The God Thing, Revisited

On February 23rd, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a regional center-left foreign policy think tank that maintains close ties to the President, released Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy. It is a ground-breaking report that, according to the Washington Post, warns of a serious "capabilities gap" and recommends that President Obama make religion "an integral part of our foreign policy."

When I read the Post article, my first thought was, “Finally!” I’ve expressed my concern over this issue for several years on my blog.  And here we have a think tank with close ties to a US President that is willing to point out the camel in the tent.  For instance, from page 21:

Despite a world abuzz with religious fervor, ...the U.S. government has been slow to respond effectively to situations where religion plays a global role. These shortcomings are a result of many forces, including a past political context that did not require as great an appreciation for the religious fabric of societies, a fear of treading too far over a set of unclear domestic legal lines separating church and state, and what some observers view as a secular bias in U.S. foreign policy, among other issues.

However, the paper is much less than I wished for.  For example, while acknowledging the obvious on page six –

The U.S. government lacks the framework, strategy, and capacity to fully understand and effectively engage religious communities. While there have been advances across the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy over the last several years in recognizing that religion is an important driver in global affairs, there is still much to be done.

– it does so by using the awkward language of postmodern bureaucracy and post-structuralist academia.  In this context, "religious actors," as the report calls them, operate in a world driven by secular self-interests and greater socio-political motivations; "religious communities" do charitable work as a means of serving latent social and political interests (page 66):

In much of the world, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, many schools, hospitals, social services, relief and development, and human rights programs are sponsored by religious institutions. While these activities may appear to be nonpolitical, in the aggregate they have a powerful influence over peoples’ lives and loyalties. 

Also, the report provides some suspect (and ominous) policy recommendations. It proposes, for example, that the US government should deepen official ties with missionary and religious charities:

By engaging with institutions providing these services and assisting them in their endeavors, the United States can help build good will in religious communities and connect directly with ordinary citizens rather than just engaging with regimes. (page 11)

Yet the report fails to acknowledge that by acting in deeper coordination with the US government, many of these same “religious communities” would lose the very legitimacy the report recommends the US exploit.  It also suggests engagement with “religious parties even if they may oppose US foreign policy",  the naive rationale being

While we should not paper over the differences with such parties, evidence from the past decade indicates that religious political par- ties often place pragmatism and problem solving over ideology. Indeed, no Islamist party elected to national parliament has sought to put greater emphasis on Sharia laws as the source of legislation, despite pre-election rhetoric to the contrary. Instead, they often become mired in the day-to-day necessities of ruling, which include making good on commitments to tackle corruption and provide much-needed public services in order to build a record of practical accomplishment. (page 11)

Nothing in the report’s rationale acknowledges the possibilities of programmatic deception among “religious political parties.” This is dangerous because it intentionally minimizes the long-term systemic threat from groups that seek to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims using whatever means necessary - even by slowly, softly transforming bureaucratic process to their advantage.  

All criticism aside, the paper is still worth reading.  Pages 30-32 describe a phenomenon I’ve discussed in the past, and may be an eye opener to some readers.  

Contrary to what modernization theory earlier suggested, “it is exactly the sort of upwardly mobile, educated middle classes that Marx and Weber presumed would shed such superstitions who are driving the explosion of faith.”21 In India, Turkey, Israel, and even China, “modernization has helped to create the up-and-coming bourgeoisie that [secular leaders] prayed for; but these people are the most fervent supporters of the religious parties.” Moreover, in many places throughout the world, younger generations of believers tend to be more religiously committed and observant than the generation of their parents.”

There’s plenty to chew on (see here), but I would add a pile of skepticism to the report’s recommendations.