On April 22, 1997, Douglas Johnston gave me an autographed copy of his groundbreaking 1994 book (co-edited with Cynthia Sampson), Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft. “To a fellow pilgrim,” he inscribed. If I only knew…
That April was the third anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, and just three months previously, I had visited the Ntarama Church outside Kigali. I was with my dad, then with World Vision, who would become the first U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom the next year. It is still impossible to forget the worst of religion: the skull on the communion table overlooking over pews of massacred people, the result of one tribe killing another, undeterred by their common religion.
Doug was trying to bring the best of faith into the equation. I had asked for the conversation with him because, at the time, I was a United States Marine Corps captain, seconded as a staff writer to the National Defense Panel, whose job it was to make a report and recommendations regarding the future of the nation’s security. That report’s consideration of emerging threats was well received, but it only mentioned religion once.
Doug understood what the report implied: that realpolitik and religion (that is, the best of faith) needed to be in conversation—from the consideration of religion as an analytic factor to the possibility that faith’s inherent reconciling nature brought resources that realpolitik could never muster.
As Doug concluded in his book:
What is needed, rather, is a sober appreciation of the continuities of history and the critical role of political, military, and economic factors in creating the conditions that induce decisionmakers to seek—or at least cooperate with—spiritually inspired mediation or conciliation efforts.
Thirteen years later, I echoed Doug’s insight in a review I wrote of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2010 report, “Engaging Religious Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy:”
Ironically, after providing a comprehensive discussion of religion and religious freedom, [the report] does not place that discussion amidst a comprehensive understanding of our global context, let alone the role and responsibilities of the U.S. therein, American grand strategy, or the current organizational structures used to implement U.S. foreign and national security policy…
A "Track 1.5" approach recognizes that every decision about how we address the most complex issues of our day is foremost a decision about how we engage—that is, build and maintain relationships with—the "other" person, ethnic group, faith community, or government. This kind of relational diplomacy calls for a holistic approach that allows those working for governments or NGOs to engage simultaneously from the top-down (governments) and from the bottom-up (grassroots) as they catalyze new partnerships between the public and private spheres governed by transparent agreements that hold governments and NGOs accountable.
Such change requires the intentional education and training of U.S. government personnel (civilian and military) in order to equip them to engage a complex world in which religion, among other "new" issues, plays a critical role.
I remember using “Track 1.5” with Doug for the first time. It was a term that I had started using to describe our work, where the “Track 1” of government-to-government relations (top-down) met the “Track 2” of people-to-people engagement (bottom-up). He said, “That’s good. You make that up?” I nodded yes. “Good, use it.”
Much and not much has changed since my above 2010 review. Yes, there is more and better scholarship on faith and international affairs. There are more courses offered at universities on this topic, there have been more (elective) trainings of government officials, and the community of practitioners is bigger.
But we do not have a “center of excellence” that provides generally accepted education, training, analysis, and recommendations, across political and theological spectrums, regarding the role of faith in international affairs—in a “Track 1.5” manner.
Such a center might recommend the legislation that would mandate education at entry-, mid-, and senior-level for civil servants and military/agency officers (the top-down), equipping them—along with non-governmental organizations, businesses, and journalists (the bottom-up)—to think more holistically about how they can better engage with the majority world (which is rather religious) and each other.
Moreover, we still do not have a place that manages and nurtures the relationships with religious actors and communities in different regions of the world, no matter the issue (and no matter the government)—actors who are critical to policy implementation and sustainable solutions. It was Doug who taught me in 2003 that, “There are always good people in bad places; and, of course, there are bad people in bad places.”
Doug proposed that we have a “religion attaché” do this job—a great idea. Alternatively, over the years, I have suggested that American military chaplains, or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), might play this non-partisan role. The service chaplaincies, however, have never expressed interest in this mission, despite some great practitioners in their ranks. USAID stepped in the right direction with its first-ever summit in 2020 on strategic religious engagement, but it no longer exists.
Toward A New Framework for Including Faith in International Affairs
I propose a global, nonpartisan, Alliance on Faith and International Affairs (AFIA), with national chapters worldwide, which could provide the minimal infrastructure for a community of practice organized around relationship. It would include like-minded souls—scholars and practitioners alike—who understand religion as essential to sustainable solutions at the intersections of Track 1 and Track 2. Done right, this alliance might also help steward a country’s relationships abroad, while equipping its citizens from both tracks to engage holistically and historically.
As such, AFIA would not be subject to the whim and whipsaw of any government, business, or NGO. Instead, the alliance would stand apart from all of them, offering “Track 1.5” insight and recommendations. The alliance might provide a wiki-approach to research, metrics, data analytics, and hand-selected task forces that develop specific assessments and analyses of a given (set of interrelated) issue(s). The alliance would have a ready ally in The Review of Faith & International Affairs for publication.
In particular, the alliance could provide members trained in reconciliation—rooted in their respective traditions—to help, as Doug imagined, with intransigent issues and/or players. In the same vein, the alliance could offer certificate programs in mutually respectful engagement. As a result, no matter the issue or trend at hand, over time there would be alumni within the relevant agencies, organizations, and businesses to help make and implement good policies; strengthened by their relationships across bureaucratic boundaries.
Such an alliance, nationally or globally, would probably have a governing board of charter members that would eventually rotate—although a secretariat would likely have to be based at a specific institution or (as its own) organization.
We pilgrims forge forward, as we should, as we must, still seeking to answer Doug’s call to bring the best of faith into international affairs: as a reconciling force between religion and realpolitik; between the forces at play in any conflict situation; between Tracks 1 and 2; among agencies, organizations, and journalists; and between us and the majority world.
The call still beckons…
