Faith and Diplomacy - Essay Example

The interferences of religion in politics is a controversial topic all over the world. Many politicians and sociologists are of the view that religion and religious beliefs should stay away from politics in order to ensure distribute social justice to all people irrespective of their religion. It should be noted that majority of the countries in this world have diverse people who are believers in different religions. Dominance of one religion in political matters may cause problems to other religions. For example, America is a Christian dominated country and its foreign policies towards Israel and other Christian countries were labeled as nonaggressive whereas towards Muslim countries America is accused of following aggressive foreign policies. Former U.S. Secretary of State (1997 to 2001),Madeleine Albright has recently published an article “Faith and Diplomacy,” in which she argues that religion should have some role in foreign policy, even though she does not inform her readers of what that faith inflected diplomacy would look like. This paper analyses the role religion should play in diplomacy based on the arguments put forward by Albright. “Studies indicate that wars with a religious component last longer and are fought more savagely than other conflicts. Too many throats have been cut in God’s name through the ages, and God has enlisted in too many wars” (Albright, p.3). Samuel Huntington has put forward his famous Clash of civilization political theory a couple of decades before. He has argued that people's cultural and religious identities are the major source of conflict for all the conflicts happened in this world after the intense cold war between America and Soviet Union. He has proposed this theory during the initial periods of 1990’s while taking a lecture at American Enterprise Institute. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future (Huntington, p.22) Both Albright and Huntington are saying the same thing; that is religions playing an important role in global politics and many of the conflicts happening in this world are based on cultural differences rather than political or ideological differences. If the root causes of the problems in this world are religions, then there is no point in isolating religion from politics or it is impossible to solve current problems without seeking the intervention of the religions. Many people do believe that America can control Israel more effectively if they show some sincerity in their foreign policies. In fact Israel is accused of engaged in many aggressive behaviors because of the strong support it enjoys from America. It should be noted that Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions along with Islam. In other words, all these three major religions in this world have a common father and therefore their religious faith may have some common elements. Exploitation of that common element is important in settling global issues related to religion and politics. In short, faith inflicted diplomacy may be useful in solving some of the major conflicts in this world such as Arab-Israel, America-Iran, America-Iraq etc. Faith inflicted diplomacy may not work well in some cases in which the religions may have entirely different beliefs and customs. It should be noted that Christians and Muslims are believing in single God theory and many of the teachings of Bible and Quran are similar in nature. On the other hand, Muslims and Hindus or Christians and Hindus have entirely different belief structure. Hindus have many Gods whereas Christians and Muslims have only one God. In other words, Christians and Muslims have more differences with Hindu belief than similarities. So. Albright’s theory may not be applicable in cases where extremely different religions engaged in clashes. For example, India is a Hindu dominated country whereas Pakistan is a Muslim dominated country. The conflicts between India and Pakistan cannot be settled with the help of religion because of the entirely different belief structure Hindus and Muslims have. . Moral principles and ethics can be brought in to the lime lights, when we approach certain conflicts from a religiously minded viewpoint. It should be noted that morality is slowly diminishing from this world and religions are the only advocate of moral principles at present. In other words majority of the religions ask its believers to settle disputes in a peaceful manner and therefore interference of religions and religious principles in politics may help the politicians to settle issues in a peaceful manner. Often in religious faith, we share a kinship with one another, however distant it may sometimes seem; we are all created in the image of God. This in turn places upon us a responsibility to our neighbors. That principle provides both a solid foundation for religion and a respectable basis for organizing the affairs of secular society (Albright, p.6). Albright’s views are relevant since God can win in places where human fails. Religious leaders have a major role to play in international diplomacy as observed by Albright. It should be noted that Pope has a definite influence upon the Catholics all over the world. Same way, all religions have some prominent leaders in this world. They are advising their believers on various religious or spiritual matters. Spiritual life cannot be segregated from material life since human are staying in a material world. So, religious leaders definitely have a major say in shaping the material life of its believers. In other words, religious leaders should interfere in diplomacy whenever politics fail to settle global issues. Religions should directly involve in the negotiation process instead of laying down the groundwork for more experienced diplomats. The ways of religion and the ways of politics or diplomacy are entirely different. Religions can understand the root causes of conflicts more clearly than the diplomats. Since the core principle of all the religions remain the same- do good things and stay away from evil things- the dialogues between religious leaders would be more meaningful than the that with politicians or diplomats. Federal government should necessarily be involved in faith-based or at least faith-inflected diplomacy in order to settle the global issues more quickly. If the government leaves that responsibility to private organizations, positive outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Private people always work for profits. While settling disputes between cultures, they will try to make profit instead of adopting a path of reconciliation. So, under no circumstances, private organizations should be brought into the diplomatic talks between different cultures or nations. Faith-inflected diplomacy needs the services of religious leaders and the governments can think in terms of including some religious leaders in its team while conducting diplomatic meetings with other nations of cultures. To conclude, the concept of faith-inflected diplomacy should be seriously discussed and implemented as quickly as possible to settle some of the major conflicts in this world. Politicians and diplomats failed miserably in solving the conflicts in between Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, America-Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan etc. Since religions have some common elements in its beliefs, it can be exploited more meaningfully in solving international disputes. For that purpose, all the countries should concentrate more to include some religious leaders in their diplomatic teams while conducting negotiations with other countries on political or cultural matters. Works Cited Albright, Madeleine. “Faith and Diplomacy”, 2006. Web. 17 November 2011. Hutington, Samuel P . “The Clash of Civilizations?”. 1993. Foreign affairs. Vol. 72, Number 3, Web. 17 November 2011. Read More