A Critique of Madeline Albright's Solution to Lowering Religious Conflict

Albright’s Thesis

In “Faith and Diplomacy” Madeline Albright expresses that diplomats should, “develop the ability to recognize and how religious beliefs contribute to conflicts and when religious principles might be invoked to ease strife” (36), in her thesis. I believe that Albright is correct when she points out that diplomats do need to learn the abilities to prevent and stop religious conflicts; I also believe that she completely overlooks the fact that diplomats have their own religious beliefs and the possibly that this could become an issue when preventing and stopping religious conflict. Albright’s thesis focuses on lowering religious conflict and to do so the thesis is broken up into two different clauses.

The first clause focuses on how to, “develop the ability to recognize and how religious beliefs contribute to conflicts” (36). This means that diplomats should learn the abilities to point out conflicts contributed by religious beliefs. In addition they should know how religious beliefs can be part of conflicts. The second clause is focused on, “when religious principles might be invoked to ease strife” (36). The point of the second clause is to state that diplomats learn which religious principles would be used to so stop religious conflict.

The first clause that Albright states, expresses the idea of creating a way so that religious conflicts can be prevented and resolved before anything major can happen. In addition it has expectations of being able to point out a future conflict before the situation becomes major and turns into a full conflict. Proving that one’s beliefs are the correct beliefs is what starts religious conflict whether it is between two people or two countries. This will lessen the chances of conflict along with the number lives that could be lost.

Albright states that, “studies indicate that wars with a religious component last longer and are found more savagely than other conflicts” (35), in most cases that is true. History shows that wars and conflicts caused by religion were long fought and all wars and conflict were brutally fought as well. The second clause that Albright states expresses the action and the idea of halting a religious conflict. This clause would diminish that statement, because it would shorten religious components and would lessen the savageness of the conflicts. So with that clause being played into part, that statement would become untrue.

Albright was very clear with that clauses that make up the thesis. The thesis being “develop the ability to recognize and how religious beliefs conflict and when religious principle might be invoked to ease strife” (36). The first clause explains the idea of creating a way so religious conflict can be prevented and the second clause explains the action and idea of stopping religious conflict. Both of these clauses will help to maintain the religious conflict in the world.

Albright was correct was she expressed that diplomats need to learn the abilities to prevent and stop religious conflict. Albright points out that “American policy-makers must learn as much as possible about religion, and then incorporate that knowledge in their strategies” (39). Albright adds this in to explain that American diplomats may not have an understanding of religious conflict internationally and need to be educated before they can learn how to stop or minimize it. Not only are they learning about religion they will also be learning on how to fix religious conflict. This will help them evaluate religious conflicts and issues more effectively. Rather than just trying to fix it with no knowledge of what they are trying to fix. Diplomats will be able to compromise and understand each side of the conflict.

Albright states that, “if diplomacy is the art of persuading others to act as we would wish, effective foreign policy requires that we comprehend why others to act as they do” (40). Albright expressed this because diplomats need to understand the way other people act before they can persuade them to act different. For example in most recent news, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Time Magazine:

“Earlier this year, a leaked E.U. analysis of the growing violence and polarization in Jerusalem found that the ancient city had reached a dangerous boiling point. In 2014, 2,069 Palestinians and 168 Israelis were injured in clashes in Jerusalem, five times more than in either of the two previous years. In Jerusalem in 2014, 19 people were killed in incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared to one death in 2012 and 2013.”

A diplomat would try to understand how both of them were acting to see what would be the best way to talk with them and to stop them from killing each other. If you can’t understand the way they act in certain situation, you really won’t know how to fix the situation. And this situation needs to be fixed and resolved because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has killed too many people

Albright fails to take into account that diplomats are humans, who have their own beliefs, and, right to believe in whatever they want. Albright never thought about how their own religion or people of their religion might feel about certain things or actions one might have to pursue. Also diplomats are humans as well and they might be not comfortable with things when it comes to religion and what they think about it. Diplomats have the right to express whatever belief they have and that might come as a problem when diplomats have the ability to prevent and stop religious conflicts. They may even favor to one side of the conflict if the opportunity shows itself or they might sabotage ones side of a conflict. They might also let their personal and emotional expression play in a part. Also there could be conflict between diplomats that may have different beliefs or the same beliefs of one another. Nowhere it Albrights thesis does it state that neither the first clause nor second clause could help with the dilemma. The way to correct this problem is that diplomats should be taught how to leave their personal and private beliefs out of the problem at hand and focus on what is best in that certain situation and what is the appropriate action when dealing with that certain situation. That allow diplomats to once see and focus on the issue at hand and not what they feel or belief would be best for themselves. For example according to NY Times Pope Francis apologizes about the scandals at Vatican. He states “I would like to ask for forgiveness in the name of the church for the scandals that have happened in this last period, both in Rome and at the Vatican.” Pope Francis had to apologize for the priest in the catholic churches molesting young boys. Pope Francis is a diplomat with his own beliefs and thoughts, so he felt the need to apologize for his religion and his what he believes in. He felt like it was necessary to apologize for his religion and the people of this religion. But it was also an action to fix a situation that has been going on for ages. Pope Francis had the ability to correct a problem that was happening and use his own beliefs as well.

In conclusion in, “Faith and Diplomacy”, Madeline Albright expresses that diplomats should, “develop the ability to recognize and how religious beliefs contribute to conflicts and when religious principles might be invoked to ease strife” (36). Albright is correct when she points out that diplomats do need to learn the abilities to prevent and stop religious conflicts; within her thesis. As it is their duty to do so for the rights of the diverse peoples they represent, they should learn these abilities as Albright states and believes. Although in comparison I do believe that she completely overlooks the fact that diplomats have their own religious beliefs and how this could become an issue when it comes to preventing and stopping religious conflict. Obviously you cannot take away the rights of a person’s personal beliefs just because they are a diplomat. Instead of addressing this fact and qualifying it in some way, she disregards the fact all together which causes the disagreement I have with her statement. Overall Albright’s thesis was correct, but she still overlooks that diplomats also have beliefs as well.