Political and Institutional Approaches to Advancing International Religious Freedom in the U.S. Foreign Policy in 1998–2020
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-5-86-150-181
Abstract
The article traces the institutional and political evolution of the US implementing its concept of international religious freedom from 1998 to 2020. The concept became popular after the end of the Cold War when the defense of religion against socialistatheist ideas had lost its relevance due to political (the collapse of the Eastern bloc) and cultural (the growing importance of religion in many non-Western countries of the world) reasons. The article starts by reviewing the history of the emergence and development of the institutional infrastructure (legal acts, administrative entities, public and political organizations, think tanks, expert platforms, interdepartmental coordination formats, human rights projects, funding and grant programs, and new international organizations) that supported the US foreign policy advancing international religious freedom. The article divides the reconstruction of this process into two periods formed by adopting two acts: in 1998 — the International Religious Freedom Act, and in 2016 — the amendment to this Act named after congressman Frank Wolf. The study concludes that over the past twenty years, religion has finally developed as an independent track of the US foreign policy, although it has been developing inconsistently and has undergone repeated corrections. The concept of international religious freedom has become the ideational basis of this track, while the extensive institutional and political infrastructure serves as its apparatus. More than 80 percent of the world's population encounters religious persecution. It legitimizes the concept, which encourages widespread support for religious minorities as opposed to the religious majority, and opens the way for the US to build sustainable ties with religious communities and their leaders worldwide, allowing them to influence political processes in different regions. The US has recently promoted the integration of this policy track into international institutions, establishing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.
About the Author
V. A. Shchipkov
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (university)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vasily A. Shchipkov — PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor at International Journalism Department
119454, Moscow, Prospekt Vernadskogo, 76
References
1. Annicchino P. 2017. Law and International Religious Freedom: The Rise and Decline of the American Model. London, New York: Routledge. 128 p.
2. Apodaca K. 2019. Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Prevarications and Evasions. London, New York: Routledge. 210 p.
3. Beaumont J. et al. The Routledge Handbook of Postsecularity. London, New York: Routledge. 470 p.
4. Berger P. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Doubleday. 230 p.
5. Berger P. 1999. The Desecularization of the World: A Global Overview. In: P. Berger (ed.) The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, Eerdmans. 143 p.
6. Bettiza G. 2019. Finding Faith in Foreign Policy: Religion and American Diplomacy in a Postsecular World. New York: Oxford University Press. 336 p.
7. Blitt R. C. 2020. The International Religious Freedom Act: Non-State Actors and Freedom from Sovereign Government Control. Marquette Law Review. Vol. 103. P. 547-579.
8. Casanova J. 1994. Public Religion in the Modern World. Chicago, Ilinois: University of Chicago Press. 301 p.
9. Clark E., Vovk D. 2019. Religion During the Russian Ukrainian Conflict. London, New York: Routledge. 248 p.
10. Durham W.C., Martínez-Torron J., Thayer D. (eds.) 2021. Law, Religion, and Freedom: Conceptualizing a Common Right. London, New York: Routledge. 428 p.
11. Farr T. 2008. World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty Is Vital to American National Security. New York: Oxford University Press. 367 p.
12. Grim B.J., Finke R. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. 272 p.
13. Hurd E.S. 2015. Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 216 p.
14. Milbank J. 2006. Theology & Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 484 p.
15. Sallivan W., Hurd E.S. (eds.). 2015. Politics of Religious Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 344 p.
16. Scharffs B.G., Maoz A. (eds.). 2018. Religious Freedom and the Law: Emerging Contexts for Freedom for and from Religion. London, New York: Routledge. 244 p.
17. Su A. 2016. Exporting Freedom: Religious Liberty and American Power. Cambridge (Massachusetts), London: Harvard University Press. 296 p.
18. Turner B. S. (ed.). 2010. The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion. Malden, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 712 p.
19. Emelin M.Yu., Nikolaev B.V. 2020. Pravovye osnovy mezhdunarodnoi religioznoi politiki SShA [Legal Foundations of the International Religious Policy of the United States.]. Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriia i praktika. No 12. P. 153-155. (In Russian).
20. Habermas J. 2002. Budushchee chelovecheskoi prirody. Na puti k liberalnoi evgenike [The Future of Human Nature. Towards a Liberal Eugenics?]. Moscow: Ves Mir. 144 p. (In Russian).
21. Lunkin R.N. 2018. Osobennosti amerikanskogo vospriiatiia religioznoi situatsii v Ukraine [Features of the American Perception of the Religious Situation in Ukraine]. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN. No5. P. 193-197. (In Russian).
22. Uzlaner D.A. 2019. Konec religii? Istoriya teorii sekulyarizacii [The End of Religion; the History of the Theory of Secularization]. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. 240 p.
Review
For citations:
Shchipkov V.A. Political and Institutional Approaches to Advancing International Religious Freedom in the U.S. Foreign Policy in 1998–2020. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2022;15(5):150-181. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-5-86-150-181
Views:
525
Email this article 