press, this is serious. this is a bigger crackdown than even cuba does now. it is hard to forget, but these things work in terms of blocking, especially when the protests were not violent. if this had been a violent group, it might have provoked further violence. the sign that they were not violent is precisely that they were cornered back. the leaders of the opposition are divided. the conditions leading to student protests haven't gone away. venezuela has had student protests since 2007. they are constantly being refueled by new students coming in. the cycle that i am observing is not shocking. it is also not injuring either. >> great. thank you, javier air. avier.

thank you, mike. this has been a terrific session. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> that is live at noon eastern here on c-span. institute hosted this discussion on how religion factors into u.s. diplomatic efforts with islamic nations. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning. i would like to welcome you to the middle east institute panel on preventing violence in the name of god. religion and diplomacy in the middle east. i would like to issue a special welcome to our c-span viewers this morning.

series one second diplomacy and religion. the first, we held a month ago featuring the cardinal and ayatollah taking up topics from a religious point of view. today, we take it up from a diplomatic perspective. things have changed regarding religion and statecraft in u.s. diplomacy, particularly in the department of state. madeline albright records in her memoirs the mighty and the almighty, many practitioners of foreign policy including me have stopped to separate religion from world politics, to liberate logic from beliefs that transcend logic. sharplyitude contrasts with secretary kerry at the state department office of faith-based initiatives.

he admonished, we ignore the global impact of religion at our peril and told foreign service officers, go out and engage religious leaders and faith-based communities in our day-to-day work. at a time when religious violence in flames the middle east, the question of how diplomacy and religion can interact takes on a high importance. what is the department of state to doing to fulfill secretary kerry's instructions? whatever the scope and the limits of cooperation? we are honored this morning to welcome our panelists. first of all, jerry white. jerry is the deputy assistant secretary of state in the bureau of conflict and stabilization operations. leader insay, a

landmine, what do you call it, removal. an unconventional diplomat. envoy to deputy u.s. the organization of islamic cooperation. it is a tribute to his commitment that he is taking time off from paternity leave after being a father for one week. welcomealso like to ambassador tom pickering, whose very diplomat -- very distinguished diplomatic career includes work on every continent except antarctica as well as being under secretary of state for political affairs and u.s. ambassador to the united nations. jerry will speak first and give the general outlines. our salon will speak next. ambassador pickering will

provide commentary at the end. jerry, the floor is yours. >> thank you for that kind introduction. it is a very exciting time to be at the state department working on this issue of the nexus of diplomacy and religion as well as conflict. i and the deputy assistant secretary for the newest bureau at the state department. it was launched under secretary clinton as a bureau to develop nontraditional ways of engaging on issues of conflict prevention, mitigation and crisis response. there is plenty to do. the question is how to pick which battles and how to proceed. one of them that i think was

prescient for secretary clinton and secretary kerry was the issue of religion and diplomacy. i would say this year may become known as the year of religion. it is front and center on every newspaper. people are confused, what is religious violence? is there such a thing? what is the source for violence? as ais religion serving match lighting and accelerating or causing a viral spread of violence? what are we seeing happening in the middle east? when i first came into the state department, this was starting to percolate. secretary clinton had started a strategic dialogue. i was charged with chairing a working group on conflict mitigation.

someoneirst came in, gave me a bucket of books and papers and says, here, you love this stuff. why don't you take it over? there was sort of a cultural bias against taking on religion. it was the third rail that you weren't supposed to touch. there we were with a basket and lots of ideas. people understanding we had to tackle this new issue. the issue was a bias in terms of culture. because of our establishment clause and the separation of church and state, most people just wouldn't touch religious engagement. it was one of those things, don't do it. or, go to the legal office. get permission to engage. this was a challenge for world diplomacy. religious world are or function out of sets of beliefs.

language,nowing that not being able to engage at that fundamental level, is a challenge. how does one really understand the separation of church and to our roleapplies in diplomacy and representing the u.s. government abroad? religious engagement has become the new hot topic. the second piece that was a challenge was finding out that after 9/11, the concept of how to engage became a little instrumental. how do we engage with the muslims who hate us or like us? our vocabulary of terrorism and extremism was perhaps too muddled in religious dialogue. the concept was more utilitarian. good partners and bad partners. somehow we were in the business of judging who was moderate or extreme or who we could engage with. this was another challenge to overcome.

the third was basically just the capacity. we found that in fact the foreign service institute had not actually had lots of training of our diplomats in faith-based engagement or religious sensitivities. there is an optional class of hours en or maybe four route to afghanistan or iraq. looking at that training material was a challenge. there wasn't religious literacy inside the u.s. government for the most part, as well as this idea of, where do you go in the state department? there are different people working on pieces of this. secretary kerry came in and moved quickly to the first face-to-face -- faith-based community initiative. he assigned a senior advisor to help navigate the space. up until this point, there was

another issue. people went to the religious freedom office. the important strands of our engagement policy. but it is not the only thing. the white house and the state department have done a complete u-turn in the last year in terms of religious engagement. they set up three major lines of effort and three working groups to accompany them. number one is how to partner with religious communities around the world and in the united states on issues related to health, development and humanitarian assistance. religious freedom, human rights and pluralism. how is it that protection of minorities is in the category of religious freedom that we have been standing for since our founding? third was the working group that i cochaired related to public mitigation.

that is where we stand. there has been a change. there have been new case studies coming forth. we set out to look at new training materials that are being finished up that may not be perfect, but maybe i'm on the best that are out there in terms of diplomatic training on these issues of biases, stereotypes. also, how to navigate religion in conflict zones. one thing to keep in mind and perhaps we could discuss is how is it that a religion or religious language can manifest itself in conflict? how do you engage with groups who might be in a different phase of their religious formation? for example, if a group feels under existential threat, the language they use that may be more exclusive or fear-based, could shift. sometimes to a call to violence. is it going to be violence?

is hate speech going to trigger violence? we are now just learning how to look at language usage in ways that could show that violent behavior could be coming. it doesn't mean that someone expressing themselves on social media or elsewhere in hateful ways is going to be violent. our job is to look at that space of violence, not necessarily the space of free speech and religion. it is important to track language. other language might be as they call normative or textbook language. you might be and of his couple reese or a -- an it his couple episcopal priest. how to engage on that end of the spectrum is another way to look

at things, another approach that is what most embassies would be used to working with. catholic relief services, islam it really and others. war, religious groups may be in a period of questioning or recovery, wondering how to find their way and navigate the reconstruction of their country and their communities. that is another of engagement which is more, one might say, almost like trauma recovery. how is it that your humanitarian work can minister to your communities in ways that are open and write for partnership with the united states, other governments and other partners? all of this gives you a flavor of what has been happening in terms of policy. what is actually the intention on the ground? i think actually i would say

that the working group we are working on right now is looking at the possibility of a global covenant using some religiously infused language. the prince of jordan and the king of jordan have asked for a response from the united nations , but also world religious leaders including the pope, archbishop of canterbury and others, to take a look at how to respond to the violence we are it is that seems politically and religiously infused. what is it about this language? what can we do to protect beliefs and practices and groups and sacred sites that are trigger points and flashpoint for violence? i would say the global covenant initiative is being looked at by the working group because it is not generated or started by the united states but we would like to understand how to work and lead from alongside our colleagues around the world.

in looking at this new challenge of religiously motivated violence. i will close with three pieces of this. one is interreligious leadership. what is it -- elders can gather , pulling people together, religious leaders from around the world to renounce this violence in the name of god. that is something that nonstate actors and leaders have to address, even outside of the nationstate parameters of the u.n. at that highest level of religious groups talking to each other and developing some declaration. the second level is the u.n. level. nation states have laws and policies against genocide, violence and other norms. something different seems to be entering in.

violence against religions themselves. not just individuals, but groups and their practices and beliefs and gatherings. u.n. would like to look at the isil question, but also book over him. -- boko haram. what can be prevented it to stop that and contain it? also, when is it a crime against humanity? these are new international issues that are not just nation to nation, but also dealing with nonstate actors committing atrocities. world, ngos around the have been on the front lines doing this work. they have many best practices. people know a lot about that. violence takes place at a communal level. this third level is intercommunal, what are the best practices?

how do people build the type of resilient fabric that prevents and protects against future violence? what are we constructing after war? lot, but it is to say that in the last couple years, there has been quite a significant shift in how the united states government and our allies are looking at this issue based on lessons we have learned from the past. thank you for your attention and interest in the topic. [applause] >> thank you. i would like to also thank the middle east institute, the carnegie endowment for national peace for organizing and hosting this panel and also for alan and

jerry and ambassador pickering for being here on the panel with me today. jerry gave much of the overview of the lot of the changes of the department. i want to add one small thing to that. role that thehe white house strategy on religious leader engagement played. in 2013, the white house issued this strategy which is meant to promote government-wide engagement with religious leaders. it is not just the state department. it is also meant to affect our department of defense and other actors who are engaging in foreign policy work and diplomatic work, in order to encourage them to also engage with these communities who are playing a very significant role in the world. if we ignore them, we ignore

them to our peril. want to spend my remarks talking about some of the work that we have gone out of the office of the special envoy to as an exampleon of some of the ways that we have engaged and work in cooperation with actors in order to promote some of the goals that jerry talked about. of you may not be familiar, but the office of the special was established at the end of the george w. bush administration. obama appointed a special envoy to the position. he gave him the mandate of expanding the partnerships that the president announced during his cairo speech. the cairo speech went through a whole litany of issues. the hot topic issues that had been problematic in terms of u.s. relationships with the

muslim world in general. this covered things from the wars in iraq and afghanistan to counterterrorism policies to human rights issues to democracy promotion. all these issues. our office has worked on a lot of different areas. one of the areas we have been working on in particular is to engage with religious communities and leaders in order to include them because of the significant role they play in general, and also in muslim societies. one example that i want to give which touches on what jerry was talking about in terms of the u.n. and how religious communities sometimes define themselves as a group, an initiative we worked on that dealt with the issue of defamation of religion. oicnning in 1998, the advocated a resolution on the

so-called defamation of religions. it was a resolution that was the hateut a lot of speech or discrimination or phobia that many people were identifying in the post-9/11 years and before that. this started in 1998. wasidea behind it in part to address discrimination against people on the basis of religion. however, the problem that the united states had was that it went a step further. it talked about ending speech and restricting -- banning speech and restricting speech in terms of criticism of religion. that was held back for a number of reasons. freedom of expression is an important human rights. we believe that restrictions on infringef expression

on individuals' abilities to exercise religion really. for a number of years, we have been working to essentially diffie this resolution -- defeat this resolution at the u.n.. we took an approach that was also working toward the resolution but also to work on potentially transforming the resolution into a positive. we share some of the underlying concerns about discrimination, but we did not agree with the means. an2011, we worked on alternative to that resolution that passed in the u.n. it has been called resolution 1618. that essentially focuses on positive actions that governments can take to address religious tolerance. things like enforcing antidiscrimination laws, education awareness programs, engaging with religious

communities, all of these kind of proactive positive measures that we practice in the united states are listed in this resolution. working onn promoting implementation to help that resolution. one of the key ways we have been working on this is with religious communities and actors. you are undoubtedly aware, this resolution on defamation of some governments were using that as a way of justifying or providing cover for domestic laws that are often abused or used in ways in which target religious minorities, which often end up justifying violence against religious minorities. one of the key efforts behind 1618 was to move past that and get governments to move away from that. religious communities and leaders were important both domestically and internationally in our engagement to explain to

them that we understand your concerns about hate speech. but the way that this type of approach tries to address that goal doesn't actually work. increasepeech often the attention that people give to that speech. represst is used to religious minorities. so we worked on explaining this position. not only with governments and with the oic directly but also with the religious communities. their support was important to convince various communities and countries in the alternative approach. been support has also important in the implementation process. we have initiated a training program to work with interested governments on the specific activities that we outlined in the resolution. we have also had a series of meetings focusing on breast -- on best practices.

the last meeting was held in doha. the focus of that meeting was on collaboration to protect religious freedom. you had the human rights advocates, you had members of religious communities, religious leaders and government officials all together working on the same shared issue. it was interesting to observe. that grouping of individuals don't often get together. it was a nice way of using this initiative to convene a lot of the actors who share the same goals and try to direct them in a way that they can work together on shared policy initiatives. another way that we have used religious engagement is to open new channels of communication. oic membere visiting countries.

many of them have been going and are still undergoing democratic transitions. particular, there has been a lot of sectarian tension around the transitions that are happening with the national dialogue and the democracy movement in that country. on one of the visits, we used our office in order to try to expand the lines of communication that the united states has with actors in bahrain. our government has often met with the opposition party up to a certain point last year, we had never met with the spiritual leader of that group. we took the opportunity for one of the visits to meet with that religious leader in order to explain to him directly u.s. and also the country, to explain our concerns that we had about certain groups that

were engaging in violence. through that activity, you can open a new relationship with a religious leader, explain to them our positions, and expressed concerns that we have, concerns that are shared by the government of bahrain. finally, i wanted to mention one other initiative that we have been working with religious actors on. initiative that a number of religious scholars in collaboration with the islamic society of north america have developed, which is issuing a declaration on the rights of -- and the protection of full citizenship rights for minorities in the muslim world. in our work, anyone who has been observing this space can see that there is a very difficult

and ongoing problem of violence against religious minorities, particularly in the middle east. that is something we have talked about in our efforts and engagements. ofs initiative was a way religious leaders and communities to try to address that. just the scholars but also the ministers of religious affairs who have attended these meetings. there have been substantial discussions on the framework for a declaration, including a well researched paper on the islamic basis for protecting religious minorities which was authored by one of the most influential scholars in the middle east. we have been encouraging these actors to continue with this project and are hopeful that it will be concluding by early next year. this is another example of where we are not directing any actors to do anything.

we are not funding anyone. but we are engaging on shared goals in a way that respects these leaders and the authority that they carry. encouraging them in certain ways that also lines up with our goals. with o's examples, i will turn it back to alan. [applause] >> thank you very much for gathering us. and it is a pleasure and honor to have the opportunity to say a few words. after the speakers we have already heard, thanks to the institute and carnegie as well for helping us put it all together. my sense is that this is both a new and an old adventure. i thought that jerry's approach

in seeking three areas makes a deal of sense. certainly the broad spectrum of humanitarian work around the globe has always had an appeal, a sense of conjuring to the common good him, and the feeling of what i would call satisfaction that it transcended theological differences and puts into place the values that are widely shared among religions that in themselves contribute to a more harmonious and better globe. i think the notion of dialogue between religious leaders and between religious leaders and thought leaders across the spectrum is extremely important. and another way of emphasizing those portions of religious activity which i think it

epitomizes that plan of action can be epitomized in the second effort through plans of coordination and indeed plans of mutual information and in dealing with problem areas that inevitably have come up in the differences between belief systems. and i think the third area is very important and perhaps i would like to spend a little bit of time on the conflict resolution. i say this against a backdrop of something i had not realized until i thought a little bit about it as i was doing an oral history after i retired. i am in a unique position of being an ambassador first to a muslim country, jordan, with an important christian minority. i then went on to nigeria where in effect two great religions, christianity and islam, had advanced down the road of

convergence and proselytization, done so with reasonable harmony at the time i was there, but left a lot in many ways in the hands of traditional african religion, and indeed themselves were heavily influenced by african religious practices. while homosexuality is anathema among nigerian christians, polygamy is widely winked at. in many ways the edges of christianity and islam are linked by the development of syncretic sects. it was an interesting and indeed somewhat eye-opening experience. i then went on to a largely traditional roman catholic

country, el salvador, one in many ways in the throes of liberation wars and theological conflict among the majority that was also undergoing a change in the influence of evangelical protestantism within the community and played an enormously valuable role in some ways in bringing up things together and a divisive role and others in failing to recognize the transcendental values of the principal system that made things work. i went from there to the world's only jewish country, israel, and from there to the united nations, everything for everybody. i was delighted to see from arsalan new information from me on work being done in the context of the united nations, which has to skirt the difficult

questions that we americans have skirted -- how do we differentiate between faith-based belief systems, which protestants consider to be individual largely and the absolute need to develop communication and indeed understanding and cooperation on a world scale? what you are undertaking is challenging in many ways. clearly, it is not the role of diplomats or in my view the world role of world leaders to help redefine theological concepts. it is the role, however, for all of us to try to bring together those who think and work in the realm of theology around the areas where they can find agreement and help them in their definition of areas of disagreement, hopefully, first, to do no damage and, secondly, to seek the seeds of commonality where they might exist.

i went from there to the world's largest hindu country. you may see the -- one, but nepal also fits that one model. that was fascinating. i was there only a short time, but it was extremely interesting the degree to which, despite the predominance of hinduism, islam and others, many other religious experiences, including the birthplace of buddhism played a role in indian thinking and indian ideas. indeed, india has had a strong history of and working together with the terrible devastation as a result of religious differences, not any different from those differences that have transcended world harmony in the western world for thousands of years and which diplomats have to deal with.

finally, i went to russia, then and still the largest eastern orthodox christian country, but one just until a few eye blinks before i arrived was totally committed atheist. and in many ways these experiences as a diplomat meant that inevitably i had to deal with the patriarch, with the archbishop, with the mullahs. without doing that i cannot understand what was happening or more or less unable to help to make a contribution to dispute settlement. we american diplomats in some ways are saddled by invisible handcuffs that over the years have served us well, but always need to be re-examined. one of those, which is the

handcuff that we all share, is that we cannot operate outside the constitution, the law, the regulations, and the policy, and we must serve those interests. we have the privilege of seeking to change the latter and indeed the task of doing so when it is inadequate, and we have the right to change the law through our elected representatives, and indeed, only the constitution, with its own processes. the second invisible handcuffs is we do not do domestic politics. in my view that is extremely important, but i found the higher up i got in the state department, the more i had to take it into account. there was no way to convince the president to adopt a foreign-policy initiative i was interested in if in fact it was completely antithetical to his domestic political success.

that is a reality, but it is a fancifully hard one to deal with. the third is religion, and here we tend to take a constitutional barrier to establishing state religion as a broader barrier against even involving religion, thinking about religion, or talking about it. and in many ways it was the basis for harmony in this country that we did not use in whatever ways we could have avoided religious differences as a source of political and personal gain. in many ways that holds true, but it is also true we have to face up to the reality that we live in a world of a large number of faith-based systems which help people operate. as a diplomat in dispute settlement, i found it was increasingly important first and foremost to understand those particular faith-based systems

as much as i could. secondly, to communicate with the leadership in those systems as to how they solve the kinds of issues that i wished to deal with as a diplomat. thirdly, to see how the conjunction of views could be used as a basis for harmonizing and moving processes ahead rather than agitating and dividing. there is no question, of course, that each of the major religions has what i would call its fundamentalist wing. i saw an old friend, the prime minister of israel, assassinated by co-reglioner on what were religious grounds.

we have seen among christians the use of violence in this country to destroy people associated with our government because of apparent religious beliefs, and we have seen as well in islam a late manifestation, what we call isil, or what my friends in the region called isil and to some extent this presents us with special problems which we do need to understand, but it was never absent from our military engagement in iraq and afghanistan over the last 10 years. it is in many ways the problem we must continue to work on and solve with our friends in israel and the arab world, particularly palestinians. it is extremely important. the gaza truce has broken down

again. we need to work on it. the last effort with the help of the egyptians made some progress in the areas of what i would call fundamental change on both sides. we need to find a way to link that particular set of processes to the longer run requirement that we continue to push and do everything we can for the two-state solution. i admire john kerry, even in the aftermath of what is an apparent failure, that he is prepared to take it on, and i do not think he has given up the notion that this is still a major challenge for us and we have to work at it. and being able in many ways to solve the problems, which are now a mixture obviously of fear, a fear of annihilation on the

part of many, a sense of concern about ethnic and ethnic religious identity and how that will be respected, and over that most fundamental of human goods beyond, put it this way, how in what way people can live together in differences and at the same time enjoy the promise that religious harmony will bring us to us as we go ahead. syria and iraq are the centerpiece of these issues, and unfortunately, in my view, widely informed, if i can use that expression, by heavy emphasis on religious differences, which over a period of time given goodwill and wise leadership could become the basis of change and indeed rather than the basis for further radicalization and destruction of human life.

and we need to accept the challenge that we as a major player in the world have been contributing whatever way we can do the answers to those problems. i agree with the president that boots on the ground has not turned out to be a very good answer to inferences, whether they are religiously inspired, motivated, or informed, and we need to be careful about that. but i think there are ways ahead. we now have a world among our friends who speak arabic of turmoil and difficulty, of change that has come about through the satisfaction. i think mainly with secular approaches, but in some cases with religious approaches, and we need to understand that and decide how to do with it. as a diplomat, we never have

perfect options. we are always saddled with dealing with people whose frailties we understand, maybe even disdain and would like to change and have very little possibility of doing that, but who we have to inspire obviously to greater accomplishments, if i can put it that way, through personal motivation, through the long run in first in their own value system, and the opportunity to make a contribution to their federal -- which should be the highest good, but often the worst danger. so there are plenty of things out there for us to do. failure to understand how important religion is in these conflicts is a first point of error. the other point of success is to populate the relationships that can take common understanding forward to make those changes, and i think that the notion that

senator kerry had, that it is time in an organizational and institutional sense to put the state department in that path is very valuable. we need to avoid the traps and pitfalls of going too far in theology and perhaps too little into peace. but if we can keep those two points in mind, i know we will have success, and i am very pleased that jerry and arsalan are making their contributions to that effort. i compliment them on taking on that task and thank them for doing so. and i thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, ambassador pickering, and in some ways i would like to take off from what you just said to pose some questions about both to you and to arsalan and to jerry.

i mentioned in my remarks to the middle east is in flames, and in many case of beirut issues are religious issues. so the diplomacy is sometimes at a high level, which you talked about, but quite frequently it is how did you get people to stop killing each other over religious issues, whether it is in iraq or syria or bahrain or so on and so forth. what is the contribution that your work can make to resolving the very issues that ambassador pickering talked about, and maybe you two could talk first, and maybe ambassador pickering could give his own vibes. jerry?

>> thank you. to speak about strategies, we need to come up with some case studies. starting at the bottom-up approach in terms of intercommunal work, i think religious -- is needed not just for diplomats, but also on the ground, because it is easy to demonize the others. i've been working on examining the role of scriptural reasoning in this work of increasing tolerance and respect for difference. it is one way that has been largely tried among or between abrahamic faith staff groups, to study their scriptures together -- the koran, new testament, torah -- and have groups looking at related passages. what happens in the course of the group study is a dialogue and a relationship noting that

in fact can be seen to reduce prospects for example. let's say i go into a textual study and i believe as a christian that you are bound for hell, and i might feel i'm under threat. some people have taken their passions to violent ends. you can start to learn with textual reasoning and deeper understanding of text that you may still think they're going to hell, but there might be some interpretation or some wiggle room out what is the exclusion or the need for action. and in that course of opening up anyone's mind to the possibility that there might be another interpretation of texts, not just a liberal one of this particular text, the have seen that groups have become more tolerant and started building relationships, and that can take place in the place of four hours, four days, four months, four years, but in fact people are looking and scanning the

globe for techniques that yet at religious literacy as well as relationship building at the community level. scriptural reading just happens to be one that is used out there. at the community service level, that is another area people have to look at. i think ambassador pickering was right, the humanitarian or collective action, another way to get interfaith groups working together and serving the community. it builds resilience, so there is a new initiative to save the jordan river where it is understood that all the faiths value creation, but the particular iconic river jordan is at risk of dying. it is basically running out of water, filled mostly with sewage, surrounded by minefields, and is a victim of conflict.

religious groups will and say, how do we save the river, how do we work on issues of environment, and that is another way of building fabric on issues of common concern. then i think we have seen with, as arsalan said, when atrocities have broken out across, sudan, we have dispatched diplomats and tried to pull together religious leaders to go on the site and try to work with local religious leaders. we are seeing that in nigeria, in a lot of cases, but it has done at almost an ad hoc level. we do not have the capacity to create a mediation team that is literate in religion and engagement so it can be more effective. the u.n. could look at what would a rapid response team, look like and inspect this category of religious engagement, how does one do that here in reaction to crisis, but from an ongoing capacity, whether at the u.n., the u.s. government, or among faith-based organizations? this would require leaders

working more closely together to learn each other's language of conflict resolution as well as scriptural reasoning. those are three examples. >> before we go on, i would like to understand, the department of state already has sort of an emergency reaction or religious mediation team? >> no, i would like to build the capacity. the special envoy has been dispatched with others to do this work and to good effect. what is interesting when we see this working, people speaking their own language and being able to engage with leaders and effectively, we should be working to do this. >> i might add, to build on that, i think obviously every situation is different and we have to understand the context of a particular conflict. in many cases, religion is not

actually the source of the conflict. it just happens to sometimes overlap with the political lines of other economic or whatever factors are driving the conflict. so to say that a certain situation is religious violence really sometimes mischaracterizes the situation and glosses over a lot of the underlying factors. that is important to recognize because when you intervene or when you engage with actors on the ground, whether they are parties that are affected by the conflict, the role they can play is important. jerry was talking about the delegations. one example of that recently was in the central african republic and where the state department assessment said it was not a religious conflict per se, a conflict that is being driven by various political factors and

other factors, but there is a lot of overlap in terms of religious lines. and so back in april, rashad had visited the central african republic, and he brought religious leaders from the united states, representing the catholic community, the muslim community, and the protestant community. and they met there on the ground with religious leaders who had already been working together to promote peace and to end violence between the communities. the archbishop and the leader of the muslim community there were working together and there were various articles about the work they had done trying to promote peace and try to prevent their communities from being sucked into the violence that was going on there. the idea of sending this delegation was to highlight the efforts that these religious leaders were doing already on

the ground to provide them with some solidarity and support from co-religionists who are interested in helping in that situation. and since that the delegation visited, some of the members have gone back, and some of the groups they are affiliate with have increased their assistance in certain ways. there was one group that was part of the delegation of leaders that had visited a couple of times, and they are working along with other partners, including the king abdullah international center or interfaith and religious dialogue, the oic, on promoting intra-faith mediation in the central african republic, which was divided by some people who were in favor of working with

the christian communities toward peace and some groups who were writing off those efforts. as result of that delegation, there are mediation efforts of the intra-religious level. that is an example where we can bring parties together, and those parties might have different resources where they can bring to bear and can help efforts on the ground. one thing i want to mention is a lot of the situations that we are facing right now where there is conflict with the elements of religion involved, it is often a case where you have kind of a minority interpretation or a minority group that is claiming to speak on behalf of the larger religion, and the majority of those religionists or people who follow that religion feel it has been misinterpreted or abused or taken advantage of.

not just for islam, but you see that in certain cases in burma and sri lanka where you have buddhist communities, certain groups that are promoting violence in certain ways and other co-religionists who are not supportive of that. in those types of situations, i think there's another set of tools or factors that can be employed to highlight the voices of the mainstream members of those communities or leaders who represent most of the members of the religious community whose religion may be abused in certain ways. an example of that recently is in nigeria, where you have book boko haram organized around a particular ideology. they are kind of a mafia group run by this guy who is claiming to act on a religious basis, but is not. and there are religious leaders

in nigeria who were speaking against boko haram, and their voices were silenced. one of the things that we at the state department, after the kidnapping of the schoolgirls, we had a school conference where the embassy had senior religious leaders have a link with religious leaders in the u.s., to ask them, what kind of assistance can you get? we know you have been speaking out on this group. what can you do? the state department convened these individuals, and they are now trying to organize an international conference room you can have assisting some of the nigerian -- backing groups.

another example of how in this situation of violence -- the authority to bring together people who share the same goals and can help the situation on the ground. >> we have heard a lot of wisdom from the two speakers, and i have little to add. let me say a couple of things. one is that most conflicts are immediately distinguished by the we/they syndrome. the we/they syndrome then seeks to develop all of the rationale, all of the logic, all of the illogic as to why the conflict should be perpetuated and why my side should win. it is in that cycle that historically religion has played a large role or enroll as an

additional identifier or as a role for rationalizing a point of view in one way or another. it is also clear that the conflict are often over other questions. that is, that the primary intention of religion x is not to convert everybody in religion y. it is to resolve some other problem, a conflict over doing business, over running a country. many of these are power centered in their own way. and, therefore, religion in an interesting way can play a remedial role as well as an aggravating role, particularly the more the leadership invests itself in the clothing of religion, the more it should be

susceptible in terms of a religious interpretation gap to resolve the problem. one could start with that perception. next, there are two or three levels where this can work, and you have examples from us of all of them. but one of those is interreligious dialogue using religious leaders and their influence as a major way to effect the movement of the problem toward resolution, whatever that might be. it has been an interesting in the history of non-american iranian relations that to some extent the religious differences have been high. on the other hand, particularly on the iranian side, the respect for religious leaders from the other side has been well above their tolerance for the political leaders on the other side, in part because of a

feeling because people of religion have enough in common to bridge the differences and they share some common sense of values, some common sense of devotion to a deity that they can see as having a common role and interest in their religious lives, and that is important. the second is obviously how those in the political sphere, the diplomatic sphere can use their understanding to bridge the differences.

that itself is extremely significant and very important. and the third is, because the public always plays a huge role, much of what is done in agitating and making worse foreign affairs problems is done in the name of domestic politics, unfortunately. we may say democracy is splendid, and i agree it is, that democracy, put it this way, informed by people committed to the wrong values, is as hard a problem as with autocracy where the leadership wants to say to you, my people, will not go for this, i cannot sell it. in both cases, we have a common issue. if in fact the public believes, put it this way, myths, lies, falsehoods about the other side, then you have a huge problem in trying to work with that, and if that has a religious quotient, as it often does, which may stem from a religious tradition, then

you can use that as a way to find your way to the streets, in an effort to give some structure context to these things that i said what i said. >> questions from the audience. who would like to be first? back here. >> thank you. ..with the foreign service. i would like to follow up on some other marks of mr. suleman, who was speaking about boko haram, but also the islamic state. i'm wondering if you think it would be appropriate, helpful, and possible if authoritative islamic leaders who could speak on a global stage would issue some kind of statement or

doctrine saying people who use the tactics of the islamic state or boko haram are completely off the reservation do not represent the islamic faith and should be shunned or declared erratic, and, if in fact it should be appropriate and help for possible, is there a role for the u.s. in that? >> i think you were fingered, but maybe others would like to take it. >> absolutely. there have been some statements. the oic had a very strong the oic had a very strong statement kind of rejecting what isis has claimed to have established, and the group in and of itself, there have been a

number of international islamic scholars who have also issued statements directly condemning the group and rejecting their claims, establishment of the state. there is a union of scholars that has a number of senior scholars that are members of that organization which issued a statement, and other personalities have issued such statements. there is or has been those kinds of statements out there, not just about isis, but also groups against al qaeda, boko haram, and others. we do not just necessarily i asked get reporting on -- i guess get reporting on that, or the media has not highlighted that as much, but the statements are certainly there, in that position has been expressed by some of the senior leaders.

>> you have anything to comment, jerry, tom? >> what arsalan said about the lack of knowledge in this country speaks in many ways. we do not hear much of the good news, particularly from the islamic side, as to how mainstream leaders in islam treat the particular problems. and it has been a problem before 9/11, but it was certainly seriously aggravated. my greatest fear of 9/11 was not another attack. it was that we would launch a war against islam. president bush sheered that,

but was never capable of taking it fully into account. i've been concerned about that, and to some extent, it is true that christian denominations in the united states are aware practically of what is being said, and for the first time arsalan has put it out in its various manifestations in a way it is easy to understand. you wonder why we have the ideas we have, and i think partly it is ignorance about what else is going on in other parts of the world. we are marvelously served by highly competitive press whose principal interest is bad news. >> i think that question begs another one, which others might have commentary on, the role of media in this. media, like religion, and be remedial or aggravating, to use ambassador pickering's words. what is the parallelism of this communication on religion and religious leaders and group or media, social or traditional media. it is when we are seeing that spirals bread of ignorance -- the viral spread of ignorance or lies, what does one do about that when you're balancing the free speech allowing the internet to be the internet? these are very serious rest about this, because people are starting to fight their battles with violent language online,

and people tend to use various types of media. for example, there is a recent study i was being briefed on related to extremists and exclusion this weekend be violent prefer youtube and the graphic nature and fear factor that can be generated by showing very awful pictures, as you have been seeing f beheadings -- of beheadings. on the other end of the spectrum, there are the nice people who want us to live together in love and peace just 10 to use twitter to retweet positive stories. in my be in a conference during a -- in between, there is the crowd that you might call more tribal or afternoon -- entho or nationalist who use facebook. one has to look at how the continuum of religious-based actors, and politically motivated actors, power actors, are using media and how is it that we have a strategy on that front the counter viral spread of violence online. lastly, it raises this question,

too, of what the positive nature of religion, how is it that the silent majority, those who are lovers not fighters want to us to live peaceably and respect the dignity of differences of others, how is it their voice can be amplified, not as clashing images of moderates. i do not think you would like to be called a moderate friend if you feel you are devoted friend or a devout person. so this language of this inviting people to take a stand for something, faith, resilience: the peace, and protection of communities and practice and standing against something, which is things that are beyond the pale.

it is interesting to see pope francis taking a stand and saying isil's behavior so far beyond the pale that it justifies the interaction. that is a strong and unexpected statement coming out this week. >> there we go. >> thank you. my name is hassan. i was born in tehran. so nice to see you, tom, arsalan , and jerry. there is a lot of talk, and right now in a place called manassas, there is a mosque that was vandalized a couple of days ago.

and i do not know what information has been already printed. everybody knows about it or not? this mosque is particularly open to all faiths, christians, jews, muslims, and they have dialogue all the time, and they were vandalized a few days ago. we hope that the public is aware of what is going on. and jerry said 85% of the people of the world are religious. if i am worshiping in iraq, would i be a religious person, an idol, would i be a religious person, or an unseen entity, am i a religious person? there is also a saying that talk is cheap, put your money where your mouth is. i do not know the budget that you have, both of you, to combat

such a big, big mission, and so if the evil is not fed, the evil will die under its own weight. your task is to find out who is feeding these people, the boko harams, or other people who are cutting people's heads and plane for all with it in the name of religion -- and playing with it for the name of religion. >> who is religious? there was a poll being done around the world, mostly people

who would self-described as religious. whether they are worshiping this or that is their business. i would add a put on that front, that people of no faith, the secular's or atheists, are also for tech did -- also protected. it is important we keep the conversation that is being exploited in religious circles to say the secular west. by polls, united states is one of the more religious countries in the world, but if we just worship hollywood or i'll call. this idea of who is religious is an interesting question, but it is true the majority of the world expresses itself and finds meaning in religious and religious practice and belief. i think that other question about money and resources is important and how we are also building up this capacity inside the state department to deploy

expeditionarily and train the glass -- train the comments. -- diplomates. -- diplomats. it is a challenge for all of us to stave off an stem and contain conflict and counter some of those resources. >> a lot of questions, so we will pick two at a time at this point. here and here. >> before i asked my question, i would like to make an aside considering how the media sometimes creates misunderstanding in religion and hatred to a concerns isis. i've seen it reported that isis offers christians the choice of conversion or death. i have also seen -- >> flight.

>> and flight, but i have seen they are being offered and version, death, or paying a tax. a big difference, a tax that goes back to the very first day of islam. my question is we have been engaged in a war on terror for a long time now. do the so-called terrorists oppose us because of our religion? >> ok. >> retired foreign service. i wanted to back up on the diplomacy and religious conundrum. one is, as several of the panelists have noted, that conflicts frequently our struggles for powertel,

influence, resources, covered in theological garb or religion. how does american diplomacy in general take into account that conundrum as a seed to positively engage without eating seen as making choices among those contending parties? that would require it seems to me a great deal of knowledge that we do not always possess about what is seen as the situational on the ground lay of the players. the second is a term of any intervention on ourselves, the challenge of at times, dating and their team -- of validating the narrative of. we follow the site or the services that monitor extremist websites. you will see words or actions on our part that are then used, exploited to validate the narrative that they are seeking

to advance. it can be from the standard crusaders, zionist collaboration, or in iraq, it is the west seeking to protect minorities, be they christians, or others, that then are exploited by isis or whomever -- >> the question? >> how do you deal with them in reality as you come up with specific diplomatic or policy initiatives to take that into account and to mitigate? >> three questions. terrorism, power politics, and amplification of violent meters. -- violent leaders. who would like to take that? >> we have seen a litany of things to which terrorists object, and not all of them are religious.

some of those are colonial. some of those are invasive, that is, sacred space is being taken over or removed from their purview. the mother that is internal, that the monarchies do not do a good job governing us. so i think it gets mixed, the coloration of religion is really part of it, and in some cases, it may either primary appeal in the field to the recruitment of new people to serve the cause. but each one of these i think is quite a different and each deserves a separate examination. that gets your second question, that we can put it off if we do not understand how and in what way speaking can be either misinterpreted or misaligned to

serve the cause. we had it all through the cold war with the soviets. so it is not anything that is entirely new to american diplomats. it requires perhaps a new basis for understanding and it requires a lot of reading, whether it is reading in the new media or the old media or a combination of both to do that. i think that is important and it requires obviously a lot of language knowledge of all of which certainly we have tried to promote among american formats as a way to get the answer. i think the other question of are they getting enough money to do this, the answer is always no. how much more should they get? it depends on their success, but i hope that the budget for the oic mission, the budget for the bureau of stabilization includes the continued effort along these lines, because i think it makes

a lot of sense and has a long a to go. >> let's take these three right here. >> heartland's international. all you talked about is very impressive, but you have not mentioned women at all, and all the colleagues he talked about were men. i wonder if you're taking any initiative to bring in women, because they are more victims than men? >> could you pass it ahead? >> ok, i am from somalia. >> could you hold it a little closer? >> i am from somalia. i really like all the information that is presented by the panel, and it is very important, but my question, it is very important that dialogue between religious leaders -- i wonder what will be the use? in the countries, you see the young people who do not have any knowledge of islam who had been told something not true? how can we afford them that they do not have people based on their difference? thank you.

>> one more. >> this person. >> i served for years as a liaison between the catholic cardinals and the national islamic front in pseudonymous -- in sudan and work with a small army serving there. my question deals with some of what the ambassador talked about and also the deputy assistant secretary white. currently, the envoy to sudan has not been allowed into sudan because he refuses to meet with the president there. i am wondering if somebody like you, ambassador >> is a correct call you ambassador white? >> jerry is fine. >> jerry, would it be more viable to have you go in, because you're dealing with a non-state actor, and maybe your

expertise would be something that would help break things open again? ambassador pickering, you have talked about there have been so many ngo's and other influences that are domestic, because what i have seen with the keys talks, the south sudan problem and looking at the north-south things, did it in terms of religion can and they moved lock stock and barrel to door for -- to darfur. i know how instrumental you have been in that and how influential you still are. and i would love to hear how we could help what is going on in sudan now and maybe have somebody like jerry's croup go in, because i do not think, unless the presidential envoy agrees to meet with the present, that anything will happen.

>> let's take another. >> fulbright scholar. i had two questions. the first one was also for jerry, because you described this fusion that happened in the state department in the practice of u.s. diplomacy. you see the same thing is happening on the other side of the landing best of the

atlantic, like europe, or some countries [indiscernible] i was wondering if you had any transatlantic commonality on that, especially also with the european elections, that if you had any contact? this leads me to my second question, again, drawing from european philosophy to engage with islamists come especially political parties, is that evident? it was denounced that western powers are -- tunisia because it is a clinical force. i could also cite the case of egypt. how is your view of the -- coping with those realpolitik interests? >> we have a question about the youth in somalia, sudan, coordination with europe, and tunisia. a large part of this faulty, jerry, so we will go down the line. i wish you would take this as your final wrapup cause we're about five minutes toward the

end,. jerry, arsalan. >> cause we have so many people entranced in the audience, it is clear that the questions are grounded in that experience and you know somebody answered by the questions i would imagine. we need to do more, better, faster, and it is an urgent time for the seizure. maybe the overall thematic thing which our bureau has tried to exploit is what does nontraditional or asymmetric diplomacy look like for such a time like this? getting beyond some of the traditional diplomacy. there's a joke that would the state department uses 19th-century tools and 20th century approaches, and we've got to be facing 21st-century problems. that is a criticism we take on board where we try to upgrade all of our tools and our purchase -- and our purchase.

we have people looking to the phraseology of how to describe doing diplomacy with civil society and other thematic envoys that are not always ambassadors of these niceties or europe find them selves not getting to know the people. the people to people exchanges are withering. this is a real challenging for our diplomacy in non-permissive environments, whether s yria or libya. in the case of the south sudan envoy, i agree with the intention that sometimes the top level negotiating envoy is this is harry, but not sufficient, and there are political limitations on timing. and the times you need to send retired ambassadors as well as religious actors or nongovernmental entities to help work.

a group out of rome has been doing a lot of piecework around the world, and there are good examples of them doing nontraditional work outside the public space. the role of women, it is a challenge in our bureau. you cannot be dealing with conflict around the world unless you have a gender strategy of increasing -- inclusion working with women. it tends to be a lot of men, patriarchal system, running and getting engaged top down. there must be another stream that uses more empowerment and capacity building for that level of leadership of women fake actors who are going to play an important role on the world stage. and youth, the same thing, you cannot deal with these things unless you are looking faqs question, incentivizing them. what is the sex appeal of joining and being trained in

violence, but also being rewarded for that? joining a gang, being rewarded, to helping new skills, having courage and excitement, a longing, and then show videos of why this is a heavenly reward, when the religious messaging comes on board. americans often wonder how they are being perceived. it is not really about religion, although that is what is taking place, but it is the politics and policies. these outstanding issues of what we are standing for consistently in the world. what about the two-state solution that continues to fester as a cancer in the region, among many other things. this is a very challenging space to be working in as we move forward with a consistent foreign policy. the dynamic is not always as traditional as it looked last century. we are doing our best on the innovative front, and we need

more ideas and partnership with civil society and your thought leadership as well. thank you so much for this time today. >> arsalan? >> thank you. i think the eu has started to take this into account. a focus on youth is absolutely critical. on the younger population and focuses on countering the other narrative and avoiding validating the narrative. not to use certain terminology.

if someone calls himself a jihadist, they mean to invoke their religion in saying this is a holy war. we should not call them a jihadist, we should call them a terrorist. in terms of challenging the narrative and getting to youth, the situation where these ideologies can gain holds, you have a lot of promise. you have a breakdown of state institutions. underlying issues that allows extremism have to be addressed. education is one of those issues, including religious education.

when we engage with religious scholars, they take these issues to heart and they feel it is their responsibility to correct a lot of the miss edge -- miss information out there. and weot teach religion cannot fund programs for someone is teaching a certain thing so it comes -- it becomes little tricky as far as the constitutional handcuff. >> tom, you have the final word. >> i know we are in overtime. ,s a matter of general rules the notion that came out of the question of the woman who spoke about sudan, you demand a price

for talking to somebody is one that is close to bankruptcy. very rarely will people pay up front for the idea to talk about a solution to their problem with things that solve the problem and your direction. -- in your direction. if they are on the other side and control in outcome, you have to find a way to talk to them and you may well be right in your suggestion that using third channels, indirect channels, unofficial people, can play a useful role. -- alsond piece is all along those lines. when i was at the united nations, i urge the secretary-general to keep a list can callduals that he

upon to work on behalf of the united nations as unofficial or official representatives. that list needs to have leading religious figures. i go back to secretary kerry. thinking about those people like -- certain muslim religious country, others who could serve as individuals who could relay messages and build bridges and create understanding and be part of the unofficial, but now much more employed universe of diplomacy that we could use in a particular fashion. i think it makes a lot of sense.

retirees are fine. maybe active individuals in their own area who know the problem very well from a religious angle ought to be part of the official quotient. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> coming up, q&a with pat buchanan. "ollowed by "washington journal with your calls and today's news.

>> this week on "q&a," our guest is pat buchanan, the author of "the greatest comeback: how richard nixon rose from defeat to create the new majority." mr. buchanan worked for richard nixon and his book explores nixon's career following his losses in the 1960's presidential election and the 1962 california governor's race, and how he recovered to win the presidency in 1968. >> pat buchanan, your new book about the 1968 campaign of richard nixon -- is that a beginning of a trilogy for you? >> i had intended by it.