Religion In International Politics- Religion in Numbers

            There are many nation-states, past and present that have one religion as the dominant religion, with a clear majority of people practicing it.  Not only will this religion have a major impact on the social norms of that nation-state; but also, oftentimes, this religion will have a major influence on the politics and policies of that nation, both domestic and foreign alike.  Sometimes a common religion can unite a nation and give the people a commonality that they can all agree on.  The shared religion can create a similar system of values and beliefs upon which a solid political structure can be founded.  However, more often than not, when the clear majority of people subscribe to one religion, an intolerance of other religions often follows.  With this intolerance comes persecution, and in some cases genocide.  Three recent examples demonstrate the power that one religious practice can have in a nation when a large enough number of people follow it.  Firstly, because of the conflict that is going on between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East, and more specifically the human rights atrocities that are being committed by the Israeli government, many groups around the world are speaking out against the Israeli government.  However, their demonstrations have often turned to hate and anti-Semitism has been demonstrated in places such as Venezuela, a mostly Christian country.  Another example of a dominant religion taking control in a country can be seen in Saudi Arabia, where Islam is by far the most popular religion.  It is so popular that Saudi government officials have recently stated that no other places of worship should be built other than mosques.  Finally, one group of Muslims, the Rohingya have become outcasts in almost every country, namely Thailand, a mostly Hindu nation.  All of three of these articles wonderfully demonstrate the powerful affect that religion in numbers can have on a nation-state.

            An article recently posted in the Detroit News demonstrates how quickly hatred can spread from one nation to another.  When a group of Venezuelan citizens became tired of the human rights violations that are being committed by the Israeli government, they decided to protest.  However, recently, these demonstrations have become more and more Anti-Semitic.  First, the Venezuelans made signs of the Star of David next to a swastika to show that they believe the way in which the Israeli government is attacking the Palestinians resembles how the Germans persecuted the Jews.  However, the problem begins to get even worse when the anger and hatred is directed to the Jewish people living in Venezuela, who have nothing to do with the conflict in Israel.  A group of, most likely Christian, Venezuelans stormed into a synagogue with guns and used spray paint to vandalize it while also desecrating the Torah and stealing computers with personal information on the congregants of the synagogue.  It was an absolutely awful hate crime that was spurred on by a previous hate crime.  This event leads one to ask, when will the vicious cycle of hatred end?  It seems that the Anti-Semitism in South America is growing quickly and something needs to be done before there are two major human rights atrocities being committed in two separate parts of the world due to the same issue. 

            There are currently heavy restrictions being placed on religions other than Islam in Saudi Arabia and it does not seem to be getting much better.  “A Saudi Arabian official says mosques can be the only places of worship in his country”.  This issue brings up a topic of great concern and debate:  freedom of religion.  By denying the right to build other places of worship in Saudi Arabia, the government is essentially prohibits the practice of any religion other than Islam.  These laws and restrictions “reach basic human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion or belief”.  However, with Islam having such popularity among the people, is it not a surprise that there is such a huge influence of religion into the political sphere?  In order for a person to be a citizen in Saudi Arabia, they must be Muslim.  This has obviously led to a great deal of persecution towards other religions in Saudi Arabia. 

            The last important article discusses the ethnic Muslim Rohingya.  The Rohingya are social outcasts all over the globe, but especially in Buddhist and Hindu nations such as Thailand and Bangladesh.  These people work and live in the worst conditions of anyone in Thailand.  They have absolutely no power or authority.  In fact, they often flee into neighboring countries where they become illegal immigrants or refugees.  However, no country wants them.  “No one has championed the Rohingya. Most countries, from Saudi Arabia to Malaysia, see them as little more than a source of cheap labor for the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs”.  There have been several widespread abuses including “forced labor, land seizures and rape”.  However, because no group will support them or take them in, they are forced to try to flee, by boat to other areas of the globe, such as Malaysia.  Sadly, a large portion of the people die on the way in their ships and the ones that do make it live in terrible conditions, much like the ones that they were leaving.  It seems as though they Rohingya will continue on living as outcasts until one group takes them in and stands up for their rights.  Until then, they will be abused, forced into labor, and raped. 

            These examples all show the power that religion can have in politics across the globe.

Religion In International Politics- Conflict

Ever since the beginning of human civilization, two things have remained prominent:  religion and politics.  Many nation-states throughout history masterfully incorporated their religion into the very structure of their political framework.  In some cases, religion served as a great unifying factor of the people and because of a shared religious tradition, some states flourished for hundreds of years.  However, in other cases religion has been a destructive force leading to social divisions and even genocide.   In international relations, religious differences have, and continue to cause great conflict amongst states, often leading to war.  Whether a person believes that it is best to completely remove religion from politics or that it is best to completely unite the two, one thing is clear; religion and politics share a close tie to one another, especially in international politics. 

            One place where the tie between religion and politics is especially prominent in our world today is in the Middle East.  With the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 Americans were introduced, and some reintroduced, to the political and religious tensions in the Middle East.  Also, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a prominent news-getter in recent years because of the global significance the conflict entails.  However, the Middle East is not the only place where religion is a major headline in recent news.  For example, religion is currently outlawed in North Korea.  Also, there are many nations that currently have theocratic aspects including Andorra, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Israel.  These examples are used to show the variety of different ways that religion has been influencing international politics. 

            One current example of how differences in religion have affected international politics is discussed in an article entitled “India’s Muslims in Crisis”.  This article was written following the incident on November 27, 2008 where a Muslim from India took 40 people hostage in the Oberoi Trident hotel in Mumbai, India.  The man was angry with the unfair treatment and inequality that was has been commonly given to Muslims in India for over one hundred years.  Muslims are the largest minority religion in India, making up 13.4% of the total population.  However, statistically Muslims are among the poorest people in India.  Compared to the majority, Hindu Indians, “Muslim Indians have shorter life spans, worse health, lower literacy levels and lower-paying jobs” (India’s Muslims in Crisis).  All of these things led to the high level of resentment of the Muslims towards the Hindus in India.  There is a very long political history behind the way in which the Muslims fell from power in India and ended up becoming the oppressed minority.  A brief history shows how “in India, Islam is, in contrast, the other — purged by the British, denigrated by the Hindu right, mistrusted by the majority, marginalized by society” (India’s Muslims in Crisis).  The marginalization of this religious group has led to great hostilities and political turmoil in India.

            Another article that I read, “Terrorism’s Christian Grandfather” discusses the life of a man, George Habash, who is often thought to be creator of many of the modern forms of terrorism that we have grown accustomed to today.  Habash “pioneered the hijacking of airplanes as a Middle East terror tactic” (Terrorism’s Christian Grandfather).  The story of Habash is particularly interesting because he was a Palestinian leader that was raised a Greek Orthodox Christian.  The media today often portrays there to be a major religious conflict between Christianity and Islam.  Therefore, the fact that one of the world’s most famous Muslim terrorist leaders was born and raised in a Christian family leads one to believe that there is much significance in his story.  Having grown up in Palestine during Israel’s 1948 War for Independence and having been forcibly removed from his home along with the rest of his family, Habash and the rest of his organization, the PFLP, targeted the Israeli government in their attacks.  He helped raise awareness for the many injustices that the Israeli government were subjecting the Palestinians to; however, the methods that he used inspired a future generation of more ruthless and angry fundamentalist terrorists. 

            A third, very important article concerning religion in international politics is “In Afghan Christian, Story of a Larger Conflict” by Roger Cohen.  The article discusses Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Muslim who converted to Christianity.  According to the article, “Apostasy is about as bad as it gets under Islamic law and Rahman is facing a possible death sentence in Kabul” (In Afghan Christian, Story of a Larger Conflict).  This situation raises important ethical questions.  Is it ethical to kill someone for changing their religious beliefs?  According to our Western society, no it is not okay.  However, in a state like Afghanistan where Islamic traditions are such a major part of the political structure, converting to Christianity is a major offense.  This is very similar to the reason why Christians were persecuted back in the first century in Rome.  During that time period politics and religion were viewed as one.  If a person were to deny that the emperor was god, they were seen as being treasonous to the Roman Empire.  By viewing the controversy in this light, it becomes slightly easier to understand why converting to Christianity is seen as such a major problem in Afghanistan today.  It is seen as treasonous to the state.  To people of Western upbringing, this occurrence serves to show that the West and Islam are in a major conflict with one another.  A conflict that apparently does not have an end in the immediate future.  

Globalization

The world that we are living in today is rapidly changing.  As the technology that we use is developing and becoming more advanced, so is the ability for different parts of the world to interact, which leads to the new trend of globalization.  The affects of globalization are varied and far-reaching.  Some view the prospects of globalization as a great way to share ideas with remote parts of the world and learn from one another.  Others see the possibility of expanding economic policies and markets around the world.  Still, others view it as a negative trend that only benefits the nations and communities that are already wealthy while further digging the poor and marginalized into a deeper grave.  Both perspectives have their own solid arguments; however, I believe that the problems with globalization are of much greater weight than the positives. 

            An article posted by Craig Nash attempts to describe the major benefits of globalization.  Nash writes that globalization forces businesses to compete internationally, which results in even lower prices for consumers.  Secondly, “countries move to market sectors that they are better at”.  This means that instead of having the United States manufacture all of their own goods, it is more suitable to leave manufacturing to people in China.  In this way nations will stick to areas that they specialize in and share their talents with the rest of the world.  Lastly, Nash believes that through globalization, “everyone grows more prosperous”.  He cites India and China as two success stories suggesting that globalization helps to raise the standard of living in developing countries. 

            However, two other articles, one written by Steve Schifferes and the other by Ana Maria Trujillo suggest the negative consequences of globalization.  Trujillo’s article deals with the story of a young woman named Melissa Draper who lived and worked in Bolivia.  Draper observed the specifically studied the affects that globalization was having on the indigenous people that she was observing and interacting with.  Draper found that many of these women struggled to keep up with the demands of globalization and that forced them to seek jobs other than ones that they were accustomed to, such as working in a cocoa field.  The article by Schifferes seeks to understand the deeper ethical problems that have arisen due to globalization.  According to a report that is often quoted in the article “there are deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the world economy, which are ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable”.  According to the article, globalization tends to further marginalize the already marginalized.  Some statistics included in the article demonstrate this point even further.  “Income per person in the world's 20 poorest countries has barely changed in the last 40 years, from $212 in 1960-62 to $267 in 2000-02, while income in the richest 20 nations has tripled, from $11,417 to $32,339”.  Therefore, it is clear that globalization is not affecting all nations equally.  In fact, it is affecting the already rich and powerful countries while leaving the under-developed nations behind in their dust. 

            I believe that there is a moral problem with the way that globalization is currently being approached.  I believe that globalization is shifting from globalization to Westernization, which tends to benefit the United States mostly.  The way the globalization is viewed today poses a serious threat to many poor nations around the world.  It seems to be a system in which the more powerful, wealthy nations exploit the smaller developing nations of their resources and leaves these nations only further behind the rest of the world than where they originally started.  This greedy approach has the potential to not only further entrap nations in poverty, but also strip them of the culture that they so greatly cherish.  The current views towards globalization need to be seriously reevaluated.