Background: As part of the Future of Track-Two Diplomacy Undergraduate Fellows Seminar, in spring 2011 Mary Siebenaler interviewed Michael J. Green, senior advisor and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an associate professor at Georgetown University, 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. What drew you to your career (to Asia), and has it been what you expected?
My mother was in the Foreign Service, although she quit to raise me. So I grew up being exposed to the type of government career path I would later follow and that would eventually lead me to [the National Security Council]. The difference is that while my mom worked with Europe, I became an expert on Asia. I had an opportunity to go to Japan after entering the Foreign Service, which I took more or less on a whim. I loved it and eventually developed expertise on the whole region, including China, Korea, and Vietnam.
Has religion influenced any policy issues/regions you’ve worked on?
The issue that comes to mind is trade relations with Vietnam. Many in the government favored expanding trade relations because of the economic benefit, as well as the security benefit we would derive from developing a closer relationship with Vietnam in order to balance China. However, domestic religious advocacy groups from across the political spectrum, including liberal Quakers and Jews and Republican evangelicals, raised opposition in Congress. Vietnam was on the religious freedom Watchlist due to the government’s cruel suppression of house churches, and these groups were instrumental in ensuring that the State Department forced Vietnam to be more tolerant as a prerequisite to economic cooperation.
Do you think that others view the United States as highly religious or secular? What are the implications, from your perspective, of this view by other countries?
I would say that they view the United States as a religious nation. But there is cynicism. The United States is sometimes perceived as using religion as a tool to advance foreign policy goals.
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?
There are obstacles. There is still a major disconnect between the way State Department officials view the world and the way many other Americans view the world. Demographically, it’s not quite so WASP-y as it was in my mother’s day, but there is a certain philosophy that statesmen develop as they make their way into the Department, and this philosophy is accentuated during their years of service. I don’t want to generalize, but diplomats are often not personally religious people, and their worldview gets expressed in policy. They don’t see a difference between being informed by values and imposing values. Their conception of national interest has little room for religious factors. There is also some intergovernmental tension, because often the moral pressure is coming from Congress, and statesmen resent being told how to do their job by outsiders who they feel are unaware of the challenges they face.
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? Can you think of any mistakes or errors in judgment that we can learn from?
I think that domestic religious advocacy groups, development agencies, etc. have been very effective—both by influencing government policy and by facilitating positive nongovernmental engagement. And the tradition goes back a long time. The missionary movement in Asia is a great example. I’ve also seen a real relationship between various presidents’ personal perspectives on religion and the efficacy of U.S. foreign policy in relation to religion. In my personal opinion, [George] H.W. Bush and [Jimmy] Carter were very values-driven individuals, and it showed. [Bill] Clinton and [Barack] Obama, less so. It’s a lot easier to engage religious people, ideas, and organizations when the president is sympathetic.
Do your values shape how you do/did your job?
Yes.
Is there a role to be played by third parties working with governments in international diplomacy?
Yes.
In your opinion, is it in the United States' interest to utilize public funds abroad in partnerships with religious-based development?
Yes.
How do you see new international political order (the rise of China, etc.)? Are non-governmental groups more important than before, and is an economic rather than militaristic approach to foreign policy more suitable?
Yes. Military engagements, for example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, absorb a lot of our attention. However, we forget that they are 170-odd other states that we are not at war with, and in this regard, broad-based diplomacy is critical.
