Sensitivity key for Canadian foreign service, says religious freedom envoy
2016/01/07 4 Comments
Encouraging that the promised spirit of openness by the Liberal government allowed this interview. Agree with Bennett’s fundamental thesis that diplomats would benefit from greater understanding of the role that religious faith plays.
Arguably, the same could be said for public servants more generally, given that many if not most reasonable accommodation issues involve religions:
Canada’s ambassador for religious freedom says the explosive rift between Saudi Arabia and Iran highlights religion’s growing influence on global affairs — and a potential “blind spot” for Canadian diplomats.
In an exclusive interview, Andrew Bennett said Canadian foreign service officers and other government officials need more training on the role that religious faith often plays in an individual country’s domestic policies and international relations.
“We need to ensure that if we want to be really nuanced and winsome in how we engage countries that are deeply religious, that we can actually employ language that enables us to have a deeper engagement,” he said. “If we can’t do that, then we risk developing or having a serious diplomatic blind spot.”
….On the broader question of religious reconciliation, Bennett said Canada and its western allies “are not going to solve the Sunni-Shia divide. But we need to understand it.” Key to that, he says, is making sure Canadian diplomats and government officials can understand, appreciate and speak the “language” of religion.
“When we engage, we can at least be somewhat conversant in the language that is used in Iran,” Bennett said. “I don’t mean Farsi. I mean what are the cultural, religious reference points that we need to be aware of and need to sort of integrate into that dialogue.”
The Pew Centre, a U.S.-based think tank, has estimated that 84 per cent of the world population has some type of religious affiliation, Bennett said. Religion has also played a role in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, he said, as well as in Nigeria and other places.
“Religion is becoming more of a geopolitical fact. It’s informing geopolitics,” said the ambassador.
“In Canada, because we live in a fairly secularized society where religious faith is not a strong component in shaping political, economic (or) social discourse, we’re not formed through our education and other things in a way that allows us to engage necessarily in that discussion around faith,” he added.
“So I think we need to increase our knowledge and increase our ability to engage in questions of religion.”
Bennett said his office, which was established under the previous Conservative government three years ago, has been working to expand such understanding in Canada’s foreign service. Several courses were offered and quickly filled up. His hope is that such work will be increased under the new government.
“At a more foundational level, in Canada and in the United States and in many Western countries, really since the Enlightenment, religion and religious faith has increasingly become absent from public discourse and from the public space, and it’s been viewed as something purely of the private sphere,” he said.
“When it comes to foreign affairs and international relations, when we leave a very secularized country such as Canada and go to a country that is not at all secular such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, there’s a bit of a disconnect. And we need to address that.”
Source: Sensitivity key for Canadian foreign service, says religious freedom envoy | Ottawa Citizen
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
I’m not sure ‘winsome’ – a form of charm implying childlike innocence – is a quality we should require in Canadian diplomats. We have sometimes, in fact, acted like innocents abroad; and this has not always been in the best interests of the nation. I think, though, the general point – about understanding the religious sensibilities of other cultures and dealing tactfully with them – is a good one; I fear, however, that secularists and critics of religion – who are murdered in many places, such as Bangladesh – can be left out of this celebratory ecumenical religious love fest, which was I suspect Mr. Harper’s intention when he created the office of Ambassador of Religious Freedom; and there is the danger, too, of cosying up, in uncritical fashion, to tyrannical regimes just because they are ‘religious’. Not all citizens of such countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran – who are of course muzzled – share in the official spiritual exaltation. An Iranian friend of mine, who has seen her share of torture at the hands of ‘religious’ authorities, when asked whether she was Shia or Sunni, replied, “Atheist”. Of course, official religions have also been – and are – sometimes ostensibly secular. In an old Denis Arcand film, an enthusiastic Leftist Quebec Don Juan, trying to charm a beautiful Chinese woman, waxes poetic about Mao and the Cultural Revolution. She listens, nods her head, and then, when he has run out of steam, says, “Mao and the Cultural Revolution killed my whole family.” Then too, fellow religionists – monotheists of various flavors – seem to be killing each other, and everybody else, with great enthusiasm and in great numbers, so when being ‘sensitive’ to religion, one has to sensitive to the nuances of ferocious hatred, too. Otherwise one might find oneself being sensitive in the wrong direction to the wrong people, which might be counter-productive, and even dangerous. These are tricky waters, not at all winsome.
Valid points. I always distinguish between improved knowledge and understanding, and acceptance. And I remember that wonderful scene from the Arcand film.
I agree with you, Andrew: the distinction between knowledge and understanding, on the one hand, and acceptance and approval, on the other, is crucial. It is a distinction that is now being lost in the furor of partisan debate and propaganda: to analyse terrorists’ motives, for example, is often branded as ‘apologizing for terrorism.’ Or if you analyse why possibly Palestinian youths in the West Bank and Gaza might be a bit discontent and run around trying to murder people, you can find yourself accused of being an anti-Semite and apologist for attacks on Israel and terrorism. General Montgomery, if I remember correctly, used to place photographs of his opponents, German generals Rommel and von Rundstedt, across from his desk. When asked why, he said, “I have to understand them.” And, if you want to confront Hamas and ISIS and so on, you have to understand their ideologies, beliefs, and motives. The leaders of the Israeli Security Agency, Shin Bet, for example, explain this in detail in the splendid Israeli documentary film “The Gatekeepers.”
Another great film that all should see precisely for this point.