A Brief Analysis of America's "Faith Diplomacy" and China's Cultural Security
Brief Commentary on US "Faith-Based Diplomacy" and Our National Cultural Security
Since the end of the Cold War, the revival of religion and religious conflict have become significant social phenomena within the international strategic landscape. A careful analysis of these phenomena reveals that it is not primarily theism at the spiritual level that is at work, but rather the social nature of religion being artificially elevated and reinforced. Religious theism is being utilized by certain nations and interest groups as a means to secure political influence and economic interests. Seen from the perspective of scientific atheism, this phenomenon represents a regression of historical civilization; it urgently requires our study and the formulation of corresponding strategies.
I. From Missionary Diplomacy to Faith-Based Diplomacy
A superpower legislating to periodically review the religious status of countries worldwide constitutes a major strategic shift on the international stage following the Cold War. This "faith-based diplomacy" has become the latest iteration of historical "missionary diplomacy" and contemporary "human rights diplomacy." A significant case in point is how contemporary China’s "religious issues" have long been under the scrutiny of the US International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.
Since the 1990s, the most critical shift in the international strategic landscape has been the attempt by US neoconservative forces to establish a unipolar era of global hegemony. Certain figures of authority advocate for unilateralist hegemonic policies and implement a strategy of "new interventionism." This theory rests on two pillars: first, the defense of "universal human values," asserting that Western "human rights" and the "rule of law" are "universal values"; second, the notion that "human rights transcend sovereignty," positing that "human rights have no borders." A key characteristic of contemporary American-style human rights standards is the positioning of "religious freedom" as the foundational cornerstone of human rights. The alliance between American Christian neo-fundamentalist forces and political neoconservative forces jointly pushed Congress to pass the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, making it a tool for the strategic global expansion of Christianity using state power.
During the Cold War, Christianity was treated as an "important foothold for the United States against atheistic communism." [1] Following the Cold War, bipolar confrontation vanished and geopolitical factors weakened, while religious factors in international relations became increasingly prominent. The so-called "international religious freedom" issue became a catchphrase for certain individuals.
One American scholar, providing a gloss on the legitimacy of this "faith-based diplomacy," stated: "The struggle for the soul of the New World Order has already begun... taking cultural and religious pluralism seriously has now become one of the most important foreign policy challenges of the 21st century." [2] In his view, a primary challenge is the "struggle for the soul of the New World Order." However, in the eyes of those who preserve their indigenous national cultures, the use of state administrative resources—such as diplomatic means or even the initiation of war—by certain countries to spread a specific religious culture in order to "compete for the soul of the new world order" is pure hegemonism.
The International Religious Freedom Reports released annually by the US government repeatedly emphasize its values. In the introduction to the 2001 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the US State Department declared its aim to "make religious freedom the 'first freedom' in the constitution." The US authorities utilize state power to consolidate American values within the field of international human rights. For instance, the 2006 International Religious Freedom Report declared:
"Religious belief as a personal choice and a fundamental freedom... is a cornerstone of the American character, rooted in the ideals of our nation's founding fathers. From our founding to the present day, religious freedom has remained one of our most primary freedoms. The determination of the American people to defend religious freedom—not only at home but throughout the world—remains steadfast. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated: 'For America, nothing is more fundamental than religious freedom and religious conscience. Our nation was built on this foundation. Religious freedom is the core of democracy.'" [3]
Currently, US authorities are further elevating the strategic value of "international religious freedom," advocating that "religious freedom promotes national security." For example, in 2008, Thomas F. Farr, then Director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, publicly called for US diplomacy to "make the protection and expansion of religious freedom one of its core elements," declaring that "the central issue of US national security is Islamic terrorism." [4] Presently, views within the US government and among the public regarding the status of religious issues in international strategy are increasingly converging. "Faith-based diplomacy" has become the latest version of contemporary "human rights diplomacy." [5]
Republican strategist Karl Rove explained: "Rationality may be good for studying and analyzing history and politics, but it is different for the practice and creation of history and politics. Perceived and anticipated faith, which cannot be proven or demonstrated in the earthly realm, is now more effective at mobilizing people to create change." [6] American politicians use the "universal values" of Christianity to inspire the public to create history, a practice rooted in a specifically American political ecosystem. However, when certain US rulers take these religious values as the foundation of diplomacy and forcefully promote them worldwide, how far can such hegemonic diplomacy actually go?
It should be pointed out that the "international religious freedom" vigorously promoted by the US government is measured by the standard of US national interests. For example, the State Department’s "2002 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom" listed Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan as "Countries of Particular Concern." The 2004 report subsequently removed Iraq from the list. Yet, in reality, under US military occupation, Iraq saw continuous "jihadi" killings and the basic safety of its citizens' lives could hardly be guaranteed. Did religious belief actually gain greater freedom? From the 2003 US invasion to the present, at least 660,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured in this war, criticized by international human rights organizations as the "greatest humanitarian disaster of the first decade of this century." Recently, WikiLeaks revealed that out of a total of 109,000 deaths in the Iraq War, 66,000 were non-combatants. Another London-based organization, "Iraq Body Count," stated that civilian deaths in the war reached as high as 122,000. [7]
"Fighting terror and making it worse" has become a global catchphrase. According to research by scholars at the University of Chicago, there were only five suicide attacks globally in the 1980s; this rose to 50 in the 1990s, and by 2009, "human bomb" incidents worldwide reached 500. The most important reason for this is resistance against occupation by foreign troops. [8] The US government vigorously implements the International Religious Freedom Act, claiming that "nations that respect religious freedom rarely pose a security threat to other nations." [9] In the face of hard facts, these self-important sermons are like the Emperor’s New Clothes—deceiving oneself and others. Clearly, the criteria for examining international religious freedom fluctuate based entirely on American interests.
In my view, since the end of the Cold War, the core discourse of the Western powers has shifted toward human rights "with religious freedom as the cornerstone." The "universal values" of Christianity are being constantly abstracted, becoming a totem of the Western-style democratic system, just as the former US Secretary of State said: "religious freedom is the core of democracy." These symbolized "universal values" attempt to strip the core social value system away from the basic social relations of various countries, turning them into a weapon for "new interventionism" on the international stage. This tendency toward the ideologization of religion has affected the development of cultural pluralism in the international community and caused global instability.
The phenomenon of Christian faith being ideologized reflects history extending through its own twists and turns. The contemporary revival of religious neo-fundamentalism and its expansion into the political sphere has once again focused public attention on whether modern states can adhere to the principle of the separation of church and state. Since the 1970s, the revival of American Christian neo-fundamentalism, allied with political conservatism, has attempted to use state power to spread the Christian gospel worldwide, creating a new crisis for the separation of church and state.
II. Religious Factors Affecting China’s National Security
In December 2006, at the Fifth National Security Forum organized by the National Security Policy Committee, I wrote that after the Cold War, there are three primary religious factors affecting China’s national security: the "Tibet independence" separatist forces led by the Dalai clique; the "East Turkestan" separatist forces operating under the banner of Islam; and the expansionist strategy toward China by American Christian neoconservative forces. Within the Western strategy to contain China, these religious factors will become important resources utilized by hostile forces.
In recent years, a series of violent incidents have occurred successively in our border regions... [such as the "March 14" incident in 2008].
Certain international interest groups, led by the US authorities, treat religion as a carrier for Western values, using it as an ideological export and a political tool to subvert other nations. From the Gulf War to the Iraq War, relevant interest groups have used religion as a means of mobilizing the masses, leading to religious unrest and sectarian wars sweeping the globe. This has also shrouded ethnic issues in a "sacred" cloak, making them unprecedentedly sharp and difficult to reconcile—a major characteristic of the world strategic landscape since the start of the 21st century.
Overseas hostile forces utilize religious and ethnic factors to undermine socialist construction in our motherland’s border regions. Ethnic separatist forces use religious extremist ideology to become a dangerous "malignant tumor" splitting the country. The "March 14" incident in Lhasa, Tibet...
Religion is not only a culture but also an extremely effective political instrument. Looking at the world today, there is almost no place where bloody conflict occurs that is not linked to religion. For most regions and countries, it is impossible to understand the cultural causes of war without understanding its religious background. Raising the banner of religion to incite trouble is evident in our domestic issues regarding Tibet and Xinjiang; however, the greatest potential threat to our country is the global expansion strategy of American Christian neo-fundamentalism.
If the combination of ethnic separatist forces and religious extremist ideology in the Tibet and Xinjiang regions forms a terrorist threat of violence aimed at splitting the motherland’s territory, then international religious right-wing forces are utilizing legal channels to continuously penetrate our cultural and educational fields. This has already begun to form a "soft power" challenge to socialist ideology. Threats of violence are naked and bloody; but the "soft knife" is full of sweet words and tender sentiments. In today’s strategic game of "contending without breaking," the soft knife is the core strength within "smart power."
In August 2008, a famous Chinese scholar asked during a visit to Europe: "Could you briefly explain what the US strategy toward China is?" The head of the "Transnational Threats and Political Risk" program at the British International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) replied: "If China rises in 'hard power,' the US will welcome it; if China rises in 'soft power,' a direct, comprehensive, and fierce conflict may break out between the US and China." [10]
As for whether "hard power" refers to economic strength and whether the US truly welcomes China’s rise—that is a separate matter. "Soft power" should refer to political systems, social culture, and value systems, which naturally include ideologies like democracy, freedom, and human rights. Democratic systems and human rights concepts are the two primary cards the West plays to promote "soft power" worldwide. Since the end of the Cold War, the human rights card has become increasingly prominent in international strategy. According to the interpretation of US authorities, "religious freedom has become the first cornerstone of human rights." In August 2008, then US President George W. Bush stated: "I have told Chinese leaders in a clear, candid, and consistent way that we are deeply concerned about religious freedom and human rights." [11] After the Obama administration took office, its immediate priority was dealing with the economic crisis. In promoting American core values, the US government adjusted its tactics to adopt "gentler, lower-profile means." We must soberly realize that whether it is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, the international strategic direction of the US rulers leads to the same destination by different routes.
The global expansion strategy of Christian neo-fundamentalism has become a tool for American hegemonism. China has become a key region for international religious right-wing forces to spread the Christian gospel. The establishment of the US International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 was a landmark event signifying the influence of religious forces on national foreign policy. As former US Secretary of State Rice said: "religious freedom is the core of democracy." This religious culture is being constantly abstracted into a totem of the Western-style democratic system and a strategic tool for the US to implement hegemonism.
In the implementation of this legislation, the United States utilizes state power to promote a global strategic expansion of Christianity, continually launching attacks against China in the fields of "human rights" and "religious freedom." China has become one of the primary targets for sanctions under this act. This "neo-interventionism" [12] mobilizes state administrative resources in order to "struggle for the soul of the new world order." Consequently, China has become a key region for international religious forces to spread the Christian Gospel. It is a well-known fact that a large number of Christian house churches [13] in mainland China receive funding from overseas religious organizations.
When assessing the posture of the strategic expansion of American Christianity toward China, a renowned scholar pointed out:
"It can activate the entire state apparatus, operating in a unified manner from the President, the State Department, and Congress to the National Security Council. Many church organizations and ecclesiastical colleges coordinate and cooperate, forming a situation where the state, religion, and non-governmental organizations each expand outward using their respective advantages. Political threats, economic bribery, cultural propaganda, and both legal and illegal means proceed in tandem. This has reached such an extent that in our country, where Christianity has historically been weak, they are able to manufacture powerful public opinion and enter the lecture halls of higher education and academic research institutions. Underground churches even dare to openly defy national laws and regulations." {12}
Western religious right-wing forces are particularly adept at utilizing legal channels to penetrate our cultural, educational, and academic research positions. There, they cultivate their strength and propagate their worldview, values, and political outlook, placing themselves in opposition to our country’s mainstream ideology. They possess a powerful political background, abundant capital, long-term strategies, and an educational system designed to foster and train a backbone of missionary personnel. Compared to this formidable array of religious and cultural dissemination, the voice of our scientific atheism is far too weak. If this situation is not changed in time, the future consequences will be inexhaustible.
Since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up [14], as the socio-economic structure and the landscape of interests have undergone profound changes, the variability and diversity of people's thinking have continuously increased. Among these, a striking social phenomenon is the increasing number of religious believers. "Religious Studies" has gradually developed from a marginal discipline into what is known as a "distinguished branch of learning" [15].
With the rise of "religious fever" [16], an academic tendency to "meticulously nurture" religious culture has also gradually heated up. Some individuals go to great lengths to praise certain religious cultures, interpreting them as the "source of morality," the "foundation of democracy," or even the "precondition for science." Additionally, some authoritative figures vigorously advocate for "cultural theology" and actively promote this "cultural theology" to become the academic direction of national research institutions and universities. This trend of thought has already begun to influence policy-making and the orientation of public opinion.
The primary forms of the so-called "legal infiltration" by overseas religious forces are "cultural exchange" and "academic research." Through the education system and research institutions, they propagate the theory of Christian superiority among young intellectuals, attributing modern Western civilization to religious faith while devaluing or slandering China's traditional culture and treating socialist values as if they were nothing. To date, we have no academic response; scientific atheism possesses almost no discourse power to express the truth of modern Western history and the decisive role played by secular humanism and scientific atheism.
Religious infiltration has become the primary content of foreign cultural infiltration. However, cultural issues, religious issues, and even ideological issues ultimately require an intellectual response. We should seize discourse power, cultivate our academic advantages, and must not abandon our ideological positions.
Within the socialist core value system, the atheistic materialist worldview and an active outlook on life occupy an important position. The Party Central Committee has repeatedly pointed out: to consolidate the guiding position of Marxism and to enhance the attraction and cohesion of socialist ideology, the role of scientific atheism cannot be ignored. For some time now, there has been a certain type of public opinion attempting to strip scientific atheism away from the Marxist view of religion and socialist ideology. This is dangerous; it neither conforms to the secularization trends of human history and the contemporary era, nor does it align with China's humanist tradition.