Situations and Contextsfaith

by Mohammad Rajja
May 14, 2010

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/722/situations-and-contextsfaith

The sensible, the experienced, the cynical, absolutely each diplomat of the conventional sort will want to know: What dissimilarity does faith-based diplomacy make? With all the composure of a divine grounding, the faith-based civil servant strength responds with Mother Teresa's witticism that faithfulness, not achievement, is what matter. True, the majority important virtue of faith-based international relations is doubtless faith itself, the conviction that one's actions will, from end to end divine help, bear bountiful fruit. Still, yet the least worldly-minded faith-based civil servant must attentions himself in whether his employment affects high-quality or ill succeed or go wrong.

An interest in effects begets an interest in the situations in which the work most likely occurs. There are at least five of these.

First, there are conflicts whose parties define themselves by their religion and perhaps even fight over religion: Sudan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, in important ways, the conflicts of the 1990s in Yugoslavia. Kashmir is ever more such a conflict as militant groups come more and more to seek not merely self-determination but the spread of Dar al Islam. In such conflicts, an approach that resonates with the religious worldview of the factions may well achieve successes that purely secular approaches will not. As a former militant leader told us, "it is not enough to take the gun out of the militant's hand. One must deal with the ideas that compel him to pick up the gun in the first place. To do that, one must present a more compelling idea."

The second situation favorable to faith-based diplomacy is one in which, regardless of the identities of the parties, certain religious leaders enjoy a charisma that they may exercise for settlement and reconciliation. Gandhi's ability to halt rioting through fasting during the partition of India is exemplary, explainable only through his own concept of "soul force."

The third situation is civilizational dialogue. Conflict, at least of the broad ideological sort, occurs even among the broadest religious collectivities -- Islamic and Western civilizations, for example, between which popular tensions have escalated as of late. In response, both President MohamedKhatami of Iran and Pope John Paul have proposed a "dialogue between civilizations" that involves spiritual conversations among religious leaders. People of faith are indeed equipped well to foster such dialogue as they understand the complexities of the theologies that define worldviews, and are able to avoid shallow forms of common ground that seek a lowest common denominator that few devout religious believers can endorse.

Fourth are situations in which faith-based diplomats are well located to become trusted envoys. This location may arise on or after their links surrounded by a society -- witness Sant'Egidio's network of friendships in Mozambique. Or, it may move toward from a leader's standing. The role that Reverend Jesse Jackson played in negotiating for hostages in Yugoslavia and Lebanon is such a case. In both cases, parties were additional eager to harmony high opinion to faith-based diplomats because of their religious profession.

A fifth, in a different way balanced state of affairs is one anywhere people of faith play an effectual oppositional role, mobilizing confrontation to unfairness. Gandhi's leadership of India's independence movement, King's leadership of the civil rights movement, and John Paul II's inspiration of the movement to resist the Communist government Poland are all examples. In each case, the religious leader drew upon some of the tools so as to have been discussing prestige, soul-force, a link of networks with a society -- to inspire followers to complaint, organize, and oppose in the majority hazardous of situation.

All told, then, in any of these situations, what dissimilarity strength any of the above main beliefs and practices make? Staged results are abundant on the person level -- in the bitter partisan who comes to hug forgiveness and healing, in the cadres of committed friends and protester who freely put themselves in danger by coming to urge reconciliation, in alteration and healings and renewals. We have seen such results in Kashmir. But faith-based international relations can alter nations' histories, too. In the last twenty years, religious actions have helped to topple totalitarianism in Poland, the Philippines, East Germany, Brazil, South Africa, and somewhere else. In the wake up of transition, they have been instrumental in bringing settlement in South Africa and Chile. They contain also brokered peace settlements in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and between Chile and Argentina. The consequences should not be vulgar. Few of the changes in Eastern Europe or South Africa would have occurred apart from the conclusion of the Cold War; in every case, economic, following and social situation and management on many front assist to create the result. These lots of layers of causality merit humbleness. But the similar episode also ought to motivate courage. Large in meaning, concerted in time, each manner the instantly recognizable impression of faith, they jointly put forward that faith-based diplomacy is, in the language of Victor Hugo, "an idea whose time has come."

The writer can be reached at e-mail: arnold_raza@yahoo.com

Related Topics:  International News receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list