Faith-based Diplomacy -- the New Realpolitick?

We made a mess of things in Iraq. We're in a war of words with Iran, don't speak to Syria, turn a blind eye to things in Saudi Arabia. For the most part we have no clue how to deal with the realities of the world we live in.
For some, like the New Atheists, religion is not only the chief problem in the world today, but it can provide no solution. The best thing that can happen for the world is that religion disappear. That was the dream suggested by John Lennon's song "Imagine." He also imagined a world without national boundaries and nothing to live or die for. Such a world is not in the offing any time soon.
If religion is part of the problem, but is not going to disappear anytime soon, could it also be part of the solution?
In listening to a recent broadcast of Krista Tippett's Speaking of Faith, I was taken by the message of Douglas Johnston, a retired Navy captain and director of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy. In this interview the two talk about Johnston's work in the Muslim world building trust between West and Muslims. Johnston himself is an evangelical Christian with a heart of respect for others. He understands that if we are to find peace in the world, we must learn to trust each other.
He speaks of religion as the "missing dimension" of American diplomacy. Countries like Iran don't trust us politically -- we're the "Great Satan," but they will respond to us religiously. But unfortunately we haven't been willing to put time, money, or resources into building the kinds of bridges that can make for a better world. He notes that it would cost about $10 million to provide for 30 Religion Attaches to our Foreign Service, attaches that would help further diplomacy. That sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider the cost of dealing with the consequences, that's money well spent if it can create a level of trust that could put a stop to violence before it starts. In the West we focus on separating church and state -- something he believes in and I believe in, but in the Muslim World they are integrated. Too often we act as if they should operate on our paradigm and that expectation dooms conversations.
Here is a portion of the conversation:
Ms. Tippett: Well, we have a lot of people running things now who were still involved in those Cold War conflicts, don't we?
Mr. Johnston: That's exactly right. And, you know, if you just look at Iraq today, you quickly conclude that we as a nation-state have virtually no ability to deal with religious differences in a hostile setting, nor any ability to counter demigods like Bin Laden or Milosevic who manipulate
religion for their own purposes. And, you know, we're one of the most religious nations in the world today, and yet we so compartmentalize it that unfortunately we've let our separation of church and state — which I would not suggest that we change at all, but we've let that become a crutch for not doing our homework on how religion informs the worldviews and political aspirations of others. By having this so compartmentalized, we've had it off the table so it's not been on the policymakers' screen for many decades. We also have some very real operational constraints that cause people to shy away from making any sort of investments or moves on the religious side.
The answer he says is a "pluralistic heart," which he defines as having the heart to "understand the need to reach out to others with a posture of respect." I believe that is a good starting point to building peace in our world!

Comments

Jodie said…
This is a brilliant observation.

I have read the letters the president of Iran has written "to the American people" and it is clear that he is coming from a place where there is no distinction between religion and politics.

But even more importantly, he casts his political pitch to us in biblical terms. He seems to think we are doing our politics in terms of the Old and New Testaments and so he hopes to establish a communication channel with us via >our own< scriptures.

Yet it seems we have nobody on our side that can translate the code - our own code - back to us.

So we are left without any common language except bombs and bullets.

Capt Johnston is right on the money.
Robert Cornwall said…
Jodie,

I think you're quite right about the conversation. We're talking two different "languages." He's asking the questions and we're unable to answer because even this "religious" President really doesn't take it seriously.

Johnston made an interesting observation in the interview. He noted that when the US offered to help the Iranians after their earthquake, we sent Elizabeth Dole to head up the delegation -- a choice that seemed like a no-brainer to us, since she'd been head of the Red Cross. Johnston said, that had we sent someone like Abp Ted Carrick of Washington instead they likely would have received our help.

We still have much to learn!
Anonymous said…
Inner peace is another word for well-being: the state of being comfortable, healthy, peaceful and happy. Inner peace is acomplished through the practice of the values and principals of honor, innocents, trustworthiness, compassion, patients, thoughtfulness, forgiveness, wisdom or common sense, love and kindness. They each must be put into practice because they contain the truth critical to inner peace i.e. well-being. When gathered together they create the spirit and soul and consequently become inner peace. Dukroftaos@yahoo.com

Popular Posts