A Discussion with Paul Wee, Professorial Lecturer at George Washington University

May 22, 2011

Background: As part of the Future of Track-Two Diplomacy Undergraduate Fellows Seminar, in spring 2011 Saaliha Khan interviewed Paul Wee, professorial lecturer at George Washington University, about the intersections of U.S. foreign policy, religion, and track-two diplomacy.

What do you see as the intersection of religion and politics in today’s world?

It’s simply a fact: The religious dimension is a given. The legitimate question is how best this interaction takes place. Well in this country we have a tradition, separation of church and state; but that is also misunderstood. What do we really mean by that? We mean an institutional separation but a functional interaction. There is a way, since the beginning of this country that the churches, mosques, and synagogues have worked together with the state for the public good of this country. And that’s a good functional aspect. One has to make sure that the first amendment is not being violated and make sure the government is not favoring one religion over another. We have to figure things out, keep working on them whether it is abortion or capital punishment; we have to hold onto these principles. I want to know what an individual running for election believes in, if he is committed to justice, which has a strong religious place. There is the fact of interaction and we have to keep honing that. In this country, we must maintain our principles of the constitution but the idea of separation was—I think it was a letter from a friend to Thomas Jefferson mentioning “the wall of separation,” and it’s not part of the constitution. We just have to make sure that everyone is on the same level playing field and we really have to work on that.

How do you think the U.S. has responded (or not responded) to religion’s multidimensionality in today’s world?

Well, I have read Doug Johnston’s book, Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft. And I think Dr. Johnston points it out very well why we have neglected religion, shows how there is “empirical reductivism,” that our understanding of truth has been reduced to what is rationally dissectible and touchable. And truth as far as what is meaningful and the soul of the community has been pushed back into some kind of existential wastebasket. That’s part of the problem. And partly, it’s this false understanding of church and state.

If you look back at the Iranian Revolution of 1979, you do see, as most people recognize now, we don’t have eyes to see that this was not just an issue of secularism and fanaticism, but these were deep religious aspirations of a people who said, “No that’s not what constitutes our lives.” And so we missed it.

Through my experience in Nigeria, you can’t be an African and not be religious. Religion is part of the parcel. You can’t just move it to the side. It is the soul of the people. We have to come back. One major event in the last couple years was the speech President Obama gave in Cairo and it was genuine. As soon as he said "Assalamualikum," and gave the address, he acknowledged publicly that religious dimension is a legitimate part of life and has to be taken into consideration in foreign policy.

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?

After 9/11, it became difficult to move away from the cliché that the West and Islam are clashing. This assumes the dichotomy. When Pres. Bush used the word “crusade” early on, these images bring back historical conflicts and misunderstandings. This perpetuates these things and even in the churches. We need a lot more awareness about Islam. People do not understand the life story of Muhammad, who worked for justice and to restore harmony and balance. We have a long way to go in awareness and other problems, history of anti-Semitism, and so forth. Instead of a Rush Limbaugh type of insensitive approach to the world, which disregards the spiritual dimension, more people are now coming to see that the U.S. is sensitive to the religious dimension, thanks largely to Obama.

Can you share with me some insight from your experiences in working with the Religion and Peacemaking program at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP)?

The USIP is a very good organization and more people should contribute to it because USIP can save us from all kinds of mistakes. I’ve seen teams working in all kinds of countries and they do good work. They have a small unit called Religion and Peacemaking, which I think is very effective where it does work.

My own experience in Nigeria was basically with Christians and Muslims in the Plateau and the Kaduna state, that’s on that north south dividing line. It’s not so simple, but the Muslims predominate in the North and the Christians mainly in the south. And the population of a 140 million is about evenly divided in half. The tensions occur not exclusively but largely on that line of connection.

Through USIP, the indigenous groups have been equipped to deal with the conflicts on their own terms. Two militias fought and massacred each other until something happened where they found each other. That was until these two guys, an Imam, Muhammad Ashafa and the Pastor, James Jr. set up a Kaduna base mediation center. A great DVD has also been made, it captures how the imam and a pastor became close friends and would go off in their mini-vans helping people to deal with conflict when it arises. It’s an award-winning DVD that shows how the process occurred. They fought, people died and now they are united. They travel together and go to Kenya and Ghana to serve as an example. The UN has recognized them and they received some international recognition. They even come to Washington to share their story sometimes.

To share one of my stories—there was a massacre, there were 4,000 bodies, and mosques and churches were burned everywhere. And the crowd was gathering to ask the question whether they could live together anymore, so it was very tense. There were military people there. There were 10,000 people in the gathering and the imam gave me the microphone to address them. I was there just to observe and learn. It was a fantastic moment. The crowd waited and then I had the microphone. I said “Assalamualaikum” and said, “Peace be upon you,” as the population was half Muslim, and half Christian. Then I said a prayer, I’m a pastor, that’s what you do when you don’t know what to say. I just said, “Allah, God, lift this place,” and I’m not sure exactly what I said, but something really interesting happened. A Muslim woman came to the crowd and preceded to hand her little baby to me. Everybody was watching; it was still tense. I wondered if that was a sign of trust. The baby started to cry; he was crying, screaming and squirming as I was holding him. I looked over behind me and Muhammad, the imam and James, the pastor, started laughing. I gave the baby back to the mother and then the entire crowd was laughing. The tenseness was gone. There was a different mood in the entire crowd. There was singing and dancing, and a big dinner that followed. I was shaking after this happened and this was so powerful. I looked over; I could see this line up of soldiers there to make sure that there were no problems. It could’ve gone the other way b/c people had horrible memories of the massacres. Somehow that moment was a way of bringing out everybody’s humanity and all the labels disappeared.

At the dinner that night, the elders, who are very important, came and even the women and youth came and then there was a discussion. The elders spoke first and I witnessed some unbelievably lively discussion. Then they decided they would build a common market together—not a Muslim market, or a Christian market, one market. They let me help them put some of the pieces of wood and it was a great photo op. My colleagues at USIP helped set the groundwork for this to happen. People in Congress should know, before they start slashing all the funds, that all over the world, moments like this take place, that are the seeds for reconciliation, understanding and peace. Even though I am no longer with USIP, I am very much in support and favor of what they do.

Can you give some recommendation to the U.S. government when it comes to thinking about and engaging with religious people, ideas, and/or organizations?

USIP uses the track one and a half diplomacy approach. I am a person who is totally convinced that groups, organizations, individuals, and people really can make a difference. I must say the Pentagon is way ahead of the State Department, in acknowledging the religious dimension and being more attentive to it. One example would be when U.S. General David Petraeus asked all his commanders to read the book, Three Cups of Tea. It’s the better approach, a way of deeper understanding.

We cannot superimpose our ideology on others. We must understand that doesn’t work. It is important to equip and empower local people. There are different approaches that work in different cultures. The indigenous people have their own wisdom: they have their own sense of the land, family, cause, effect, time and space. There is an ontological and metaphysical dimension that one must grasp. Even if you have good intentions, you can make a mess of things. We must understand the basic assumptions and values under which people live. We tend to forget the mistakes we have made in the past and we repeat them, especially in contracting groups such as Black Water, who are insensitive and demeaning, treat other people as if they were less than human. There must be a new awareness.

It’s a combination of grassroots and top down that creates change in civil society. There needs to be deep changes in political, economic, small business, religious, all these fields. The role that people can play in establishing peace is through strengthening civil society across the board. People need a structure through which to channel their desire for freedom and democracy. There must be an indigenous, organic, strong civil society in order to maintain democracy because they represent the people.

Opens in a new window