Background: As part of the Future of Track-Two Diplomacy Undergraduate Fellows Seminar, in spring 2011 Sara Moufarrij interviewed Ambassador Stapleton Roy, about the intersections of U.S. foreign policy, religion, and track-two diplomacy.
Please tell me about your current responsibilities and how you got to this position?
I was head of the China Institute in the Woodrow Wilson Center since 2008. The goal of this Institute is to improve understanding between the U.S. and China and eliminate misinformation as much as possible. I was part of the Foreign Service in 1956 and in 2001 I joined Kissinger Associates.
In your experience, have you seen intersections of religious identity and faith, with certain topics, regions, or policy issues?
In the USSR: No religion! There were functioning churches but the political institution itself discouraged religious practices. In Indonesia the population there is predominantly Muslim. It has proved to be difficult for the U.S. to deal with Muslims especially since the State Department does not recognize that Islam is practiced differently in every region of the world. Muslims see the U.S. as prejudiced. There is bad guidance from the State Department.
Do you think that others view the U.S. as highly religious or secular? What are the implications, from your perspective, of this view by other countries?
The U.S. is viewed primarily as a secular power. It has no established religion and there is a clear separation between Church and State. Also, it has a multi-religious populace. The U.S. emphasizes the freedom to worship, and this applies to all religions.
Tell me about how your training prepared you to work in the highly religious environment of today’s world?
The State Department should have better training on global religious diversity. Most of the religious training is done by staying in touch with developments in the area. However, it is important to recognize that most of the work done doesn’t involve religion.
Some people suggest that within the U.S. government there are many obstacles to learning about religion as well as barriers to engaging with religious actors abroad. What has been your experience?
Religious individual actors play a role and have a rising influence. This can be seen in Tibetan Buddhism, where religion and politics are joined together. Religious tensions are complex: religious individuals behave in political ways, and this raises a troubling moral issue. In China: suppression of certain religious groups, which made them develop an underground movement (called “house churches”). In certain parts of Indonesia, there is a certain sect of Islam that is considered heretical. Religion is internally complex and it is thus hard for the U.S. to formulate a set policy on it. The key is to preach tolerance. But then, the human factor comes in: where do you draw the line? When living in China, I attended the Chinese Language Protestant Church service and met a lot of Chinese Christian leaders. I also met a lot of Muslim leaders during my stay there: for example, in Xian, I met the main Muslim figure of the area.
Can you tell me about any ways that U.S. policy has done well when it comes to thinking about or engaging with religious people, ideas or organizations? Mistakes?
The U.S. has internal religious problems (ex. Mormon persecution) but there is coexistence! In Indonesia, the citizens pride themselves in religious diversity (the university students that used to visit me when I was stationed there as an ambassador used to come in a diverse group made up of varied religions).
However, it is hard to say where the U.S. has done well when it comes to thinking about religious people and engaging them. There shouldn’t be a partnership between the U.S. government and religious groups. The U.S. government should remain secular in its policy, thus implying that U.S. foreign policy should stay out of religion.
What specific role is there for civil society and religious actors when it comes to diplomacy and peace-building?
NGOs and civil society tend to focus on one issue whereas diplomacy encompasses a variety of issues. There is a huge problem with “misinformation” that can only be corrected by the American government.
For example: China: When I was an ambassador there in 1991, I noticed that the conditions there were much better than what was being described by the Western media. In 1993, when China was undergoing reform and a new platform of openness, I will never forget the Western individuals that went to China and were amazed at the misinformation brought about by the Western media: China was not experiencing the terrible conditions that the West described.
So, diplomacy and peace-building can only be brought about by minimizing “misinformation.” Civil society and religious actors can aid in this, but it is primarily the responsibility of the government.
Are there examples in your career when religious factors hindered or aided U.S. policy?
There are problems when the U.S. government gets involved with religion. For example, when the U.S. realized that it needed to improve its image in the Muslim world, the State department prepared a movie about Muslims in the U.S., living in freedom. This plan backfired! Many Imams saw these Muslims as living an impure life. This is an example of the inability of the U.S. to understand the multifaceted nature of Islam. Religion is not a government issue! Do we want the Wahhabi Muslims to interfere in the U.S.? No! The executive branch is neutral!
Over your career, how has the U.S. government’s awareness and/or response to religious factors changed (or stayed the same)?
It changed quite a bit in the ‘50s, the Foreign Service did not emphasize religion. This changed under the Carter Administration with the introduction of human rights reports. This is an example of a government gone wild! We were stretching our responsibilities thin—these reports should be the responsibility of multinational organizations, sponsored by the private sector.
Human rights abroad are only viewed in terms of the violations made toward Americans. What the U.S. should abide by is a missionary approach: if you really care about an issue, go to that country of interest as an independent actor, abide by the local customs of that area. Don’t go with special protection.
How do you define track-two diplomacy?
Track-two’s main actors are former government officials. It deals with the exploration of sensitive issues that cannot be undertaken by government-to-government relations. The relationships fostered under track-two are still government-based, however.
