1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 201 February 2008

Special Report

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions .

Contents 

 Religion and Conflict 2

Religious Activism to Promote Peace with Justice 3

Religious Mediation and Facilitation 4

Interfaith Dialogue 6

U.S. Government Neglect of the Religious Dimension 7

Conclusion 8 

About the Report

Since its creation in 2000, the United States 

Institute of Peace’s Religion and Peacemaking 

program has worked with local partners to promote 

religious peacemaking in many parts of the world, 

including Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, 

Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and 

Indonesia. This report represents reflections on 

that experience. David Smock has directed the 

Institute’s Religion and Peacemaking program 

since its inception. He is also its vice president of 

the Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution.

 

David Smock

Religion in World Affairs

Its Role in Conflict and Peace 

Summary

• No major religion has been exempt from complicity in violent conflict. Yet we need 

to beware of an almost universal propensity to oversimplify the role that religion 

plays in international affairs. Religion is not usually the sole or even primary cause 

of conflict.

• With so much emphasis on religion as a source of conflict, the role of religion as a 

force in peacemaking is usually overlooked. 

• Religious affiliation and conviction often motivates religious communities to 

advocate particular peace-related government policies. Religious communities also 

directly oppose repression and promote peace and reconciliation. 

• Religious leaders and institutions can mediate in conflict situations, serve as a 

communication link between opposing sides, and provide training in peacemaking 

methodologies. This form of religious peacemaking garners less public attention but 

is growing in importance.

• Interfaith dialogue is another form of religious peacemaking. Rather than seeking 

to resolve a particular conflict, it aims to defuse interfaith tensions that may cause 

future conflict or derive from previous conflict. Interfaith dialogue is expanding 

even in places where interreligious tensions are highest. Not infrequently, the most 

contentious interfaith relationships can provide the context for the most meaningful 

and productive exchanges. 

• Given religion’s importance as both a source of international conflict and a resource 

for peacemaking, it is regrettable that the U.S. government is so ill equipped to handle religious issues and relate to religious actors. If the U.S. government is to insert 

itself into international conflicts or build deeper and more productive relationships 

with countries around the world, it needs to devise a better strategy to effectively 

and respectfully engage with the religious realm. 

In recent decades, religion has assumed unusual prominence in international affairs. A 

recent article in The Economist asserts that, if there ever was a global drift toward secuUnited States Institute of Peace www.usip.org
2

larism, it has been halted and probably reversed.1 In the article, Philip Jenkins, a noted 

scholar from Pennsylvania State University, predicts that when historians look back at this 

century they will see religion as “the prime animating and destructive force in human 

affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood and, 

of course, conflicts and wars.” The article then cites statistics from a public opinion survey 

in Nigeria demonstrating that Nigerians believe religion to be more central to their identity 

than nationality. Nigerians are thus more likely to identify themselves first and foremost 

as Christians or Muslims rather than as Nigerians. The horrendous events of September 11, 

the conflagration in Iraq, and the aggressive assertiveness of quasi-theocratic Iran only 

confirm in the popular mind that religion lies behind much of contemporary international 

conflict. 

Religion and Conflict

Throughout the world, no major religion is exempt from complicity in violent conflict. 

Religious conviction certainly was one of the motivations for the September 11 attacks 

and other violent actions by Muslim extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some Buddhist monks assert an exclusively Buddhist identity for Sri Lanka, fanning the flames of 

conflict there. Some Christian and Muslim leaders from former Yugoslavia saw themselves 

as protecting their faiths when they defended violence against the opposing faith communities in the Balkan wars. 

Yet we need to beware of an almost universal propensity to oversimplify the role that 

religion plays in international affairs. Iran’s international assertiveness is as much due to 

Iranian-Persian nationalism as it is to the dictates of Shiite clerics. The international policies that Iran’s clerics adopt rarely are driven by theological precepts or religious doctrine, 

but rather political power calculations and a desire to preserve the quasi-theocratic status 

quo. Similarly, in Iraq, conflict between Sunnis and Shiites rarely stems from differences 

over religious doctrine and practice, but rather from historical and contemporary competition for state power. Sunni and Shiite identities are as much ethnic as religious, and 

intergroup relations between the two are very similar, though more violent, than relations 

between Walloons and Flemish in Belgium or between English and French in Canada, where 

language and culture rather than religious belief constitute the primary sources of division. 

Meanwhile, the Kurds—the third principal constituent community in Iraq—are ethnically 

based. Most Kurds are also Sunni Muslims. This is not to suggest that religious identity 

is synonymous with ethnic identity, as in many circumstances religious identity implies 

explicitly religious behavior and belief. But in many cases the lines between ethnic and 

religious identities become so blurred that parsing them to assign blame for violence is difficult if not impossible. Religious identity has often been used to mobilize one side against 

the other, as has happened in Iraq, Sudan, and elsewhere; populations have responded to 

calls to defend one’s faith community. But to describe many such conflicts as rooted in 

religious differences or to imply that theological or doctrinal differences are the principal 

causes of conflict is to seriously oversimplify and misrepresent a complex situation. 

The decades-long civil war in Sudan is often described as a religious conflict between 

Muslims and Christians, with the north being predominantly Muslim and the south predominantly Christian or animist. There is some truth to this characterization, particularly 

after 1989, when an Islamic fundamentalist government came to power in Khartoum with 

an agenda to Islamicize all of Sudan. But the differences between north and south go 

well beyond religion and rarely are the disagreements religious or theological in character. 

Northerners speak Arabic and want Arabic to be Sudan’s national language. Southerners 

generally speak Arabic only as a second or third language, if at all, and prefer English as 

the lingua franca. Northerners are more likely to identify with the Arab world, whereas 

southerners tend to identify themselves as Africans. Thus, racial identity is fundamental 

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. Its 

goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, promote post-conflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict-management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. 

The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, 

skills, and resources, as well as by its direct involvement in 

conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chairman), President, ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Vice President, 

Government Affairs, International Justice Mission, Washington, D.C. • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, 

American University, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, 

James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of 

Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 

• Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, 

Washington, D.C. • Kathleen Martinez, Executive Director, 

World Institute on Disability • George E. Moose, Adjunct 

Professor of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George 

Mason University, Fairfax, Va. • Ron Silver, Actor, Producer, 

Director, Primparous Productions, Inc. • Judy Van Rest, 

Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute, 

Washington, D.C. 

Members ex officio

Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State • Robert M. Gates,

Secretary of Defense • Richard H. Solomon, President, United 

States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) • Frances C. Wilson,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps; President, National 

Defense University.

In many cases the lines 

between ethnic and religious 

identities become so blurred 

that parsing them to assign 

blame for violence is difficult 

if not impossible.
3

to the division between north and south. The religious division between Christian and 

Muslim happens to overlap with these racial, ethnic, and geographical divisions, but the 

conflict’s divide has not been confined to or even dominated by religion. British colonial 

policy also reinforced the divisions between north and south, and over the past twenty 

years Christians have fought Christians in the south and Muslims have fought Muslims in 

Darfur. 

In Nigeria, religion is divisive and a factor in conflict, but it is often exaggerated as 

the cause of conflict. The popular press asserts that tens of thousands of Nigerians have 

died in religious warfare over the last decade. True, many died, both Christians and Muslims, in riots over Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Others were killed when Christians opposed extending the authority of sharia courts in several northern states. But the 

causes of many of the killings have not been exclusively religious. In places like Kaduna 

and Plateau State, conflicts described as religious have been more complicated than that; 

the causes also include the placing of markets, economic competition, occupational differences, the ethnic identity of government officials, respect for traditional leaders, and 

competition between migrants and indigenous populations.2

In both Somalia and Afghanistan, one source of the conflicts is over which brand of 

Islam will prevail. But in both cases clan and ethnic differences define the composition 

of the forces in conflict as much as religious differences do. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, 

the management of and access to religious sites are sources of serious disagreement and 

extreme religious groups—both Jewish and Muslim—exacerbate the problem. But religion is not the principal factor underlying the conflict; rather, conflict is principally over 

control of land and state sovereignty.

All of these cases demonstrate that while religion is an important factor in conflict, 

often marking identity differences, motivating conflict, and justifying violence, religion 

is not usually the sole or primary cause of conflict. The reality is that religion becomes 

intertwined with a range of causal factors—economic, political, and social—that define, 

propel, and sustain conflict. Certainly, religious disagreements must be addressed 

alongside these economic, political, and social sources to build lasting reconciliation. 

Fortunately, many of the avenues to ameliorate religious violence lie within the religious 

realm itself. 

Religious Activism to Promote Peace with Justice

The public perception prevails that religion is a principal source of international conflict, 

but the role of religion as a force in peacemaking is usually overlooked. The United States 

became heavily engaged in trying to bring peace to Sudan because evangelical Christians 

pressured the Bush administration to deepen its engagement. Evangelical concern was 

based initially on an oversimplified view of the conflict, that an Islamic fundamentalist 

government was forcing Christians and animists in southern Sudan to convert to Islam. 

As evangelicals mobilized, they developed a more nuanced and authentic understanding 

of the conflict. Jews have joined Christians and others in bringing public attention to the 

crisis in Darfur because widespread slaughter there has been viewed as genocide, provoking memories of the Holocaust. 

Religious communities have also directly opposed repression and promoted peace and 

reconciliation. Churches in Eastern Europe mobilized opposition to Soviet occupation. 

More famously, clergymen Desmond Tutu, Frank Chikane, and Beyers Naude in South Africa 

worked to break the bonds of apartheid. This effort entailed not only civil disobedience 

and advocacy for international sanctions against South Africa, but also shaming white 

South African Christians into recognizing that their effort to justify apartheid contradicted 

biblical teachings. The Dutch Reformed Church—sometimes described as “the Nationalist 

Party at prayer”—did not fully accept that argument until after the government abanReligion is not usually the sole 

or primary cause of conflict.

Religious communities have also 

directly opposed repression and 

promoted peace and reconciliation.
4

doned apartheid, but many whites did become uncomfortable with the structures they 

had devised and imposed. 

More recently, the civil disobedience of Buddhist monks in Burma (Myanmar) dramatically illustrated how religion could motivate the promotion of human rights and peace. In 

addition to the street demonstrations that garnered so much national and international 

attention, the monks’ refusal to accept alms from members of the military was a particularly poignant declaration that the regime’s policies and actions violated Buddhism’s 

fundamental precepts. The regime recognized that the demonstrations generated much 

greater international attention and domestic pressure than would have been the case if 

they had been exclusively secular. The monks’ moral authority and respect that others 

have for them, the symbolic resources they drew upon, their chants for compassion, and 

their nonviolent approach all contributed to a deeply persuasive message and image. The 

largely religious leadership of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1960s carried similar 

moral weight and authority.

According to Douglas Johnston, in promoting peace and reconciliation, religious leaders and organizations offer credibility as trusted institutions; a respected set of values; 

moral warrants to oppose injustice; unique leverage for promoting reconciliation among 

conflicting parties; capability to mobilize community, nation, and international support 

for a peace process; and a sense of calling that often inspires perseverance in the face of 

major and otherwise debilitating obstacles.3

Religious Mediation and Facilitation

Religious leaders and institutions can be mediators in conflict situations, serve as a communication link between opposing sides, and provide training in peacemaking methodologies. In the summer of 2001, Rabbi Menachem Froman, chief rabbi of the Tekoa settlement 

in the West Bank, approached the United States Institute of Peace and indicated that one 

of the two chief rabbis of Israel, Bakshi Doron, and the chief Palestinian sheikh, Talal Sidr, 

wanted to come to the Institute to sign a joint declaration for religious peace between 

Israel and Palestine. While the Institute welcomed this initiative, it did not turn out to 

be feasible, largely because of visa problems that Sidr encountered. But then Archbishop 

of Canterbury George Carey became involved and in January 2002 helped organize a large 

conference in Alexandria, Egypt for many of the most highly placed Jewish, Muslim, 

and Christian leaders from Israel and Palestine. The participants signed a declaration of 

religious peace that became known as the Alexandria Declaration. The Alexandria process 

has continued since then, with regular interfaith meetings of religious leaders held in 

Jerusalem, guided by Canon Andrew White of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation 

in the Middle East (FRRME), Rabbi Michael Melchior, and, until his death, Sheikh Talal 

Sidr. The Institute has been the principal financial backer of the Alexandria process since 

it began. With financial support from the Institute and other sources, Rabbi Melchior has 

also established centers in Israel and Gaza to promote interfaith dialogue more broadly 

in Israel and Palestine. 

Recently, under the leadership of Rabbi David Rosen and Muslim and Christian leaders 

in Israel and Palestine, a new interfaith organization has been launched with a similar mission to that the Alexandria process, namely, to provide a religious track to what hopefully 

will be a political track to promote peace in the Middle East. Before the Annapolis peace 

conference in November 2007, this Council of Religious Institutions in the Holy Land sent 

a delegation to Washington consisting of the highest-ranking Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders in the Holy Land to reinforce the message that religious leaders in Israel and 

Palestine are committed to a serious peace process. They agreed upon a six-point plan to 

use their positions of leadership “to prevent religion being used as a source of conflict, 

and to serve the goals of a just and comprehensive peace and reconciliation.”

The civil disobedience of Buddhist 

monks in Burma (Myanmar) dramatically illustrated how religion 

could motivate the promotion of 

human rights and peace. 
5

Rabbi Froman has reached across the typical lines of religious and ethnic division to 

communicate with Hamas. When Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (who was killed in 

2004) was incarcerated in an Israeli prison, Froman visited him frequently, and the two 

men formed a bond due to their shared religiosity despite their adherence to different 

traditions. Before Yasser Arafat’s death, Froman regularly visited his offices in Ramallah 

carrying messages between him and the Israeli government. With Hamas’s rise to power in 

Gaza, Froman has contacted the new leadership and offered to establish lines of communication between Hamas and the Israelis, an offer that the Israelis have not yet taken up. 

For the past five years the Institute also has partnered with a remarkable pair of religious peacemakers in Nigeria, the Reverend James Wuye and Imam Mohammed Ashafa of 

the Interfaith Mediation Center. Remarkably, roughly simultaneous epiphanies transformed 

the pastor and imam from religious warriors to religious peacemakers. They had been 

engaged in the violent struggle between Christians and Muslims in Kaduna, Nigeria before 

they committed their lives to turning religious conflict into peace and reconciliation. 

Joint activities between the Institute and the Interfaith Mediation Center have included 

training for young Nigerian religious leaders in peacemaking techniques; sponsoring a 

religious summit for top Muslim and Christian leaders in Nigeria to combat violence during Nigeria’s 2007 elections; and efforts to establish a strong interfaith council in Nigeria 

that includes Christian and Muslim leaders. Their work brought peace mediations to two 

different parts of Plateau State, where thousands have died in fighting between Christians 

and Muslims. In Yelwa-Nshar, where over 1,000 villagers were slaughtered in May 2004, 

the pastor, imam, and author of this paper successfully mediated a peace agreement that 

ended violence and resulted in a compact to promote reconciliation and the resolution of 

contentious issues between Christians and Muslims. The peacemaking methodology drew 

from Western conflict-resolution techniques as well as traditional Nigerian approaches, 

but religious components were also central. These included using scripture, with both 

pastor and imam quoting both the Bible and the Quran, along with exhortation based on 

religious principles. In 2008 the Institute will assist the pastor and imam as they travel 

to other African countries to share their peacemaking methodologies with religious peacemakers in those countries. In addition the Institute will finance the production of a DVD 

illustrating these methodologies so that prospective peacemakers in Africa and beyond 

can benefit from the successes that the pastor and imam have achieved. 

In Sudan, Christian-Muslim relations remain tense despite the Comprehensive Peace 

Agreement signed in 2005 to end the north-south war. With assistance from the Institute, 

the Sudan Inter Religious Council (SIRC), our partner organization in Sudan, has organized 

high-level meetings between Muslim and Christian leaders. It also has established local 

interfaith peace committees where Sudan faces its most volatile intergroup relations. In 

2008, SIRC will focus on strengthening interfaith peace committees in Darfur, where the 

tensions are most acute. 

In 2005, the Institute, along with Catholic University and the International Center for 

Religion and Diplomacy, cohosted a visit by a delegation of nine religious leaders from 

Iran, including seven Muslims, one Christian, and one Jew. A week of meetings with U.S. 

religious and secular leaders opened up deeper understanding between the Iranians and 

Americans. As the week progressed, it became evident that the Iranians were much more 

comfortable discussing sensitive issues with Americans when the discussions took place in 

a religious context. The Iranian delegation refused to visit congressional offices to meet 

with members of Congress, but when a meeting was relocated to a townhouse owned by 

the National Prayer Breakfast, the Iranians did not hesitate to meet with several members 

of the House and the Senate, where they discussed some of the most divisive issues that 

make U.S.-Iran relations so conflicted. 

Building on this insight, the Institute decided to send a delegation of American Muslim 

specialists on Islamic peacemaking to Iran to meet with their Iranian counterparts. This 

trip, organized by the Salaam Institute, took place in October 2007. Members of the delegation gained valuable insights into Iranian society and Iran’s intellectual and religious 
6

life. Doors were opened to them because they were Muslims and their Iranian counterparts were enormously grateful for the visit. They were fascinated to be able to relate to 

religious brethren and to learn that Islam thrives in the United States. The Institute and 

the Salaam Institute plan to invite a return delegation of Iranian specialists on Islamic 

peacemaking to the United States in 2008.

The Institute’s partner working in the religious realm in Iraq is Canon Andrew White 

of FRRME. After helping to found the interfaith Iraqi Institute of Peace in Baghdad with 

Institute support and partnership, White helped organize the Iraqi Inter-Religious Congress (IIRC). In 2007 the IIRC brought together a cross section of high-level Sunni, Shiite, 

and Christian leaders who committed themselves to promoting peace in Iraq. After meetings held between Sunni clerics and advisers to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a delegation 

of Sunni clerics met with the ayatollah in November 2007. Following that meeting Sistani 

issued a fatwa condemning violence against all Iraqis and urged Shiites to make special 

effort to protect Sunnis. This breakthrough occurred because the approach was religious 

and despite the fact that an Anglican priest was the initiator.

Interfaith Dialogue

Interfaith dialogue is another form of religious peacemaking. Rather than seeking to 

resolve a particular conflict, it aims to defuse interfaith tensions that may cause future 

conflict or derive from previous conflict. Shortly after September 11, when tensions 

worldwide were particularly high between Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews 

on the other, the Institute, focusing on the United States and Europe, organized a series 

of interfaith dialogues to generate lessons about how to defuse interfaith tensions. 

These lessons are summarized in Building Interreligious Trust in a Climate of Fear: An 

Abrahamic Trialogue.4 This report was followed by an edited volume, Interfaith Dialogue 

and Peacebuilding,5 which drew on cases from the Balkans, Northern Ireland, the Middle 

East, and elsewhere to extract lessons about how to conduct effective interfaith dialogue. 

The Institute will soon offer an online course about interfaith dialogue on its Web site. 

Other Institute publications have provided guidance about how to evaluate the success 

of interfaith dialogue6 and how a religious community can learn about the faiths of other 

religious communities in educational institutions.7

The Union for Reform Judaism and the Islamic Society of North American recently cooperated to produce curriculum material for Jewish-Muslim dialogue. The program, entitled 

The Children of Abraham: Jews and Muslims in Conversation, addresses scripture, theology, 

ethical principles, and diversity within the two traditions. The material also addresses sensitive issues at the heart of disputes between the global Jewish and Muslim communities, 

including the status of Jerusalem, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism.8

In 2007, 138 Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals gathered in Amman, Jordan, 

and issued “A Common Word Between Us and You,” a statement that declared common 

ground between Christianity and Islam. The signatories to this message came from every 

denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in 

the world also was represented in this message. The declaration cites scriptural parallels 

between the two faiths and the many similarities in their core teachings. A large group of 

Christian scholars and clergy signed a response prepared at Yale Divinity School expressing appreciation for the Muslim declaration and concurring with its central assertions. The 

Vatican also issued a positive response and invited some of the Muslim signatories to meet 

with the Pope.9 This exchange underscored what is so often forgotten in these times of 

Christian-Muslim tension, namely, the similarities between the two faiths. 

Unity in Diversity: Interfaith Dialogue in the Middle East, published recently by the 

Institute’s press,10 demonstrates that interfaith dialogue is an expanding enterprise even 

where interreligious tensions are the greatest, as in Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt. 

The research findings also demonstrate the extent to which interfaith dialogue needs to be 

Interfaith dialogue is an expanding 

enterprise even where interreligious 

tensions are the greatest.
7

tailored to the particular religious and political context in which it is occurring. One particularly sensitive issue in the Israeli-Palestinian context is the asymmetry of power among 

the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communities and the need to ensure that Palestinian 

participants play an equal role to Jews in the conception, organization, and implementation of an interfaith dialogue process. 

Not infrequently the most contentious interfaith relationships can turn out to have 

the most meaningful and productive exchanges. In 2005 the embassy of Saudi Arabia 

asked the Institute to host five Muslim scholars from Saudi Arabia for a week of religious 

discussions in Washington. The Institute accepted on the condition that it fully controlled 

whom the Saudis would meet and what the agendas for the discussions would be. One day 

was devoted to meeting with Muslim counterparts, another day to meeting with Christian 

clergy and theologians, and a third day to meeting with Jewish leaders, primarily orthodox 

rabbis. By far the most productive meeting was that held between the Saudis and the 

Jewish leaders. Unlike the Christians and the Muslims, who principally sought to establish 

their common humanity with the Saudis, the Jewish leaders and Saudi scholars addressed 

the tough issues. The Jewish leaders asked the Saudis if they could accept the existence 

of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The Saudis in return wanted to know if they could be 

critical of the policies of Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism. Each side spoke 

to the other with firmness and respect, and an atmosphere of civility prevailed, enabling 

the participants to address the issues honestly and forthrightly. 

U.S. Government Neglect of the Religious Dimension 

Given the importance of religion as both a source of international conflict and a resource 

for peacemaking, it is regrettable that the U.S. government is so ill equipped to handle 

religious issues and relate to religious actors. An act of Congress in 1998 authorized the 

establishment of both the Office of Religious Freedom in the State Department and the 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. As a result, religious freedom is a 

significant issue on the U.S. foreign policy agenda. But religious conflict and religious 

peacemaking are too frequently neglected. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 

addresses this issue in her recent book,11 noting the shortcomings of the Clinton administration along with all other U.S. administrations in understanding and addressing religious 

factors. She recommends that all foreign-service officers be trained in relevant religious 

subjects and that specialists on religion be posted to U.S. embassies abroad. 

A report published in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies echoes 

Albright’s points.12 The report concludes that 

These and other analysts argue that if the U.S. government is to insert itself into 

international conflicts or build deeper and more productive relationships with countries 

around the world, it needs a better strategy to engage effectively and respectfully with 

the religious realm. As September 11 and the current situation in Iraq attest, failure to 

understand religious motivations and interpretations of political situations is ultimately 

to our nation’s detriment. As has increasingly been learned in Iraq, however, engaging 

religious leaders can create tangible and positive results that contribute to peace and 

global security. 

Not infrequently the most contentious 

interfaith relationships can turn out 

to have the most meaningful and productive exchanges.

U.S. government officials are often reluctant to address the issue of religion, whether in 

response to a secular U.S. legal and political tradition, in the context of America’s Judeo-Christian image overseas, or simply because religion is perceived as too complicated or sensitive.... 

Current U.S. government frameworks for approaching religion are narrow, often because they 

approach religions as problematic or monolithic forces, overemphasize a terrorism-focused analysis of Islam, or marginalize religion as a peripheral humanitarian or cultural issue.... Institutional 

capacity to understand and approach religion is limited due to legal limitations, lack of religious 

expertise or training, minimal influence for religion-related initiatives, and a government primarily structured to engage with other official state actors.13

Engaging religious leaders can 

create tangible and positive 

results that contribute to peace 

and global security.
Conclusion

In June 2007, reflecting a growing international awareness of the past neglect of religion, 

Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, the president of the United Nations General Assembly, 

stated that “promoting a true dialogue among civilizations and religions is perhaps the 

most important political instrument that we can use to reach out across borders and build 

bridges of peace and hope.”14

This report has sought to demonstrate the nature of the religious dimension of international conflict, which is sometimes neglected, often misunderstood, and frequently exaggerated. It has also illustrated how religious leaders have addressed conflict and injustices 

confronting their societies. In addition, religious leaders have employed a variety of 

peacemaking techniques, ranging from mediation and facilitation to interfaith dialogue, 

to address conflict around the globe and make the world a more peaceful place. 

Notes

1. “In God’s Name,” The Economist, November 1, 2007.

2. David R. Smock, ed., Religious Contributions to Peacemaking: When Religion Brings Peace, Not War,

USIP Peaceworks no. 55 (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2006), 17. 

3. Douglas Johnston, “The Religious Dimension,” unpublished paper, n.d., 3, based upon Johnston, ed. 

Trumping Realpolitik: Faith-Based Diplomacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 

4. Special Report 99 (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2003).

5. David Smock, ed. (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007).

6. Renee Garfinkel, What Works? Evaluating Interfaith Dialogue Programs, Special Report 123 (Washington,

DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2004). 

7. David Smock, Teaching about the Religious Other, Special Report 143 (Washington, DC: United States 

Institute of Peace Press, 2005). 

8. Union for Reform Judaism, URJ–Muslim Dialogue, available at http://urj.org/muslimdialogue/ 

(accessed January 15, 2008).

9. The original letter and the responses can be read at A Common Word, available at www.acommonword.

com (accessed January 15, 2008). 

10. Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Emily Welty, and Amal I. Khoury, Unity in Diversity: Interfaith Dialogue in the 

Middle East (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007).

11. Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty (New York: HarperCollins, 2006). 

12. Liora Danan and Alice Hunt, Mixed Blessings: U.S. Government Engagement with Religion in ConflictProne Settings (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2007). Available at www.

csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070820_religion.pdf (accessed January 19, 2008). 

13. Danan and Hunt, Mixed Blessings, 3.

14. United Nations press release, June 13, 2007.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.