“In the mounting disorder of the ‘new world order’ of the 1990s, foreign policy (and religious) practitioners will need to use every approach available to them, including synergistic combinations of tracks I and II.” This sentence in the concluding chapter of Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft (1994), edited by Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, resonates with a similar timbre 30 years later, in the 2020s: disorder, complex interconnections, and a demand to look across many sectors and disciplines for complex solutions to today’s ever more complex conflict situations.
Much history has unfolded since Missing Dimension appeared, and, with this passage of time, religious forces have attracted far more attention, both negative and positive. The book and its authors galvanized a heightened sensitivity and supported both insights and action, notably linked to an underlying capacity for engagement. High-profile conflicts in the past two decades with pronounced religious dimensions, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks and the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS), have drawn significantly greater attention to the role of religion in conflict.
My sense, nonetheless, is that too often, what Johnston and Sampson argued for—a deep appreciation for context, complexity, and the need for synergies—is still elusive. Few conflicts have, as a single or even primary cause, religious motivations or tensions. Few conflicts have been, or could be, resolved with religious peacemaking or design alone. Yet, few conflicts lack a religious dimension. And without engaging religious actors and a recognition of religious dynamics, lasting, just, and durable solutions are rare. What’s too often missing, therefore, is the necessary profound appreciation for religious context and purposeful, strategic engagement of the wide range of religious actors throughout what are the lengthy roads to ending conflicts and building what today we call sustainable peace.
In the countless reflections that take place about conflict and peace, it is not uncommon to hear widely different assertions about their religious dimensions. For the same conflict, one analyst may contend that the situation is primarily linked to religious actors or tensions linked to beliefs and practices, while another commentator may argue that the conflict drivers are entirely political in nature. Examples where I have witnessed such differing explanations, often in the same setting, are Nigeria, Myanmar/Burma, Sri Lanka, and the Balkans. In each situation, parsing the analysis highlights both the complexities of each situation and, commonly, the distinctive perspectives of the observers.
The reality, in virtually any situation, is that religious dimensions are intertwined with the economic, cultural, historical, and political events and personalities that produce the combustion of violent conflict. And in a parallel pattern, progress—or lack thereof—in brokering an end to conflict and promoting a durable peace may be perceived differently, notably in the role assigned to religious actors. To put it simplistically, religious factors can be seen as part of the problem and part of the solution.
Both interconnections and raw complexities help explain diverging understandings of situations. And in many cases that is par for the course—seeking uniform and static explanations for South Sudan or Syria or Iraq is neither the goal, nor is it especially helpful. So, what today might we designate as a “missing dimension”? And why might it matter in the deeply important priority of seeking paths towards real peace?
The main culprits, I would argue, might be: first, a still too simplistic tendency to oversimplify the religious dimensions of pretty much any society, including those where conflict results in deep social and political rifts and violence. Many peace analysts and practitioners have limited grounding to support a rich understanding of the religious landscape, including the multiple actors and identities involved in quite different situations. They may see religion through a single lens that obscures many factors or, with preconceptions and partial information, distorts a complex and dynamic reality. And second, mental maps drawn from “textbooks” (living or written texts and inherited narratives) may lead in wrong directions. Both can contribute to missing appreciation and overlooking opportunities to act.
The Missing Dimension approach focuses on seeing and understanding the religious factors, but still more on working with synergy and connection. The first imperative is to look to and for the religious dimensions of a conflict and address habits of blindness or distorted lenses and understandings. Then, the task is to integrate that appreciation in a robust contextual view. And, with this richer understanding, one is able to engage religious actors.
The notions of Tracks I and II follow from the need for a strategic approach to religious peacebuilding: in some situations, the religious actors are linked to a state or diplomacy led process (Track I), in others to non-state leadership that might be religious (Track II). Experience shows that there are both variations and gradations (characterized for example as Track one and a half). Finally, the essential appreciation for more local processes that ground national or interstate action and bring peacebuilding to a human people-centered reality can be labeled Track III. One might even label a personal, psychological approach as “Track IV”.
The urgent need to see and appreciate complex religious dynamics in conflict is an enduring lesson of the Johnston and Sampson work. In the past 30 years, as more conflicts have unfolded and knowledge has expanded, other ideas and imperatives have taken root. Two points deserve emphasis. Inclusion is one, and, with special reference to the tendency of formal religious structures to favor men and age, women’s roles are vital. When one looks for it, women’s religious roles in many situations, too often invisible, emerge as a dynamic and important factor. And likewise, ignoring younger people is a common flaw. Further, conflict resolution is never sufficient. Sustained attention is needed to what, in French, one might call the soudure (point of welding) between peacemaking and the long-term efforts required to build a flourishing society, even in the midst of conflict.
The vision and robust analysis of the Missing Dimension book sparked rethinking and new kinds of attention. The call for integration and synergy among different actors resonates today as we confront a world with conflicts that are still more complex and stubborn, each with its own religious dynamic. Religious actors, who nearly unanimously call for peace, while seeking spiritual and practical paths and tools to play a more active role in building peace, have demanding roles. Their work will require a commitment to cross-sector collaboration, as well as courage, creativity, cooperation, compassion, and persistence.
