Time to Talk Religion and Politics
Chris Seiple Wednesday, 1 March 2006
Iran, a country run by radical mullahs, is unabashedly seeking nuclear weapons? Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, is freely elected in Palestine? Danish cartoons about Islam's principal prophet, Mohammed, precipitate riots around the world? A United Arab Emirates company is going to manage U.S. ports?
As we approach the fifth anniversary of September 11th, it is tragically clear that religion permeates the realpolitik of our world. Yet, we Americans, ironically enough, remain unable to understand the power of religion in international affairs. Although some 90% of us believe in God, our ability to understand and work within the Islamic world, where at least 90% believe in God, is now worse than before 9/11. In fact, we continue to possess what Daniel Yankelovich recently called an "invincible ignorance" of Islam.
We need some guiding principles if we are to operate at the nexus of religion and politics. Here are five to start with:
If Religion is a Part of the Problem, Then it Must be a Part of the Solution
Last year I attended the "U.S.-Islamic World Forum" in Doha, Qatar (hosted by the Emir of Qatar and organized by the Brookings Institution). A fascinating gathering, there was a double irony to the meeting (See my May 3, 2005 column "Engaging Islam" — click the link at left). Notwithstanding the fact that 9/11 was the catalyst for the Forum and that it even had "Islam" in its title, there was no space to talk about religion. In other words, "Islam" had become a secular category to discuss an attack on the U.S. that had been religiously motivated.
It is hard for us Americans to understand that if religion has been a part of the problem, then it necessarily must be a part of the solution. After all, we have been taught since childhood not to talk about two things in polite company: religion and politics. But now our national security depends on understanding their intersection.
The stakes are high. If we cannot talk about religion, then Sam Huntington was right — stereotypes settle in as the clash of civilizations becomes inevitable. On the other hand, if we allow for the possibility that religion, and religious people, can and will play a positive role in preventing and resolving conflicts, then we are much closer to protecting our national security through a dialogue of civilizations.
Thankfully, we are beginning to see signs of change. This year I was in Doha again for the Forum, and this time the conference organizers had a plenary session on faith and policy. Congress recently held its first hearings on understanding the ideology behind militant Islam. And major foundations are now gearing up to fund programs to ensure that religion is appropriately included and addressed at the major international relations graduate schools in America.
Still, the attitude that religion should not be a part of international discourse remains imbedded in the thinking of the U.S. foreign policy establishment (and even more deeply imbedded in the conventional wisdom of the rest of the West). In many ways, we are still collectively unequipped to engage a religious-based worldview — such that we can work with and promote its best in order to help it defeat its worst.
Give Religion its Legitimate Seat at the International Relations Table
Because it is so difficult to grasp the role that religion plays from a personal perspective, our analytic thinking suffers. Too many international relations experts worship at the wailing wall of "church-state separation" — often ignoring religion altogether — to their own detriment and the people they advise. A kind of secular "fundamentalism" in our government has prevented religion from having its legitimate seat at the table of international relations.
In April 2003, before U.S. interagency teams went into Iraq to advise the various Iraqi ministries, there was debate about what to do with the "Ministry for Religion." One official simply stated: "We don't do religion." As a result, when the leader of Iraq's Shi'a majority issued a religious edict in June 2003 regarding American plans for elections, it was ignored. By November, however, Ambassador Paul Bremer was called home for emergency consultations because the U.S. plan was not working. The American leaders had finally realized that they had to find a way to incorporate the Shi'a leader and the 60 percent of the population that he represented.
We must find a way to bring together people who operate at the intersection of religion and realpolitik and invest in them. These "bilingual" ambassadors exist; and we need them more than ever before.
Only Good Theology Overcomes Bad Theology
Over the past four-plus years, we have responded to 9/11 in two ways. First, we have defined security in a defensive manner, focusing on gates, guns and guards. Natural enough after suffering a horrific attack, the explicit purpose has been keeping "them" out and "us" protected. Second, we have asked ourselves why "they" hate us. Our response here has been to yell louder, over the walls we have built, explaining why we are such good people — just ask us!
The problem with this approach, however, is that it remains about us. We have made no sustained effort to understand "them." If we cannot begin to grasp the general Muslim worldview — including its historical and cultural manifestations in particular places around the world — then we will never be able to communicate.
In order to communicate, we must understand that the Muslim worldview is inherently rooted in "theology." (This is a Christian term, but I use it to communicate the simple idea that Muslims think about and study God as much as Christians.) Islam is, of course, on the agenda of every security expert, but almost always in a way that is limited to the ideological dimensions of militant Islam. If we treat it only as an ideology, we will continue to swat at symptomatic flies and not deal with the real issues.
We must understand the theology behind Islam if we are to appropriately come alongside those good Muslims who are battling for the soul of Islam. This is where the so-called "war of ideas" will be won. For starters, we need anthropologists and theologians at the National Security Council, the State Department, and the Department of Defense.
We'd Better Learn to Speak Abrahamic
The children of Abraham have something in common: a God-based worldview. While there are obvious differences, some of them irreconcilable, this God-based worldview does include common concepts of Justice and Mercy. Moreover, this worldview's bedrock belief that we are each made in the image of our Creator provides a firm foundation for the concept of universal and equal human dignity. As a result, international experts who take their faith seriously are better able to discuss the common problem of militant Islam.
Americans, however, are not very good at communicating because we are unable to frame our message in the context of such common principles as Justice and Mercy. We would rather talk about "democracy and human rights," which most people in Asia now see as mere rhetorical whitewash for continued American dominance, if not outright imperialism. In politics, perception is reality — whether we like it or not, whether it is correct or not — and this perception rages across Asia, especially in Muslim countries. We need to find ways of speaking and relating that are honest and transparent, but that avoid needlessly alienating Muslims.
By way of an example, consider the Institute for Global Engagement's current efforts in relational diplomacy in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province. Two weeks ago, as the province was rocked by riots in protest of the Danish cartoons, the Chief Minister of the province hosted the first meeting of the Interfaith Advisory Council in his official residence. Over the last eight months IGE has been working carefully and in a principled way with the Chief Minister to find practical ways to promote justice and mercy in NWFP by enabling educational and socio-economic opportunity for people of all faiths in this geo-strategically important region.
An effort like this is just one facet of a much larger engagement initiative that is urgently needed between the West and the Islamic world. Governments need to encourage and enable faith-leaders, and their institutions, to regularly participate in diplomacy (state-to-state); public diplomacy (state-to-society) and people-to-people diplomacy (society-to-society).
Religious Freedom is Counterterrorism
Too much tolerance can lead to terrorism. Consider Aum Shinryko in Japan, where, because of its religious cult status, it was constitutionally protected from investigation before its March 20, 1995 saran gas attack on the Tokyo subways. We saw the same thing with last year's "7/7" bombers in London, among whom was a former disciple of the non-violent extremist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). HT is banned in Germany, where they have historic experience with hate speech, but not banned in the UK. There is a fine line between tolerance and terrorism. Still, this is not the real issue.
Tolerance is not good enough — we need respect. The Abrahamic faith traditions demand that we not just tolerate our neighbors, but respect them. For those of us who are Christians, we are taught that everything hangs on two principles: loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves. In other words, our identity is rooted in our respect for the other, which in turn is rooted in love.
Civil Society is the balance between the "freedom to" something (liberty) and the "freedom from" something (security). The fulcrum will vary according to historical and cultural context, but the true test of the civility of any society will always be how it respects the minority in its midst. The sacred texts have something definitive to say here, and the Abrahamic adherents must re-claim the best of their faith, if they are to overcome the worst of religion.
Put differently, all of us must work to find the pre-existing principles of respect within different cultures, and build up traditions of religious freedom from there. Our national security depends on it, and the best of our faith demands it.