Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Foreign policy, religion and opportunity
By Thomas Wright
Executive Director of Studies, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
I'd like to thank everyone for such a lively debate on the Chicago Council on Global Affairs task force report, "Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy," but I also would like to clear up a number of misconceptions about what we say.
First, the report agrees that religion has played a negative role in U.S. foreign policy in the past, especially in relations with the Muslim world (for example, leading U.S. figures have sometimes framed the fight against terrorism in religious terms). The report does not actually say that U.S. foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and uncompromising Western secular bias and we agree that U.S. foreign policy has been damaged by the foolish use of religion as well as by a failure to understand the role of religion in world affairs. The mention of an "uncompromising Western secularism" is raised in the context of alternative strategies to the one we're proposing.
Second, the United States has greatly improved its capacity to understand religious dynamics in world affairs--as evidenced by President Obama's Cairo speech in which he spoke to Muslim communities as well as Muslim states. But, a major capabilities gap remains. The key challenge now is to build the capacity inside the U.S. government to properly understand the role of religion in world affairs and to engage with religious communities in a prudent and constructive way. The Obama administration is working on this issue and we hope that this report will be of some assistance in that regard.
Third, and perhaps most important, building this capacity should help to mitigate and reduce the negative impact of religion in world affairs. The United States will be better able to respect local cultures and societies and to avoid actions that are inadvertently religious in nature. To take one prominent example, U.S. counterinsurgency forces that respect and understand the religious culture of communities in Afghanistan are less likely to act in a way that inflames passions. They will also be able to blunt the efforts of extremists to manipulate religion (by bombing holy sites) and reduce tensions. On the other hand, ignoring religious dynamics is likely to increase their negative impact, as in the case of the slow U.S. reaction to al-Qaeda in Iraq's destruction of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in 2006.
Fourth, the United States needs to engage religious communities more generally so that their relationship with the United States is not defined through the lens of counterterrorism policy. The United States should engage credible civil society organizations in religious communities on matters like educational exchanges and technology transfer (especially in clean water technology). Such engagement will only occur if these communities find it helpful. Under no circumstances should the United States try to manipulate religion or use it instrumentally.
Fifth, some contributors to this forum have argued for leaving religion out of U.S. foreign policy but also understanding the role it plays. I'm not sure there is gap between this critique and our report is all that great. Again, the report is largely about engaging religious communities on practical non-theological issues (like science, development assistance, and entrepreneurship) and avoiding actions that inadvertently increase the negative role of religion in world affairs. Actively side-lining religious communities abroad would, in our view, be counterproductive--for instance, in practice such an approach would mean not dealing with al-Sistani in Iraq. Obviously, the United States should be cautious and prudent in its approach.
Finally, this strategy of engaging religious communities certainly does not seek to circumvent the First Amendment. The separation of church and state is vital and must be preserved in foreign as well as domestic policy. In fact, the report says that the first amendment does constrain the means by which the U.S. engages with religious communities (five members out of the thirty two dissented from this) and that any policy of engagement must take it into account. Unfortunately the constraints are unclear. Accordingly, the task force asks the administration to clarify the rules of the game so they are not overstepped.
Thomas Wright is Executive Director of Studies for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and project director for "Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy."
By Thomas Wright |
February 24, 2010; 1:24 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Gold Medals and Silver Stars |
Next: Ending the black church's silence on HIV/AIDS
Posted by: oldsong1 | February 27, 2010 8:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
YEAL9: I Agree.
They Should get rid of this "White House Faith Based Council" altogether. Sounds like they're in it for the money and self aggrandizement and to rub shoulders with Government Leaders abroad etc.. with tax payers money.
A group of big time smooth talkers and so playing us unsuspecting Americans. A big religious CON game, if you will.
Posted by: oldsong1 | February 27, 2010 7:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Once again:
Thomas Wright's email address is
twright@thechicagocouncil.org
just in case someone is interested in a more personal response.
Agan, we await a general response to our list of questions about the CCOGA.
You might also want to see if Mr. Wright has changed his mind about what he said in his responses to cornbread.
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 27, 2010 12:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cornbread_r2, great question (again). In his Cairo speech President Obama sought to engage Muslim communities as well as Muslim states. One reason why this is important is that only relying on the regime, particularly in an authoritarian state, may mean deepen the gulf between the United States and Muslims abroad. On the other hand, meeting with local parliamentarians, broadly based and representative organizations, and the like, on issues of mutual interest can build bridges. I would note that in many western countries the U.S. already engages with civil society as well as official governments. You raise a good point that in authoritarian states the host country could object. My answer is that generally speaking, in countries like Egypt, they are likely to allow engagement with communities on issues that are not overtly political. You'll note for instance that in education engagement we ask that this is confined to sciences, math, and the like and not the humanities precisely because the latter tends to be more political (and often theological) in content. If they do object the U.S. will need to make a judgment call: my guess is that most of the time it won't be possible to engage then although there are other occasions when it might make sense (e.g. meeting the Dalai Lama despite China's objections).
best,
Tom
Posted by: thomas_wright | February 26, 2010 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thomas Wright's email address is
twright@thechicagocouncil.org
just in case someone is interested in a more personal response.
Agan, we await a general response to our list of questions about the CCOGA.
You might also want to see if Mr. Wright has changed his mind about what he said in his response to cornbread.
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 26, 2010 9:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Again, the report is largely about engaging religious communities on practical non-theological issues (like science, development assistance, and entrepreneurship) and avoiding actions that inadvertently increase the negative role of religion in world affairs. Actively side-lining religious communities abroad would, in our view, be counterproductive--for instance, in practice such an approach would mean not dealing with al-Sistani in Iraq. -- Thomas Wright
First of all, thanks for your response.
Re: the above quotation:
Of course, I have no quarrel with the "avoiding actions" part of the first sentence. One of my favorite expressions is: "I've never gotten into trouble for things I didn't say".
However, if you're proposing that we engage others on non-theological issues, why is it necessary to direct these engagements specifically toward religious communities? Why can't our foreign service just continue to deal government to government? I agree 100% that we must understand every aspect of another country's religions in crafting our foreign policy, but I see nothing but danger in dealing directly with any religious community unless that community also happens to be the govenment i.e. as in a theocracy. I'm not even sure by what mechanism a diplomat could meet with non-governmental religious entities, regardless of the subject matter, without creating suspicions on the part of the host country.
Posted by: cornbread_r2 | February 25, 2010 9:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thomas Wright's email address is:
twright@thechicagocouncil.org
just in case someone is interested in a more personal response.
We await a general response to our list of questions about the CCOGA.
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 25, 2010 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cornbread_r2, FarnazMansouri,
Good question. You're right; there is no reason why that is not possible. The issue is not for more religion, but to understand it and engage with politically relevant religious actors abroad in appropriate and prudent ways.
Thanks,
Tom (Chicago Council)
Posted by: thomas_wright | February 25, 2010 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Questions about the Chicago Council of Global Affairs-
Is its previous association with Michelle Obama affect what it is doing and what areas it reviews? Mrs. Obama was once a director of CCOGA(and making over $100,000/yr?).
Why does it have such a large investment portfolio (over $6 million)? Does CCOGA note this in their donation drives? i.e. give us some more of your money so we can invest in the risky stock and bond market?
In 2007, why did the CCOGA cancel the visit and talk by the authors of the book "Israel's Lobby and US Foreign Policy"?
Why aren't the "sacred" but very flawed books of the contemporary religions noted in the CCOGA report mentioned in their report? The report was obviously prepared by task force members well-versed in these books but are they??
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 25, 2010 7:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Worth re-posting:
Mr. Wright:
Hypothetically, is there any reason why the goals of your group could not be met by a knowledgeable, yet completely atheistic, foreign service corps?
Posted by: FarnazMansouri | February 25, 2010 2:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Wright:
Hypothetically, is there any reason why the goals of your group could not be met by a knowledgeable, yet completely atheistic, foreign service corps?
Posted by: cornbread_r2 | February 24, 2010 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
From the Chicago Council on Global Affairs IRS Form 990:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/362/181/2008-362181969-04c66f22-9.pdf
Investment holdings in publicly-traded
securities, 2007-2008 tax period, $6,145, 612. Dividends and interest from these investment for the same period, $705,970.
Again, non-profit organizations pay no federal taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains. With such large investment holdings, are many non-profits simply a way to beat the system by the directors of these groups?
Director Josephine Heindel’s salary, (in round figures) is $184,000 including savings plans. VP of Finance, Robert Cordes’ salary is $159,000 to include savings plans. Three other directors each make in the range of $140,000/year.
By the way, Michelle Obama was previously a director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs
The Form 990 does not list what the task force members of the CCOGA are paid. Maybe Eboo Patel and/or Katherine Marshall, task force members for the topic document and On Faith panel members will tell us? Or maybe Mr. Wright could shed some light on the finances at the CCOGA?
Mr. Wright might also want to divulge why the "sacred" books of the major religions were not mentioned in a 99 page report about these contemporary religions.
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 24, 2010 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
hello.