Converting the foreign policy elite

By Chris Seiple
president, Institute for Global Engagement

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs report on religion and the making of U.S. foreign policy provides a comprehensive overview of how the American foreign policy and national security establishment has not addressed the intersection of religion and realpolitik--to its own detriment. It essentially makes the case that if religion has been a part of the problem, then it can also be a part of the solution. And that part of this solution calls for the best of faith to defeat the worst of religion; that is, that faith communities worldwide should be intentionally engaged as groups who have something positive to contribute to the stability, prosperity, and civility of both state and society (beginning with the fight against extremism). This is only common sense in a world where over 80 percent of the people believe in something greater than themselves. But common sense is not so common among our foreign policy elites, many of whom have been trained at top international relations schools that, like our government, still struggle to at least allow for religion as a legitimate component of realpolitik analysis.

The report also features a discussion of the role of religious freedom in American foreign policy. This discussion reveals strong opinions--marked by formal dissenting views, and responses, from among the task force members who produced the report--about the purpose and practice of promoting religious freedom worldwide (as required by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998). Perhaps what is most important about the discussion is the "convicted civility" with which it is engaged, as it embodies the kind of respect we in America must have for each other, and for faith communities abroad. Mere tolerance is not enough.

Despite these much needed contributions, the report nevertheless risks self-compartmentalization. Ironically, after providing a comprehensive discussion of religion and religious freedom, it does not place that discussion amidst a comprehensive understanding of our global context, let alone the role and responsibilities of the U.S. therein, American grand strategy, or the current organizational structures used to implement U.S. foreign and national security policy. For example, the brief discussion of the global context does not reflect the fundamental fact that no state or non-state actor can solve the complex challenges our world faces. If this is true, then it is not a question of if the U.S. partners with other governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but when and how.

Indeed, such partnerships still require "permission" from the prevailing paradigms that only governments talk to governments (track one diplomacy) and only NGOs engage other NGOs (track two, or people-to-people, diplomacy). A "Track 1.5" approach recognizes that every decision about how we engage the most complex issues of our day is foremost a decision about how we engage--that is, build and maintain relationships with--the "other" person, ethnic group, faith community, or government. This kind of relational diplomacy calls for a holistic approach that allows those working for governments or NGOs to engage simultaneously from the top-down (governments) and from the bottom-up (grassroots) as they catalyze new partnerships between the public and private spheres governed by transparent agreements that hold governments and NGOs accountable. Full circle, freedom of conscience--i.e., religious freedom/respect for the "other"--therefore cannot help but be the foundation upon which all global engagement takes place, including U.S. foreign policy.

In similar fashion, the report does not discuss what the goals of American foreign policy might be for this century, nor a grand strategy for achieving these goals. For example, the report bemoans the fact that the Obama administration has not appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom (as it should). But there is no mention of the other fact that the Obama administration has not produced a national security strategy. It is hard to promote, let alone integrate, religious freedom into U.S. foreign and national security policy if there is no strategy in the first place. Without this kind of context, the report's recommendations echo in a vacuum.

Additionally, the report recommends that the National Security Council (NSC) be the focal point for a new approach to religion and religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. This recommendation is natural enough given that NSC is the one place in our foreign policy and national security establishment where all the elements of national power come together. In this day and age, however, the "NSC" must exist at more than one level. There must be several catalytic and convening points in our national security structure that bring together all the elements of national power such that they can effectively coordinate--and be in relationship--with NGOs and faith groups worldwide. In other words, asking the NSC to oversee and implement the report's recommendations only creates another "czar" who, inevitably, will be compartmentalized into irrelevance atop a dysfunctional structure designed to win the Cold War.

Even if we were to witness the reform of our national security structure away from the overburdened central committee that the NSC has become, it remains a top-down solution. True change to the conduct of American foreign policy is unsustainable without a bottom-up effort. Such change requires the intentional education and training of U.S. government personnel (civilian and military) in order to equip them to engage a complex world in which religion, among other "new" issues, plays a critical role.

Our government has done this before when Congress mandated that the four military services would work together in 1986 (the Goldwater-Nichols Act). While there were many components to this act, its cornerstone demanded that promotion be tied to joint education. In other words, a generational culture change has been implemented as self-interested leaders from the four services experienced class together in a manner that equipped them for complexities of the world while building relationships that transcended their service tribes. Today we need something similar for all U.S. personnel while making room in the class for NGOs.

Finally, the report focuses on "religious communities abroad" but not those at home. In an age of self-radicalization, Muslim communities in America are the front line of national security. They fear the backlash against them because their young people are ending up in Pakistan and Somalia, while contemplating a deeper fear that they do not know how their children are being influenced. We need engage the Muslim community with respect, learn from them, and partner in a religiously and culturally appropriate manner, standing together against the influence of extremist ideology.

More broadly, how might those globally-connected faith communities among us contribute to American foreign policy and national security? These communities possess cultural insights and language skills that our government continues to lack. They also represent the strong possibility of foreign direct investment in countries whose ongoing development is vital to U.S. national security.

We should welcome this report as it accelerates the awareness that we Americans continue to ignore the elephant in our global room: religion. But there is much work to be done in our understanding of it, and thus the impact it has on the implementation of U.S. foreign and national security policy.

Chris Seiple, Ph.D., is president of the Institute for Global Engagement.

By Chris Seiple |  February 24, 2010; 8:50 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: U.S. foreign policy needs to get religion | Next: Gold Medals and Silver Stars

Posted by: YEAL9 | February 24, 2010 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lpullen | February 24, 2010 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.