Midterm Essay 1
Sharon Pettaway
GOVT 425-D01
LUO
In his role as Secretary of State, during a lecture he held at Rice University, John
Kerry acknowledged religion as “an integral part of people’s lives all around the world.”1
It is especially true in places like the Middle East where, as Mearsheimer states, is an area
in which events are undoubtedly shaped by U.S. foreign policy (USFP).2 But what
exactly is religion’s role and how big of a part should it play? Does making religion a
relevant factor in USFP cause problems?
Within the realm of foreign policy, it is safe to say that religion, although
frequently disregarded, does play a role both domestically and internationally. The
reason it tends to be most often disregarded or ignored, is simply, predominately secular
views became more widely accepted as “early social scientists established a tradition of
seeking rational explanations and guidelines…to replace theocratic ones.”3 Looking at
the views many hold in government today, many feel there is and needs to be, a
separation between the role of the church (religion) and the state (government). Many do
not see religion as playing an integral or important role in government whether
domestically or internationally. “Thomas Farr, a former director of religious freedom at
the State Department,” stated “there is a deep-seated discomfort with dealing with
religious ideas, concepts and religious actors,” as well as “a sense that religion is not
relevant to foreign policy.”4
1A.Kadir Yildirim, "Religion and the Middle East in U.S. Foreign Policy," HuffPost, June 01, 2017,
, accessed July 20, 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/religion-and-the-middle-e_b_10110130.
2John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "THE ISRAEL LOBBYAND U.S. FOREIGN
POLICY," Chicago.edu, 2006, , accessed July 19, 2019,
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.
3Fox, Jonathan. “Religion as an Overlooked Element of International Relations.” International
Studies Review, vol. 3, no. 3, 2001, pp. 53–73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3186242.
4Presbyterian Church (U.S.A., "Should Religion Have a Role in U.S. Foreign Policy?" Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) - Should Religion Have a Role in U.S. Foreign Policy? April 27, 2011, , accessed July
23, 2019, https://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/4/27/should-religion-have-role-us-foreign-policy/.
“Religion’s influence in the interactions of states is one of the great and least
understood security challenges of the twenty-first century. Religion’s role in
international politics also presents an intellectual challenge to scholars of international
relations and religion and politics.”5 Although there is interest in integrating religion into
USFP, the efforts of policy leaders to do this comes with its challenges. “In 2013, the US
State Department established a new Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives as part
of a broader national strategy on religious leadership and faith community
engagement…”6 This office, The Office of Religion and Global Affairs (RGA), was set
up to recognize religion as “an increasingly important force in public life shaping
discourse, social attitudes, institutions, and policy outcomes,” in societies globally.7 In
fact, this was not the first attempt at making religion a part of USFP. In the latter part of
the 1990s, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) was passed, creating “a
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom as well as an Office of
International Religious Freedom within the State Department.”8 This trend in making
religion a focus of foreign policy made its way to Europe as well.
Sure, there are benefits to making religion a focus on USFP, but there are also
disadvantages as well. A benefit, as John Kerry stated in his lecture, is that “the more we
understand religion…the more effective our diplomacy will be in advancing the interests
5Warner, C., & Walker, S. (2011). Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy: A Framework
for Analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis., 7(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00125.x
6 Peter Mandaville and Sara Silvestre, "Integrating Religious Engagement into Diplomacy: Challenges
& Opportunities," Https://www.brookings.edu, January 2015, , accessed July 19, 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IssuesInGovStudiesMandavilleSilvestriefinal.pdf.
7 Peter Mandaville, "The Future of Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump," Brookings, March
07, 2017, , accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-future-of-religion-and-u-s-
foreign- policy-under-trump/.
8Peter Mandaville and Sara Silvestre, "Integrating Religious Engagement into Diplomacy: Challenges &
Opportunities," Https://www.brookings.edu, January 2015, , accessed July 19, 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IssuesInGovStudiesMandavilleSilvestriefinal.pdf.
and values of our people.”9 It would help with policymaking decisions as well when
dealing with other nations. On the flip side, there are disadvantages that come with
making religion a relevant factor in USFP. In fact, some feel it could make tensions
between the US and other nations worse. In her article, Hurd states “official religious
engagement with ‘religion’ can harden lines of division between communities by defining
identities and interests in religious terms.”10 This can be a problem because it puts
religious identity in the forefront. Hurd gives an example with Syria when she writes, “…
foregrounding religion as the determinant factor in the was means that being Christian or
Muslim, or Sunni or Alawite, often becomes more important than being pro- or anti-
democracy. We lose the big picture.”11 She further states that this can also lead to less
diversity globally as people on both sides almost feel bound by a sense of duty to choose
a side. It becomes more about religion or what religion someone is affiliated with. This
can further lead to persecution over religious beliefs rather than religious freedom, as is
the goal of the IRFA and RGA.
It is my belief that religion is not a top priority of USFP due to a couple of
factors, the first being the fact that religion does not sit high on a list of priorities of ost
Americans today. A poll conducted by Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs
Research shows that the top three issues most Americans feel need to be dealt with are
terrorism, immigration, and Russia. Less than fifteen present of those surveyed listed
humanitarian and human rights issues globally as an important issue to address.
9A.Kadir Yildirim, "Religion and the Middle East in U.S. Foreign Policy," HuffPost, June 01, 2017,
, accessed July 20, 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/religion-and-the-middle-e_b_10110130.
10 Elizabeth S. Hurd, "What's Wrong With Promoting Religious Freedom?" OpenCanada, June 20, 2013,
, accessed July 19, 2019, https://www.opencanada.org/features/whats-wrong-with-promoting-religious-
freedom/.
11 Ibid.
Finally, the issues of why America continues to cultivate close relationships with
nations like Saudi Arabia and what are the main obstacles to making religious values the
basis for USFP. First, simply put, Saudi Arabia has something the US needs, energy
resources or oil. They export what we need and because of this, we maintain this close
strategic relationship with them. “The Saudis are an excellent player of the diplomacy
game. By funding innumerable lobbyist groups, legislators, law agencies, and political
parties, the government of Saudi Arabia can win the applause they need to sustain their
seat at the table.”12 The US’s alliance with Saudi Arabia is not one in which we have the
upper hand. It is hard to make demands when those you are demanding something from
do not think they need to listen. It is the “you need me, I don’t need you” outlook. In
instances like this, trying to force our own policies on any foreign government can lead to
damaging alliances and any hope of a future one.
12 AJ Goldman, "Saudi Arabia and the US: Why Does the Relationship Continue?" The Jerusalem Post |
JPost.com, January 30, 2017, , accessed July 20, 2019, https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-World-
Lobbyist/Saudi-Arabia-and-the-US-Why-does-the-relationship-continue-480075.
Bibliography
Goldman, AJ. "Saudi Arabia and the US: Why Does the Relationship Continue?" The
Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. January 30, 2017. Accessed July 20, 2019.
https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-World-Lobbyist/Saudi-Arabia-and-the-US-Why-does-
the-relationship-continue-480075.
Hurd, Elizabeth S. "What's Wrong With Promoting Religious Freedom?" OpenCanada.
June 20, 2013. Accessed July 19, 2019. https://www.opencanada.org/features/whats-
wrong-with-promoting-religious-freedom/.
Mandaville, Peter, and Sara Silvestre. "Integrating Religious Engagement into
Diplomacy: Challenges & Opportunities." Https://www.brookings.edu. January 2015.
Accessed July 19, 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/IssuesInGovStudiesMandavilleSilvestriefinal.pdf.
Mandaville, Peter. "The Future of Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump."
Brookings. March 07, 2017. Accessed July 21, 2019.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-future-of-religion-and-u-s-foreign-policy-under-
trump/.
Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. "THE ISRAEL LOBBYAND U.S.
FOREIGN POLICY." Chicago.edu. 2006. Accessed July 19, 2019.
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/IsraelLobby.pdf.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A. "Should Religion Have a Role in U.S. Foreign Policy?"
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - Should Religion Have a Role in U.S. Foreign Policy?
April 27, 2011. Accessed July 23, 2019. https://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/4/27/should-
religion-have-role-us-foreign-policy/.
Yildirim, A.Kadir. "Religion and the Middle East in U.S. Foreign Policy." HuffPost. June
01, 2017. Accessed July 20, 2019. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/religion-and-the-
middle-e_b_10110130.
Midterm Essay 2
Sharon Pettaway
GOVT 425-D01
LUO
In Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” is indeed an interesting read. In
his writing, Huntington theorized that the post-Cold War or modern day societies
would face divisions due to cultural differences. In fact, it was his belief that these
cultural differences were essentially stifled or suppressed during the war and would
eventually become a primary focus. He states, “…the fundamental source of conflict
is this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic…the
dominating source of conflict will be cultural,” (p 22). He separated the world into
different civilizations. Nations will be divided up and grouped into these
civilizations based on shared cultural attributes rather than economic status. As “the
highest grouping of people…” a civilization will be “defined both by common
objective elements, such as language, history, religion…and by the subjective self-
identification of people,” (p 24). These so called civilizations will consist of
approximately eight different groupings. It will be the differences in culture,
Huntington states, which will be the cause of civilizations clashing.
There is some merit to Huntington’s argument about the clash of civilizations.
Culture and religion impact one’s worldview and how he/she sees the world. As
James Graham states in his writing, “in the post Cold War world, few articles have
influenced how Western and especially American policymakers view the world
than…Huntington’s 1993 article, The Clash of Civilizations.”13 Take for instance the
attacks of 9/11; “a key event in the debate about the role of cultural and religious
difference – especially ‘Islamic fundamentalism’…”14 This attack to some became a
13 James Graham, "Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations," Samuel Huntington's Clash
of Civilizations - On This Day, May 2004, , accessed July 22, 2019,
https://www.onthisday.com/world/clashofcivilizations.php.
14 Jeffrey Haynes, "Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' Today: Responses and Developments," May
01, 2018, , accessed July 21, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2018/05/01/huntingtons-clash-of-civilizations-
today-
prime example of Huntington’s theory or clash of civilizations; “the ‘Christian West’
and the ‘Islamic world’, with special concern directed at Islamic ‘fundamentalists’ or
‘radical terrorists’.”15 Not everyone shares this view.
There are flaws to Huntington’s theory as well. There are those that believe
his characterization of the past is wrong and therefore his “predictions of the
future” do not “warrant careful attention by scholars and policymakers alike.”16 In
his theory, Huntington does not really make any true concise predictions. “Building
his argument of civilizations and their evolution to the modern day clash,
Huntington generalizes, overstates cultural unity, and understates nation-state
political and national security self interest, tying the views of many into the
perspective of one collective civilization.”17 Many believe his predictions do not
really match up to the future events that occurred; they were vague and
oversimplified. “His oversimplifications of cultures…could prove, based on future
conflicts, to be a modern day Nostradamus – vague enough to be accurate, if
interpreted through the rearview mirror.”18
I believe Huntington’s theory is too general. To group everyone in the world
into only eight different civilizations really does seem too simple. While “some are
defined by geography or political-legal boundaries…others are delineated by
responses-and-developments/.
15 Ibid.
16 Bruce M. Russett, John R. Oneal, and Michaelene Cox, "Clash of Civilizations, or Realism
and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence," September 2000, , accessed July 21, 2019,
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL2003H05/russet_oneal_cox_JPR.pdf.
17 Darin Swan, "A Criticism of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"," Academia.edu, July 20, 2010,
, accessed July 23, 2019,
https://www.academia.edu/1416654/A_Criticism_of_Huntingtons_Clash_of_Civilizations_.
18 Ibid.
religion.”19 Also, having differing cultural or religious beliefs or customs does not
automatically mean there will somehow inevitably be conflict between nations.
There are alliances between countries that have very different views and cultures. I
do not have to believe what you believe in order to respect and get along with you.
“The big problem…is that conflict has historically been, and continues to be, more
common within the boundaries of what he identifies as civilizations than it has been
between states of different civilizations.”20
Bibliography
19 Phil Arena, "What's Wrong with Huntington's Clash of Civilizations?" Phil Arena, September 17,
2017, , accessed July 23, 2019, https://fparena.blogspot.com/2012/09/whats-wrong-with-huntingtons-clash-
of.html.
20 Ibid.
Arena, Phil. "What's Wrong with Huntington's Clash of Civilizations?" Phil Arena.
September 17, 2017. Accessed July 23, 2019.
https://fparena.blogspot.com/2012/09/whats-wrong-with-huntingtons-clash-of.html.
Graham, James. "Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations." Samuel
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations - On This Day. May 2004. Accessed July 22,
2019. https://www.onthisday.com/world/clashofcivilizations.php.
Haynes, Jeffrey. "Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' Today: Responses and
Developments." May 01, 2018. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.e-
ir.info/2018/05/01/huntingtons-clash-of-civilizations-today-responses-and-developments/.
Russett, Bruce M., John R. Oneal, and Michaelene Cox. "Clash of Civilizations, or
Realism and Liberalism Déjà Vu? Some Evidence." September 2000. Accessed July 21,
2019.
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL2003H05/russet_oneal_cox_JPR.pdf.
Swan, Darin. "A Criticism of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"." Academia.edu. July
20, 2010. Accessed July 23, 2019.
https://www.academia.edu/1416654/A_Criticism_of_Huntingtons_Clash_of_Civilizations
.
