and differences between these religions are examined with an eye toward further applications in peacemaking and conflict resolution. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another Review
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion is a powerful factor in many conflicts around the world. Sometimes it is a cause for conflict, sometimes it simply helps sustain conflict, and other times it is used as a pretext for conflicts that have deeper roots in other issues. Considering just how much of a role religion plays here, is it at all reasonable to think that we can find solutions and resolutions that don't involve religion?
This is basically the question that Douglas Johnston asks in the book Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik. He and the other contributors all answer "no" - if any real solution is to be reached in religious conflicts, it will require that we engage people on a religious level. In other words, religion must be employed in order to help combatants achieve some sort of stable peace.
President and Founder of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, Johnston has brought together renowned scholars and diplomats for their insights into both how religion has contributed to five major conflicts and how the peacemaking attributes of five world religions might be applied in these situations. There is no attempt to sugarcoat the fact that religion contributes to violence and war, but there is also an emphasis on the fact that the negative attributes of religions which contribute to these conflicts are not those religions' only legacy.
In all cases, religions also have attributes which encourage peace and harmony. These may not be factors which receive the most attention or which get promoted by the loudest adherents, but they do exist. The question is, how can they be best employed as a counter-balance to the more violent tendencies? Of course, that question assumes that we pay any attention to religion at all, which is the first hurdle that Johnston and the other contributors recognize must be overcome.
For much of the twentieth century, Western diplomacy has been characterized by the principle of Realpolitik (although that term itself did not come into use until the latter twentieth century). In essence, Realpolitik stipulates that a priority must be a balance of power and influence on the international scene. These are the "rational" concerns of nation-states. There are of course other concerns, like religion or culture, but they are deemed "irrational" - which means that they must be subordinated to more rational interests. If religion of culture must be compromised in order to achieve stability, so be it.
There is a long tradition of this sort of practical approach to international relations and national politics in the West. King Henry IV effectively ended the French Wars of Religion on July 25, 1593 when he declared that Paris vaut bien une messe (Paris was worth a Mass) and permanently renounced Protestantism. This conversion to Roman Catholicism secured the allegiance most his subjects: rational political considerations forced a compromise of personal religious principles.
The Peace of Westphalia, which not only ended the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War but also formed the basis for diplomacy and relations among European states, was formally established a similar principle. No longer would there be conflict among the European powers based upon religious differences - in a sense, the rulers simply agreed to disagree on matters of religion and then relegate them to the list of things that just weren't worth fighting over.
While Europe may have decided that religion shouldn't be the basis for conflict and shouldn't become a foundation for national or international policies, much of the rest of the world never followed suit. In many non-Western cultures, there is no separation of church and state: religious beliefs remain a principle motivation for political or social action. {INCLUDING OUR OWN VERSION OF SECULARISM} While Western nations have long tried to ignore religious differences in order to achieve more "rational" goals, other nations will ignore "rational" goals in order to pursue "irrational" ends like religious solidarity and religious purity.
As a consequence, Western diplomats who try to work in such regions end up operating from a different set of premises and assumptions than everyone else; in the end, not much gets done. This is what Douglas Johnston hopes to change: to get Western diplomats and political leaders to understand that while religion may not play a significant role in the relations between Western nations, it can't be excluded in how they relate to other nations. In fact, excluding it may only exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve in the first place.
While these observations may be fine in principle, is there any realistic hope that they can be applied in practice? Johnston thinks so, although he also recognizes that he can't offer any final answers on how that might be achieved. He and Brian Cox describe in broad terms what faith-based diplomacy might look like while other contributors explain how those principles might be used in conflicts in Kashmir, Sudan, Sri Lanka, the Middle East, and Kosovo.
It certainly might be nice if peaceful religious ideas could be used to counter violent religious ideas, but I'm frankly skeptical about how well any of that would really work. For one thing, it would be difficult to ensure that anyone promoting peaceful religion isn't simply regarded by those personally involved in the conflict as a lackey for the godless West.
Another problem is the fact that if "faith-based diplomats" work for Western governments, those governments will have to make decisions about who represents the "right" kind of religion for their purposes - a task fraught with dangers. We really need to ask if the United States government, for example, has the authority to decide what the "right" Islam or the "right" Buddhism really is - and, assuming that such a decision is made, we are led back to the previous problem: how do we get those involved in religious conflicts to accept the person representing that "right" religion?
Despite my skepticism, though, I am glad that Johnston is trying to get people to think about these conflicts differently. Even if it isn't possible to realize all of his recommendations, it would still be a good idea to take them seriously and consider how we might, in some fashion, achieve the goals he outlines. Anyone interested in the role of religion in politics and international relations would do well to pick up this book and read it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->