Stockholm University
Question
Asked 12 June 2012
Do you think that religion can be an effective foreign policy tool in international relations?
Is religion a commonly used foreign policy tool? Can we use religion to support relations between countries such as to cooperation with international organization? For example, might the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) be used in foreign policy?
Most recent answer
The answer to this question involves several potential problems. Suggesting the secularism is sufficient or does not involve its own pitfalls is rather naieve. Just as naieve as suggesting that religion is a "one size fits all" kind of generic intervention. The answer to the idea of whether religion can be used has to consider that Judeo-Christian values inform certain norms, whether or not explicit, that are used by peace groups, liberals, and--in some distorted form--fundamentalists. The realist utilitarians, secular humanists, and post-modernists have not done very well in constructing an alternative to militarism without recourse to some aspect of Judeo-Christian values or their equivalents in other religions. The value base we can use to inform actions, e.g. not dropping bombs on civilians as a matter of values and not simply wise foreign policy to avoid a backlash, should be considered. The ambiguities of what it means to be "realistic" are just as real as the ambiguities hypothesized to exist for what a religion means. We really need to take as a starting point the need for ethics in international relations balance that with other kinds of considerations, understanding that religion can help inform what it means to be ethical even if we disagree about what ethics means. There are intellectual traditions where it is very clear what it means to be ethical, e.g. the idea of the limits to military power suggests that it is practical to be ethical and limit the use of some forms of military power. In the Vietnam War, we saw a very immoral war and we saw a war that was not based on realistic threats to the United States. The moral response to that war was a reality, which mechanical functionalists or postmodernists can not deny. Hannah Arendt noted as much in her writings as she described the motivations of the New Left student activists. Many of these activists had roots in the African American church or Jewish culture, obviously with this culture an intermediate variable tying religion and foreign policy. So we see how atheist realists can be bomb droppers and activists against these bomb droppers have a tie to religion. As for alleged "Islamic radicals," these are misnamed as their actions have almost nothing to do with radicalism or Islam. That semantic tragedy requires another discussion.
1 Recommendation
All Answers (35)
Dhaka Bank Limited
Religion may have some impact on foreign policy. But it has some negative externalities as the nation may become polarized.
University of Salento
Religion is not a common tool in foreign policy, but it could be a good key to start a dialogue among different cultures and different way of life for diplomatics. I think, indeed, that religious structured power are actors in the global game of the international relations, so churches and organized religions are without any doubt subjects of diplomacy. Therefore religion is a tool - but an unusual tool -, religious structures are actors. A different kind of question is if the religion could support international relations. I Think that the terms of this question is uncorrected. Some religious structures could be really effective to support foreign policy if the other actors could accept a valid ecumenic vision of international relations OIC is a governtaive organization so it is a real subject of the international relations.
G N N College Doraha
if we study foreign policy as an idealist student then definitely religion could play a great role in determine foreign policy like Budhism, Ghandism,Hinduism, Christianity,Sikhism etc talked about ahimsa and universal brotherhood.
The Law Offices of Jimmy Allen Davis, P.L.
Religion could probably be used as an effective foreign policy tool. I just don't think we have the wherewithal to utilize cultural differences and understanding to pull it off. For example: in American (and a lot of the Western world) we have framed a lot of issues in terms of "Human Rights."
However, this does little for Islamic participants in world affairs. Islam has framed cultural behavior in terms of "Duties," not rights. These are fundamentally different, yet equally utilizable. (I used Islam as an example because I studied it while in law school, but this would apply equally to other religions and cultures.) For example:
In American, I have the "right" to free speech. This means I can speak or choose not too. It is my choice.
An Islamic equivalent would be the duty to speak. If one sees an injustice, one has a duty to speak out.
Now consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The title itself is problematic and highly westernized in its thinking. Imagine if the western world would have thought about the cultural differences around the world and proposed a set of treaties tied in to one another. For example:
Western countries could have signed the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" while Islamic countries could have signed a version titled the "Universal Declaration of Human Duties." This would have been a treaty espousing the same ends while conforming it more closely to Islamic law sets. Since Islamic law is every bit as complex as western legal sets, Islamic jurists would have been needed to help out in the effort.
Perhaps if western powers had considered including other cultural viewpoints in such a multi-tiered (and admittedly complicated) legal construction, we may have been able to dissipate a lot of the tension between the groups we are seeing today.
Once you start considering these problems in this manner, it starts to become obvious that a lot of these problems seem rooted in nothing more than the frustration of being marginalized.
1 Recommendation
Istanbul University
International relations are affected by two types of material and moral behavior And the spiritual dimension ,Religion and its teachings as a pre-requisite of many people Plays an important role in the national politics and in the internatinal too, especially in eastern countries
Linnaeus University
Religion could be a positive tool in creating a wider support for an issue.
A tool in implementation within a certain religion i. E. Islam.
But certainly a negative tool in creating compromises and
changes from earlier locked positions. Statesmen who would like to compromise
will be seen as traitors if they openly commot to religious
arguments and later give up their position.
University of Ottawa
Ngee NG,
Religion is probably the most commonly used foreign policy tool that is not talked about. As Norman Free notes, nations were and modern nations are typically built on some sort of a religious belief (including political religious beliefs). Religion, by definition, is intrinsically EXCLUSIVE of the truth of heretical beliefs. Hence, religion cannot be successfully used to support relations between countries unless these countries adhere to the same beliefs. Such a dialogue would rest on distrust and suspicion, in particular, as Sahar Iranagh points out, when it comes to deeply religious Eastern countries, and reasonable approaches can end up as heresis (Kjell Sundberg). As Jimmy Davis notes, we just do not have the understanding to successfully utilize religion in (foreign) policy.
However onesided these short lines are, learning from history, there is indeed a promising path. Unfortunately, it is far distant from the intent as I perceive it from Ngee NG's question:
From my research about the behavior of the Jewish diaspora, the Christian churches, and the Muslim theocracies throughout history, the secret to openness and reason lies in fragmentation. As long as religious organizations are in a position of power, they tend to abuse it and would often not hesitate to use any tool available for the eradication of other beliefs. However, the message from my research is loud and clear: minority religions love the concepts of secularization and democracy, and they might be able to show the way toward implementing it. Hence, the first line of support to avoid theocracies and foster better world cooperation needs to go through the fragmentation of majority religions into minority sects. They can help promote secular states, religious freedom, and democratization despite their universally hidden agendas of world domination. In the wake of such changes, a religious competition to eradicate global systemic poverty can be envisioned as opposed to a self-inflicted glorification of poverty.
In other words, if religion should be used as a foreign policy tool, it should be used to break up powerful religious enemy fronts into smaller minority fragments by actively supporting these minorities (and not in the expedient service to diminish a faith). The more religion is fragmented, the more it will be a positive force. The more it consolidates, the more dangerous it is for mankind. Hence, religion as a foreign policy tool could and should also be used to drive back any intention by religious organizations to merge with others.
Finally, I commend Jimmy Davis on his thoughtful remarks on the Declaration of Human Rights. The idea of religious freedom should undergo the same scrutiny when it pertains to the religious leaders, not the disciples. There is a long list of criminal behaviors by any cultural standard that flies and hides under the radars because of religious freedom. As a matter of global cooperation, the idea of religious freedom needs to be revisited and regulated (again, not for the believers but the leaders). It cannot be the intention of any freedom to be ignorant of incredible attrocities committed against mankind.
A.J. Deus
Social Economics of Systemic Poverty
World PhilisophicaL Forum, Greece, Athens
To my opinion only secularity is a way for Humanity to be united. Details see at - http://wpf.unesco-tlee.org/eng/offpap/top10/index.htm
Religion has a vital role in foreign policy or international relations.But only if we practically apply. Because almost all religions teaches peace, help poor, stability, relations with others for all human beings. Our problem is that we always in theory and does not adopt practical and thats the reason of our failure. I consider myself as a small student of Islam religion. And until now I learnt hope, peace, help, pray etc etc. We never practically applied any religious book in our Government ? All religions teaches life hereafter... but unfortunately we are all avoiding due to fear of death. And death is a compulsory for all human beings.. But if we believe we will not fear from death. The biggest sources of education is traveling and meeting other multicultural societies.
secular humanism is the only viable policy, either for domestic or foreign policy. Religion and in particular organized religion, has created more problems worldwide than they have solved. Notice that the most democratic, secular, socialist, or liberal societies do not war with each other. an exception should be made for the United States, even though it is not at war with its allies, it is at war with itself ( rightwing chrisitianity and its rules require the government to go to war in America on its own citizen, as America is at war domestically on drugs, poverty, women and all sorts of issues) and to war with less fortunate nations (i.e the the international Judeo-Christain alliance).
So no religion is not an option for foreign policy in my estimation, as religion itself is a huge driver in America's wars worldwide.
World PhilisophicaL Forum, Greece, Athens
there is a good Topic in World philosophical forum program - "Theism, clericalism and secularism – what their balance should be in the 21st century?" at - http://wpf.unesco-tlee.org/eng/offpap/top10/index.htm
Most replies can be found in the published over there papers.
University of Amsterdam
well, it depends what do you consider as a tool? An instrument? I am not sure about that. A factor? Yes it is. "Kin-country syndrome" implies that culturally closely related countries often support each other in international politics. And, religion is an important cultural factor. This is why most Muslim countries rally behindor for the sake of the plight and fate of Bosniak, Kosovar or Palestinian Muslims, and why most European, read Christian countries oppose accession of Turkey to the EU.
University of Amsterdam
Religion is not separate from culture. It is not a type of supra-natural quality etc... that the religious people believe. There may or not be supra-natural things, but these are irrelevant as a political tool. Religion is not any different than other cultural denominators or factors if you want.
1 Recommendation
I don't think religion can be effective in foreign policy but definitely in domestic policy. religion indeed have a negative impact on foreign policy as it is obvious in the case of the countries are not pragmatist in their foreign policy behavior like Iran's behavior toward Israel. one can easily find out how much Iran is isolated for the reason of such foreign policy within the global community. even though some Iranian analysts believe that iran after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini turned to pragmatism, but i think its foreign policy remain intact toward Israel based on religion hostility.
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Aloha Ngee, maybe if you focus on one general concept that most religions approve of, such as helping others or being kind to your neighbor. If there is at least one thing that can be agreed upon, then it can be used as springboard for discussion regarding policy or human rights...just a thought
It is a subject of political ideology, political psychology and a part of culture. And, under capitalism, it becomes a pure ideology and loses its previous authentic content. Hence, it can be filled with any political and ideological content for world politics as well as for domestic one.
1 Recommendation
@Shafiq A. Qureshi: cit. " All religions teaches life hereafter... but unfortunately we are all avoiding due to fear of death. And death is a compulsory for all human beings.."
you're right, cit. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. " hebrew 9,27
Who has risen from the dead? Christ alone.
and he'll raise you, dear readers too, if you believe in his final acr.
cit. " Jesus said, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? " john 11,25
believest thou this??
University of Amsterdam
@Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ercan Gündoğan
Can you please explain the "capitalism" part of it? Does it relate to Globalization?
Indonesian National Institute of Aeronautics and Space
in politic of law, regulation on religion, and prostitution can be categoried as gag rules. That why, we cann,t regulate them without as same as provitions of each their natures. As experience, we only regulate by rules of localization If we want to regulate this topic in international community, I think we do to nothing.
Religion is a political tool and very capitalist as the Assoc Prof. pointed out. This is the case in most large cultures. Religion is a means to control the people and gain power. Many religious factions break from the major and become an equal influence to the existing entity. In many instances religion is a means, to an end and faith is the vehicle to make it move. Unless all religious entities agree, just as you would want political entities and city states to agree, then it is no better or worse to use than working with leaders of any city states. Religion is man made to express faith... your faith lies in God, Mohammad, or Buddha.
University of Hawaii
There being no agreed upon definition here of the terms "religion" as in belief, practice, institution, this conversation is doomed. Besides mixing practices growing from a desire to adhere to the commands of the ultimate reality [seemingly uncompromising in religions of 'the book' with the requirements of accomodating the very compromising needs of the physical, risks disrupting those of this natural world and discrediting those of the supernatural world. You'd be better off using sport as a political tool. Games have rules and almost everyone can understand and discuss them whereas no body knows anything about theology
1 Recommendation
Baptist College of Florida
Work has been done on the influence of religion as a mediating tool in the workings of foreign policy
University of Science Malaysia
Religion can be the tool for the foreign policy. As a Malaysian, I have no permission to enter Israel using my Malaysian passport. Why this circumstances happen? First of all, religion plays a big role in the Gaza conflict. So, somehow religion shapes Malaysian the Malaysian foreign policy and some the Islamic countries. Religion sentiments still have implication on foreign policy. The same thing happens in Malaysian foreign policy in the era of communism bloc.
1 Recommendation
Universitas Paramadina
in the process of making foreign policy all aspects are important off course it will see the structure which made the country does it base on religion such as the Islamic countries or other example is in Turkey case which trying to becoming one of the European Union State member but stuck on the history relation with European countries made by the Ottoman Empire in the past and becoming consideration by European Union State members to accept Turkey. So my answer to your question is Yes religion commonly used as foreign policy tools, and also agree with Mutukumaran Lohganathan.
2 Recommendations
Universitas Paramadina
I think religion is a core aspect of all nation's relation in the world, IN CONTEXT of bring about its UNIVERSAL VALUES like world peace and unity under the divine moral guidance. Therefore, all the foreign policy of nations is need to involve a 'religious approach' in the context like what I said above.
2 Recommendations
Religion IS a foreign policy tool since the time of its institutionalisation. Institutionalised religion has played core role in building medieval states and especially empires. A worldwide historical fact is the merging of religion power with state power - it makes religion inseparable from policy, including external affairs. later religion was the core in the building of nation states. Within this process a separation of church from the state has begun and that has lead to decline of the role of the religion. The apotheoses of this tendency has happened in the communists states where the religion was replaced by atheism and the church was subordinated to the state (even being formally separated). Last about 20 years, mostly in result of globalisation, the role of religion goes beyond the borders of the church. This is a new phenomena, widely related to the movement of labour people, mass migration and spread of information - religion now has a completely new role, never met in history. The clash of civilisations is the most visible illustration, but there are much wider impacts that influence politics through the recent porous social constructs - both national an international. The most powerful and prospective channel of using religion as foreign policy tool is not through the church or state but through globalised and highly individualizeble electronic media.
1 Recommendation
Co-IRIS (International Relations and Islamic Studies Research Cohort)
Call for papers and/or panels for the section on the "Critical Relations of International Relations and Islam" for the 8th Pan-European Conference on International Relations (18-21 September 2013, Warsaw, Poland). Abstracts should be 150-200 words and due on 24 February 2013.
1 Recommendation
Co-IRIS (International Relations and Islamic Studies Research Cohort)
Invitation: An experimental (google/facebook/linkedin/academia.edu) research cohort or network and e-community of theoreticians and practitioners - be they scholars, authors, diplomats, policy makers, teachers, (post/undergraduate students), and/or laypersons - interested on the relations between International Relations (IR) and Islamic Studies (IS) in the academic (disciplinary) and practicum (practice/phenomena) areas or perspectives.
1 Recommendation
Yes, religion can be an effective foreign policy tool in international relations. That doesn't mean that it will be effective or appropriate in all situations. I think your next question could be: when and under what circumstances, is religion an effective foreign policy tool? It might be difficult to draw out the "rules of thumb" but identifying a few examples of when it was effective and when it wasn't might be helpful. Off the top of my head, I can't name any that would fit in either category, but maybe the wider group has some suggestions.
1 Recommendation
Stockholm University
The answer to this question involves several potential problems. Suggesting the secularism is sufficient or does not involve its own pitfalls is rather naieve. Just as naieve as suggesting that religion is a "one size fits all" kind of generic intervention. The answer to the idea of whether religion can be used has to consider that Judeo-Christian values inform certain norms, whether or not explicit, that are used by peace groups, liberals, and--in some distorted form--fundamentalists. The realist utilitarians, secular humanists, and post-modernists have not done very well in constructing an alternative to militarism without recourse to some aspect of Judeo-Christian values or their equivalents in other religions. The value base we can use to inform actions, e.g. not dropping bombs on civilians as a matter of values and not simply wise foreign policy to avoid a backlash, should be considered. The ambiguities of what it means to be "realistic" are just as real as the ambiguities hypothesized to exist for what a religion means. We really need to take as a starting point the need for ethics in international relations balance that with other kinds of considerations, understanding that religion can help inform what it means to be ethical even if we disagree about what ethics means. There are intellectual traditions where it is very clear what it means to be ethical, e.g. the idea of the limits to military power suggests that it is practical to be ethical and limit the use of some forms of military power. In the Vietnam War, we saw a very immoral war and we saw a war that was not based on realistic threats to the United States. The moral response to that war was a reality, which mechanical functionalists or postmodernists can not deny. Hannah Arendt noted as much in her writings as she described the motivations of the New Left student activists. Many of these activists had roots in the African American church or Jewish culture, obviously with this culture an intermediate variable tying religion and foreign policy. So we see how atheist realists can be bomb droppers and activists against these bomb droppers have a tie to religion. As for alleged "Islamic radicals," these are misnamed as their actions have almost nothing to do with radicalism or Islam. That semantic tragedy requires another discussion.
1 Recommendation
