Given the different worldviews and foreign policy pursuits of realism and liberal internationalism, how is it they come to a similar conclusion that religious beliefs and practices, except in extremis, should not affect in any substantive way how foreign policy is conducted? What accounts for this continued religion-avoidance even after 9/11?
To realists, religious beliefs and actions are relevant to the realist model of international affairs only when they drive the policy decisions of governments or help us to understand the levers of power. Assuming that religion is inherently irrational, religion rarely fits into realist construct as a unit of analysis. Meanwhile, liberal internationalists tend to see traditional religious communities as obstacles to the adoption of liberal policies, such as sexual liberation and the determinative value of human autonomy.
This blindness to religion has harmed the interests of Western democracies, and policy makers should strive to improve their willingness and their ability to account for the religious realities of the contemporary international order.
Program:
Opens in a new window