From the Think Tanks & Research Desk
WASHINGTON, April 29 (UPI) -- Although the historical importance of religion in American foreign policy is a matter of debate, experts at a recent forum held at a Washington think tank said that its role has been heightened following the attacks of Sept. 11.
At the April 25 symposium -- "The Soul of Foreign Policy: Religion and American Diplomacy" -- sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the Pew Foundation's Civitas Program in Faith and Public Policy, Scott Flipse, the Pew Civitas fellow at the Brooking Institution, said it is undeniable that America's role in the world cannot be considered without considering religious faith.
Nevertheless, Flipse said policymakers, "overestimate, underestimate, downplay or completely disregard" the interplay of religion and policy matters.
John Hanford, who is to be sworn in this week as the second U.S. ambassador at large for international religious freedom, said the importance of religious freedom is woven into American idealism and therefore into its policy undertakings.
"I believe that historically we can say that the attitude of America and the American government is that unless people are free to worship, they are not truly free," said Hanford.
He noted that religious freedom is a founding principle of the nation that has been reinforced worldwide through international treaties like the 1945 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by traditional efforts by the U.S. government to promote it as a positive ideal.
As a congressional aide specializing in religious policy issues, Hanford was a key player in the development of the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act that established incentives and sanctions to promote religious freedom. The act also created the ambassador position he well assume, along with a commission to investigate violations and recommend policy.
This is surely a sign that religion is an important influence on foreign policy, say supporters of the idea.
Hanford says there is "virtue" in promoting religious freedom, along with the benefits of having it as a foreign policy objective.
"Religious persecution, when left unabated, leads to the persecution of other human rights," he said.
He said suppression of religious freedom also serves as a national security threat, best demonstrated by the intolerant Taliban, which went from religious persecution to fostering of anti-American sentiments and protecting the Al Qaeda terrorist network as they planned the September 11 attacks.
Leo P. Ribuff, a professor of history at George Washington University, downplayed the historical importance of religious matters in American foreign policy.
He told United Press International that religion typically has been no more than a secondary factor in U.S. foreign relations.
"Religious concerns have always had some impact upon second-level foreign policy decisions but have never really determined any first-level decisions, like [involvement in] war or westward expansion," said Ribuff.
Nevertheless, Ribuff says that while he is vary wary of intervention abroad, it is important to recognize that religious concerns -- particularly Christian beliefs -- do reinforce the fundamental American belief that the U.S. can remake the world in its image.
"In practical fact, Christianity influences this systemic belief that we can remake the world, but it is not a cause [for diplomatic or military action]," said Ribuff.
Hillel Fradkin, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an adjunct scholar at AEI, said that it is important to note that religion has played a politically driven role U.S. foreign policy.
Fradkin -- whose Washington-based research institute looks at public policy matters from a "Judeo-Christian" perspective -- said most of the U.S. policy efforts specifically related to religion have been made at the behest of religious groups seeking to protect their members abroad that reside under intolerant regimes.
Fradkin said religion has taken on new importance in foreign policy since Sept. 11, given Osama bin Laden's declaration that his holy war is partly a reaction against what he sees as America's efforts to topple Islam through a hegemony based in Christianity and Judaism.
Fradkin cautioned that despite its best efforts, the White House may not succeed countering this view with its public relations onslaught explaining that the U.S. is fighting terrorism, not Islam. Fradkin said that to make this work, the United States must work with more moderate Islamic leaders around the world who do not hate America.
"We will only be able to avoid a war with Islam in the long term if it doesn't declare a war on us." said Fradkin.