Christian Ethics, Actors, and Diplomacy

Abstract

While theme of this issue of International Journal is future of diplomacy, indicating new trends and instantiation of new forms, actors, and issues, relationship between Christianity and is anything but new. Peeling back secularist assumptions of international politics demonstrates degree to which religious and in particular Christian actors, ignored for much of 20th century, have always been and continue to be part and parcel of diplomatic practice/ Nevertheless, it is still extremely important to ask what types of religious diplomatic practices are occurring currently as opposed to past.Christianity's legacy forms a prominent, though relatively unexamined, component of history of western diplomacy. It also has a historically complicated relationship with state sovereignty, foundational international institution that makes modern possible. Christian guidelines have long helped to construct foundation for western understandings of goals to be achieved in diplomatic practice, including legitimate use of violence and forms of international intervention. Augustinian formulations shaped modern definitions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, laws of war and laws in war, respectively. Christian ethical debates, divisions, and actions shaped creation of nation-state system and ideas of United States's founding fathers, as well as supranational and international forms of governance.2 In other words, Christian debates about nature of sovereignty versus universalist projects address essence of traditional diplomacy: question of how - or insideoutside problem of world politics - is mediated.3Many features of this complicated relationship between Christianity and are important to analyze, but in this article I examine role of Christian actors in diplomatic struggles over meaning of territoriality, representation, and governance during two periods: 1930s and 1940s (from end of interwar years to just after World War II) and postCold War era - 1990s to present. In each case, I focus on James Der Derian's understanding of as mediating to ask what types of estrangement are mediated by Christian ethics and actors.4 I argue, first, that universalist pretensions are a recurring feature of Christian diplomatic interventions, and second, that these pretensions produce ethical tensions over specifically Christian and global character of representation and governance.I first look at way in which Christian attempts to navigate temporal and spiritual played out in interwar ethics and promoted a secularized form of universalism, even while they justified use of force by sovereign states. This form of universalism justified consolidation of global governance from League of Nations to United Nations, but it also privileged United States's role in UN's leadership. As articulated by John Foster Dulles in US, post- World War II great power universalism also owed much to, although it also differed from, dual morality justification for states' use of force legitimized by Rienhold Niebuhr.These universalist pretensions regarding territoriality and governance, along with statist justifications for use of force, shaped diplomatic practice in the west throughout Cold War. They also continue to exist, still frequently in tension, in post-Cold War era. Examining humanitarian diplomacy in post-Cold War era (see also Ole Jacob Sending's article in this issue) offers an opportunity to assess content of Christian ethical struggles over representation within universalist pretensions of global international organization. More specifically, some Christian humanitarians today argue that universal rights to religious freedom allow and even require proselytizing. This type of faith-based participation in tasks of mediating also is not new, as it has important antecedents in successive periods of Christian missionizing. …