Social Issues

Religion

  • Nigeria
    A Religious Dilemma
    Nigerian Christians must decide whether to cut or thrust. 
  • Tunisia
    Pope Francis Goes to Canada, Petition for Same-Sex Marriage in Ukraine, Pivotal Tunisian Referendum, and More
    Podcast
    Pope Francis travels to Canada seeking forgiveness from Indigenous communities for Catholic Church abuses; President Volodymyr Zelensky must respond to a petition for same-sex marriage in Ukraine; and President Kais Saied hopes to ratify a controversial new constitution in Tunisia.
  • Social Issues
    Addressing Gun Violence at Home and Abroad
    Play
    Rev. Ciera Bates Chamberlain, executive director of Live Free Chicago-Live Free Illinois, and Ali H. Mokdad, chief strategy officer of population health at the University of Washington, discuss gun violence in the United States and around the world, and how religion leaders are responding. Tali Woodward, editor in chief of the Trace, moderated. Learn more about CFR's Religion and Foreign Policy Program.   FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Social Justice and Foreign Policy Webinar Series. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today’s webinar is on the record and it will be posted on our website, CFR’s website, CFR.org, and on our iTunes podcast channel, Religion and Foreign Policy. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. I’m delighted to introduce our distinguished panel and moderator. Ciera Bates-Chamberlain is the executive director of Live Free Chicago-Live Free Illinois, where she works with Black churches to create safe, economically viable, and self-sustained Black communities. Prior to this role, she served as the senior organizer at a faith-based organization. Reverend Bates-Chamberlain is an adjunct professor at Northeastern University, a mental health professional, and strategy consultant. She was ordained a minister through the Church of Jesus Christ House of Prayer, where she served as a church administrator for the Chicago congregation. Ali Mokdad is a professor of health metric sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington. Prior to these roles, he worked at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Mokdad has published groundbreaking research on local level disease trends and leading risk factors for poor health. Dr. Mokdad has been cited in publications addressing gun violence around the world. Tali Woodward will be moderating today’s conversation. She is the editor in chief of the Trace, which is the only newsroom dedicated to covering gun violence. We started late because we’re having a few technical issues. Tali is on the phone. You cannot see her, obviously. But we wanted to keep her in this conversation so she could have the conversation with our distinguished panelists, Dr. Mokdad and Reverend Bates-Chamberlain. So we’ll do that for about twenty minutes—twenty-five minutes. And then we will turn to all of you for your questions. When we get to that point, you can click on the raise hand icon on your screen to say you want to ask a question. Please accept the unmute prompt, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also write your question in the Q&A feature in your Zoom window. But if you do that, please identify yourself so we can read that out loud. And it gives all of us context for who you are and your perspective. So with that, I’m going to turn the conversation now to Tali Woodward. We look forward to this conversation. So, Tali, over to you. WOODWARD: Hi. Thank you. And I’m sorry I can’t be on the video. There’s an internet outage where I live. So I just wanted to sort of say, again, I’m editor in chief at the Trace, which is a nonprofit newsroom that covers gun violence specifically. We have a staff of about fifteen people, and we report on all aspects of gun violence, including investigations into the National Rifle Association, and local coverage in several places in the country, including Chicago. So, Reverend Bates-Chamberlain, I wanted to sort of start with you and ask a question which I think is very kind of central to understanding gun violence in America. There’s so much attention on mass shootings and these kind of dramatic mass shootings in public places. But actually, statistically, most gun violence in America is not connected to any sort of mass shooting in a public place and is, instead, experienced in certain communities where it’s highly concentrated. And you obviously live in one of them in Chicago, I think the place that’s probably most associated with gun violence in the United States—though that’s not actually accurate, statistically. There are other places that have a much higher per capita incidence of gun violence. But I would love for you to kind of start us off telling us a little bit about what—how the epidemic of gun violence in America is really experienced in a community, from what you’ve seen. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Sure. Thank you, again, for having me. It’s an honor to have the opportunity to have this conversation with you all today. And so, like you stated, I work in Illinois. I’m also a part of Live Free USA, who does this work nationally. But just sort of laying it out, oftentimes Chicago receives a lot of the attention as far as gun violence in Black and brown communities, but across the state of Illinois where there are low-income Black and brown communities there’s high concentration of violence. And like you were saying, there are other cities, such as East St. Louis, who actually has higher rates of violence in those smaller cities. But again, because they don’t have the volumes they don’t receive the same attention as Chicago. But communities, specifically—I’m going to speak specifically to the Black community, because that’s a community I’m in proximity to. As folks are experiencing racism and poverty, gun violence is a symptom of—of a lack of resources and neglect to those communities and to our communities. So as we’re experiencing the other—the other issues of poverty and racism, gun violence is a product of the lack of resources and, quite frankly, just the care that our communities need. WOODWARD: I think that’s really important context to add to this and framing, to think of gun violence as a symptom of a lot of other issues and problems we have in the United States. Can you say anything more sort of about how—what you’ve—it’s a symptom of racism and poverty, and then how do you see it sort of playing out when there is a shooting in your community? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Sadly, a lot of people have become desensitized to it. But then there are a lot of people in community who are trying to break the culture of normalizing violence. I think it’s a sad thing when you hear—even my six-year-old son can distinguish gunshots between firecrackers. So now when we—and it’s a web of trauma. And there’s a culture that has been created in our communities of when someone is shot and killed there may be a prayer vigil, but as soon as you’re dealing with one family there’s another family on the next block who has experienced this tragedy. So at this point, it has become an overwhelming issue because there are so many homicides. We’re not even thinking about the shootings. There’s one person, Sean Malinowski, who would say the shootings are incomplete homicides. So a lot of times we’re talking about the shootings—the homicides, but we’re not even thinking about the number of shootings and the trauma that that creates. So where people are not able to send their kids to the park, grandmothers are not able to sit on their front porch because of the number of shootings. Then children are not able to receive the adequate care that they need to even address the trauma that they’re experiencing because they lost, already in high school, maybe a dozen friends to violence already. So violence and the trauma is now all around us. And like I said, many of our communities have become desensitized to it because we’ve normalized the violence in our communities. It has impacted—it has an impact, from babies to the elders. WOODWARD: Mmm hmm. Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think there’s a lot of research that shows that and the effect it can have on children, these experiences in school and on community ties, and all kinds of things. So I feel like that’s a good opportunity to ask Dr. Mokdad if you can speak a little bit to sort of what is now understood about how gun violence occurs, and sort of thinking about it as a public health problem, which I think for some people is maybe a new concept to think of. I mean, I think people think about—I know you’ve worked—done some work on obesity, and people think of that as a public health issue. I think people obviously think of smoking as a public health issue. But I think it sometimes takes a little bit of a, like, change in frame to think of gun violence that way. Could you tell us sort of how you—how you think about that, and how someone new might want to think about it? MOKDAD: Good morning and thank you for inviting me. And I totally agree with my colleague. So let me frame it a little bit before I dive into why it is a public health issue. But let me frame gun violence in the United States, and how it compares to other countries. It’s very important for us to discuss this first. We do something at where I am, at the Institute, we do something called the “global burden of disease for every country in the world,” and for many countries at the sub-national level. In the U.S. we do it at the state level and the country level. And for many countries we can do it at the state—equivalent of a state. And then we monitor what kills, so what’s killing, injuries, of course, and then risk factors, but also what’s ailing the population. And here in the United States, when we talk about gun violence we count the number of people who have been killed by gun violence or people who committed suicide by a gun, but we don’t talk about what my colleague was talking about, is what’s the disability? What’s the impact? How is this ailing our society? So when you look at the United States, we have the highest gun violence compared to any rich country in the world. So even the top rich country in the world, sixty-four countries in the world, we still are way ahead of them. Very few countries in the world, they happen to be in South America, unfortunately, have higher gun violence than we do have in the United States. And I totally agree with my colleague. We in the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, we do something called the Social Demographic Index, which is an index of education, income, and fertility under the age of twenty-five. So basically what she was talking about, what access the community has to better education and their health. And then we see a strong association between health performance and this Social Demographic Index. We call it here social determinants of health in the United States. But why is gun violence in the U.S. a major health problem right now? It’s inflicting, of course, a lot of deaths, especially among young people, here. But also it’s causing a lot of disability in the United States, pressure on our medical centers. People who have been shot or have been exposed to a violent act, they will remember it for a long time. There is a mental health impact on this. And by the way, mental health in the United States, if you look at the highest state in the U.S. with gun violence, they don’t have the highest mental health levels in the U.S. So it’s the reverse. Gun violence will cause mental health [issues], but rarely mental health causes gun violence. So gun violence is something else that we need to address. It’s basically at the root of the social determinants of health in our community, and what resources are available to our communities. WOODWARD: Thank you. That’s really helpful and helpful to get that sort of—the grand scheme of things. And I think it’s interesting that you pointed to something that we try to pay attention to at the Trace, which is that there are more people who are shot and survived than who are shot and die in the United States. Which means we have just this huge population of people who have had that experience in their lives, and whether that means they’re dealing with some sort of disability, or it is only the mental health impacts that they’re struggling with, or both. But it’s a big part—a big portion of our country at this point. Can you give the—sort of the public health framework, can you say a little bit more about what it means to look at an issue like gun violence, that is, I think we could safely say, it’s multi-sectoral in terms of causes, and try to think about health interventions that would make a difference? MOKDAD: Of course. I’m happy to. And here in the United States, by the way, gun violence especially—and we’ve published—I mean, this was published in an article—a scientific, peer-reviewed article. Gun violence here, or violence—police killing by guns here in the United States is underreported. So in a way, I’m not talking about gun violence—we’re not talking about police killing here. But again, I want you to keep in mind that gun violence sometimes is underreported here in the United States. So the problem that we are talking about, even when it comes from the police, is underreported. So keep that in mind. Now, when it comes to how we could address this problem here in the U.S. and the violence in the United States, let me start at the root cause. We have a lot of disparities—health disparities in the United States. And these health disparities, including gun violence, have four main causes that we look at. And briefly allow me to explain that. The first one is socioeconomic factors. So people who are poor, people who are less educated. Let me give you an example. A woman who is educated, for example, is more likely to understand the sign of danger—health sign of danger, more likely to seek medical care, more likely to adhere to the medical message because she understands it. So socioeconomic factors are big factors in any health problem, including gun violence. The second one, of course, here in the United States is our health insurance and underinsurance. And many Americans here, unfortunately, struggle from day to day to get the basic medical care. And we are the only rich country in the world that doesn’t have universal health care. Even somebody like me, who is a professor in the medical school, I have to be careful, and I have to make sure I have the medical insurance, and I have to make sure I know how to navigate the system. The third one is access—quality of medical care. Here in the United States, not everybody has access to good quality medical care. And I mean not medical errors. I’m deviating a little bit about gun violence, but I want to explain disparity because it encompasses gun violence. It’s how late is a person coming to seek medical care? And once that person is in the medical care, how well he or she has been followed to make sure the medication or what they have received is doing exactly what—effective coverage. So if you have high blood pressure, if you have medication it’s going to reduce your blood pressure. The last one are risk factors such as obesity and diabetes. So you come to gun violence, it’s mainly the first one. But the others are impacting, because people in the United States are struggling from day to day. And unfortunately, there is access to guns here in the U.S. One way to control it is, of course, control access to guns. Other countries have controlled alcohol, and successfully, outlets for alcohol. Making sure that alcohol bars cannot be next to each other, stop selling alcohol at a certain point of time. If you look, for example, the mayor of Cali in Colombia. He had the highest gun violence. He was a medical doctor. He controlled alcohol, and he’s seen a sharp decline in gun violence in his city. So there are ways that other countries have applied. But in the United States, we run away from the main problem that we face—whether it is gun violence, whether it’s this disparity of our health—socioeconomic factors. We do not take care of our own population, and it takes a village, and we all—we cannot be safe until all of us are safe. We cannot be healthy until all of us are healthy. We cannot treat somebody different than another one. And until we address these issues this gun violence will then be here look at you. Over. WOODWARD: So I understand what you’re saying, and it’s all very compelling. And I agree that all of the evidence shows that these things are interrelated. What would you say to someone who says: Well, that’s a huge list of things to address, and we’re never going to do that in the United States, for all kinds of political reasons? So how do we just—how do we effect gun violence? MOKDAD: (Laughs.) Let me tell you my answer for that. We do something at the Institute called human capital. When you look at every country in the world—what we mean by human capital is ages twenty to sixty-four, this is your working force. How healthy and how educated they are? And this Human Capital Index is strongly associated with economic development. Look at South Korea, for example. I mean, they have invested in education and health by addressing these factors, socioeconomic status. Automatically look at their economy and how well they are doing. All countries—Singapore—all countries who invested in health and education and addressed disparities on the issues I’m talking about, they made more money, they were a rich country, and they made progress. So my answer to somebody who’s telling me like this, all our problems in the U.S. when it comes to health, we spent in the United States $3.7 trillion on health. The whole world—the whole world spends eight trillion dollars. So we spent almost half of what the world is spending. And look where we are. Look at our outcomes. Any metric you look at—life expectancy, we’re forty-two in the world. Maternity mortality is higher than Lebanon when I was born. Lebanon is a country that has a civil war—came out of civil war. Maternal mortality in Lebanon is lower than maternal mortality in the United States. So how do we address all these issues? We have to start—and we have to stop ignoring these issues. We have to take care of our own and have a social network to take care of our own people. Otherwise, you and I will be talking about this, my daughter and your daughter will be talking about this in twenty, thirty years, exactly the same. We have to act now. It’s time to act. We have the tools to address it. But we tend, unfortunately, in the United States to ignore it. And we don’t want to do that. It’s not expensive. I mean, listen— WOODWARD: If you look at all of the other side of it, yeah. MOKDAD: Yeah. I went to school. I paid for my education because it’s a good investment. I mean, it’s not wasted money. It’s a very good investment. It makes our country strong. It makes our economy better. We still compete everybody in the world. So, yes, we would pay money. You have to pay money to make money. WOODWARD: Thank you. Reverend Bates-Chamberlain, do you have anything that you want to add at this point? Connecting the two kind of aspects we’ve been talking about? The sort of community experience on the community level with public health approaches? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I actually—Dr. Ali provoked thought around a few things I would like to bring up. One, I want to bring up the conversations of mass shootings, and that was sort of in your first question. And how oftentimes—so, for example, in Illinois we had the Highland Park shooting, which was devastating. But the—as we were holding space for that, we were also holding space by realizing that mass shootings that happen in white communities see a lot of resources and support. In Black communities you see mass shootings every week, but there was no state of emergency declared till there was the Highland Park shooting. So I think even the way as we’re thinking about this how we’re able to acknowledge the disparities even in our responses. I think the second piece I wanted to name, in continuing on the responses on how we feel in community when we talk about violence, when we talk about not having the violent means. And what typically happens is young Black men and women are oftentimes criminalized and not supported. But when there are shootings in other areas, it becomes a mental health conversation. And this isn’t only around gun violence. We’ve seen this between the opioid and the crack epidemic. So even how we’re—again, how we’re thinking about supporting communities so that we can end the violence. And then the other piece of just adding to how we can impact gun violence so it begins to really work toward reducing it, because there are so many things that contribute to violence in our communities. But it really is—I heard a Ted Talk. And I forgot the speaker’s name, but she said something that stuck with me, basically saying that if my brain experienced what your brain experienced, I would act in the same ways that you act. And that stuck out to me because what our people are experiencing, meaning when people have seen their parents incarcerated, or they’re hungry because we don’t have access—well, we have food deserts, when we don’t have access to mental health facilities. And then when we do have some—when we’re connected to a mental health agency, you got to go through all type of loopholes even just to get services. So access to things that people need just to survive when those things are taken away, this is the response that you typically get. But there are remedies for it. So even just being able to say that we’re going to make sure that communities receive services in resources and that they’re equitably distributed and allocated in communities, ensuring that governments aren’t coordinating these strategies. So the governments need to have things in place, such as offices of gun violence prevention, where they’re pulling all of the resources and the stakeholders together and they’re coordinating public health strategies. And then where we’re also making sure that there are good policies that’s put in place that speak to the surviving community, as well as the inner city. MOKDAD: May I add something to what the reverend just said? I totally agree with her, but I want to give you a very specific example to make her point. Look at COVID-19. We have a pandemic in the United States. Mortality among African American, Hispanics, and Native American was much higher than white. We looked at it, and it’s among the younger age group. It’s not among the elderly. Among the younger age group in Hispanic, younger age group in African American. We failed in the U.S. to protect our essential workers. I mean, these people went out, kept food on our table, kept our country running while the rich people—I mean, look at us. We’re on Zoom, we can do all our work—I can work from home. These guys couldn’t work from home because their jobs required them to be out and about. We failed to protect them. And we knew all along that we needed to protect them. Give them a mask, give them a suit, let them wear what they need to do, gear to protect themselves. We failed. Only we started talking about it in the U.S.—we know from scientific—from public health, we knew that is going to happen. We only started talking about when all over the media was, like, a meat packing—pork meat packing somewhere in the Midwest shutting down because there was a lot of infections. And people were afraid, oh my God, I’m not going to have my steak right now. This is exactly what we are talking about. WOODWARD: Well, thank you very much. Do we want to—I think we’re supposed to open it up to questions at this point. Irina, are you taking over, or someone else? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Can I make one more comment, just to follow Dr. Ali? WOODWARD: Sure. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Because when we think about the COVID-19 response, and knowing the—in Chicago the Black community was hit hardest by COVID-19, because of many of the reasons why he named. But when we look at the investment in COVID response, everybody had a role and there was a significant investment. And that needs to happen with violence prevention. There needs to be—the city needs to coordinate their response with all of the stakeholders. There needs to be a narrative change where people are educated on the issue. When we did COVID-19, a five-year-old knew how they can help to reduce the curve because they could wash their hands. And other people had a role. So we all realized that it took everyone. Everyone is impacted by COVID-19, and everybody had a role in reducing it. And that is exactly what we need to do with gun violence. WOODWARD: Very good point. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Tali, this is Irina. We are going to go to questions now. WOODWARD: OK, great. Thank you. OPERATOR: (Gives queuing instructions.) Our first question comes from Barbara McBee from Soka Gakkai International-USA. She writes: Regardless of access, Black people are overwhelmingly killed by police. Mass shooters seem to be overwhelmingly white. How do we change this or engage in the conversation to make things—to make changes in fundamental attitudes? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: So I can go. So just naming that police violence is gun violence. I think we need to always mention that we’re naming that. But it goes back to narrative change, what I named earlier. There’s this—and if I can hear the question correctly—yes, oftentimes we do see, like, the mass shooters often are not only White, they’re White men that are oftentimes the mass shooters. But in community there’s a different narrative that is put out. And we have to address the narrative and the need. And it goes back to criminalizing Black communities. And so people have to be—and this is where even the faith community can step in. This is about being in relationship. This is about making sure that we’re teaching people in community around these false narratives and how they’re portrayed, and even teaching folks around—if there’s a lack of understanding around police violence and the statistics. We all have a role in being sure that we’re educating people in our congregations, in our various social circles, so that people—so that we can collectively begin to change that narrative. MOKDAD: I mean, I totally agree. But racism is a public health issue. We do, in this country we measure racism. Right now we say African Americans are more likely to be killed than white or et cetera. Until we measure—we know, for example, cigarette smoking will increase your lung cancer risk. And we have a number, a relative risk for that. We need to measure racism in this country. And we need to do a better job of saying what racism is causing in this country. It’s the root cause of a lot of problems in the U.S. And until we address it and we speak about it, and being quiet right now is not acceptable. FASKIANOS: Great. Next question. OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Reverend Curtiss DeYoung from the Minnesota Council on Churches. He writes specifically to Reverend Bates-Chamberlain, and asks: Can you speak to how state-sponsored police violence against Black people intersects with gun violence in Black communities? I know you have addressed both concerns. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Thank you, Dr. DeYoung. So, yeah, I think when we’re specifically talking about—and a lot of our work—I would like to name that a lot of our work is at the intersection of public safety and criminal justice reform, because you can’t reduce gun violence without addressing police violence, mass incarceration. All of those three work together. But specifically at the intersection of state-sanctioned violence, what seems to happen is—because when we’re talking about violence prevention, we also have to begin to bring in the conversations clearance rates. So if you’re in community, and although a public health approach means that we don’t have a carceral or law enforcement-centered approach, but we know that law enforcement—that they’re in the equation. But when you have police continuing to abuse and terrorize Black communities, that breaks down the ability, one, for communities to feel protected and served. That also breaks down the barriers of people actually using the justice system as a—as a means towards justice. So oftentimes people will take justice in their own hands because there is no entity that they can go to that is trusted to help to bring justice to their loved ones. So they almost in some ways can say that there is an increase because there is a lack of police legitimacy and trust. FASKIANOS: Great. Next question. OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Homi Gandhi from the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America. He writes: In the USA, there’s a constitutional right to bear arms. Where is the right for people who do not want to own arms, but want to live in peace? FASKIANOS: I don’t know who wants to take that. Ciera. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Where—let me reframe—you said, where is the constitutional right for those who don’t want to bear arms and who want to live in peace? OPERATOR: Correct. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: Uh-huh. So I’m with you. I am not an advocate of—there are so many guns in our communities. I feel like the Constitution in itself was written by racist white men, who were slave owners. And so that we need to completely rethink the Constitution in many ways. And I said it that bluntly because, I mean, we’re dealing with so much in our country. I mean, we just had Roe v. Wade overturned. There are so many things that rebuilding it—so, and it even comes down to the right to bear arms. I feel like I have a right to live, and my children have a right to live. So that is something that I can’t explain outside of—I completely agree with you. And I do not believe that assault rifles in our—people being able to legally buy assault rifles when you can’t even use an assault rifle to go hunting, it makes no sense. So there is—there is a wickedness that exists in this country when the right to bear arms is more important than one’s right to live. MOKDAD: We call it in public health competing morbidity. And let me explain it. So say you have obesity as a problem. And it’s causing blood pressure. And you say, I don’t address obesity. I’m going to find a pill for blood pressure and give people a pill for blood pressure. We will lower blood pressure in the community. Diabetes will go on. Another morbidity will go on, because obesity is causing another morbidity. You come and find a pill for diabetes and cure diabetes, then heart diseases will come up. So it comes down to basically you have to address the root cause. There is a root cause here that you have to address it. And I agree with you. We have the right to live in peace. We have the right to have access to medical care. We have a right to feel equal to anybody else in my society. I have the right to, when I go to a medical center I’m treated exactly the same, irrespective of how I look, whether I have an accent or not, tall, short, ugly, beautiful, whatever. In my case, it’s ugly. So that’s what we need to do in the United States. Unless we address the root causes of the problem, the social justice and social determinants of health, we’re going to have millions of problems, not only gun violence. And by addressing these root causes, we’re going to make our country much better. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Next question. OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Steven Denker from Temple Kol Ami. He asks: Can our speakers address the second half of our webinar’s title, “and Abroad”? Gun Violence at Home and Abroad. MOKDAD: So gun violence abroad, I said in South America and El Salvador—for example, El Salvador, is much higher than what’s here in the United States. And the reason we believe, from our data, is drug trafficking parts of it. But also in many countries in South American where gun violence is higher, parts of Mexico as well, is exactly the same issues that we are talking about, the social justice and social determinants of health, where people don’t have access to a lot of resources that they need, the basic needs that are a human right. Now, let’s look at our peers in the world, countries that are exactly the same. The big news lately was the assassination of the ex-prime minister in Japan. And the guy who used a gun, a homemade gun. Couldn’t—you can’t buy a gun. In Japan, for example, to get a gun it’s very difficult, and to own a gun is very difficult. But you look at the culture in Japan, where the system provides everything to the country. You look at Europe, for example. Take Germany, France. Germany, for example, college education is free, healthcare is free. People like you and I don’t worry about our retirement, will we have enough to pay for our medical bill? Don’t worry about a fund to educate our children. Everything has been provided. People are happier. They’re more productive. So when you look at what’s happening globally, there are experiments that are going on at the global level. And in the United States, we tend to ignore what’s happening around us. And when we look at our peers and we see what they have done to control gun violence—look, for example, in Australia. You could—you want to own a gun in Australia? It’s a large country. You want to use it for hunting. By all means, they’ll allow you. But they’re very strict. You have to have a safe to have it. The bullets have to be stored somewhere else. And they do routine checkup. They knock on—they have the right to knock on your door and say: I want to check to see how you are keeping your gun? This is your license. We want to check on that. So if people in the United States want to bear arms, fine. But let’s make sure that we do it right. We make sure that people who have access to guns have been run through screening, they store it correctly. And, yes, if they use it incorrectly, there is a penalty. And guns should be taken away from a lot of people if this happens. So unfortunately, we don’t do what other countries have done in the United States in order to prevent that epidemic. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Next question. OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Myles Caggins III from the Council on Foreign Relations. He asks: Perhaps my view is contrarian. As unacceptable as police shootings are, they are not in the top fifty causes of death for Black people. Can faith communities have a stronger role in teaching interpersonal skills and conflict resolution for young people, following the New Testament and the Qur’an guidance about peace and love? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: I would say that, yes, congregations can definitely teach restorative justice practices. But I would think that it’s sort of easy for us to fall into—as faith leaders—to fall into this very comfortable space of sticking with, “let’s change you.” And although, yes, gun violence is the number-one killer of Black men, I think what myself and Dr. Ali have continued to push that this is systemic. So we can continue to slap Band-Aid issues on this situation, but until we get to the root of it—it’s almost like the story of the river babies. We have to make sure that we’re going up the river and finding out why this is happening. And we’ve already found out why this is happening. It's happening because of the lack of resources, because of racism, because of poverty. So as faith leaders, it is our job to hold both. We have to address the systems. We have to hold elected officials accountable. We have to make sure that people in communities have what they need in order to survive. And then we can also have those conversations on how to have better interpersonal skills and how to integrate RJ principles into their daily lives. MOKDAD: Even—I mean, even if it’s not the leading cause of death—let’s say the leading cause of death is heart disease or cardiovascular diseases. The root cause is cardiovascular disease and heart diseases are basically what we’re talking about. Access to medical care. We tell people to prevent obesity and prevent diabetes, it’s fresh fruits and vegetables. With food desert in Chicago, I mean, I did some big project in Chicago for food deserts. How could you access fresh fruits and vegetables? Like, can you afford it? I mean, a woman at the end of the day at 7:00 feeding her children, the store at the corner has junk food that she can feed her children and we move on. She worked all day. She doesn’t have a car to go to a fresh market to get—to a market to get fresh fruits and vegetables. All of these issues that we are talking about not only improve and reduce gun violence in the United States, but cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, you name it, cancer in the United States. These issues are causing a lot of problem in the U.S., and we need to address them. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Before we take the next question, I just wanted to throw back to Tali to ask if you had any additional questions or if you had some stats that you might want to add to the conversation, given your reporting on this issue? WOODWARD: Well, I mean, so the only thing I would add is really sort of, like, a little bit more detail about the distinctions between sort of race or gun violence in the United States and other parts of the world. And one thing that we haven’t mentioned specifically today is gun suicide, which is the cause of more than half of the gun deaths in America and an area in which the U.S. really stands as an outlier. So I just think that that’s important. The U.S. has, I think, about 4 percent of the global population, but at third of the globe’s firearm suicides. So really a huge distinction there. And I think that that’s also just worth mentioning, because—particularly because we’ve done some reporting over the past year about how youth suicide is on the rise in America, and particularly Black and brown youth suicide. So I think it’s just an element of the landscape to be aware of. But I’ve definitely learned a lot today, and really enjoyed doing this, and thanks for giving me the opportunity. FASKIANOS: Tali, just one question to follow up before we take the next question. Has that—has the rate of suicide gone up since the pandemic? Or is it the same? WOODWARD: Yes, and specifically the—suicides have increased, I think, very slightly. But the percentage that are committed with a firearm has increased more significantly since the pandemic began. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. All right, we’ll take the next question. OPERATOR: Our next question comes from Rabbi Nadya Gross of Yerusha. She writes: Many listeners today, like myself, are spiritual leaders and congregational leaders and teachers who are confronted daily with immense unmet needs, wounds, and hopelessness. It’s all we can do to keep our heads above waters of despair. What can our presenters offer as necessary first steps to addressing the root causes of gun violence? BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: So before I answer that, I just want to read this quick quote. Archbishop Dom Hélder Câmara. Pretty sure you all are familiar with him when he says, “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.” And so as we begin to think about addressing the root causes of this, first, I would say there is a community—a faith-based community organizing group. I would connect with them and find out what they’re doing around gun violence. I would also connect with the street outreach agencies in your community to learn how you can support the on-the-groundwork, as well as support a lot of the policy work. There’s so much—because this issue is really growing and it’s urgent—there’s so much work that’s happening across the country right now where you can connect to it. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel. You can engage with organizations like mine, Live Free Illinois or Live Free USA, and find out how you can engage on both sides of the fight. Meaning, on one end we do need congregations or places of worship leading night walks. But then we also need faith leaders leading meetings with their elected officials and holding them accountable around resources and moving from carceral and law enforcement approaches and moving more into public safety approach—public health approaches. So I would say again, get connected to the organizations on the ground that are doing the work, because we need your help. MOKDAD: And I will—I totally agree. And of course, the government—I’m not talking about the government. Support groups like this one working on such things and make sure that we pass success stories along. And make sure that we don’t repeat mistake. If we tried something and it didn’t work, let’s not repeat it somewhere else. So have a network that we can share this—what’s working, what’s not. But again, I go back to the main root cause here. I would love for us in the United States to have free college, free health care. That will take a lot of pressure from many people in this country and will help with a lot of problems, including gun violence. Just look at what the Europeans are doing. Look what Australia is doing. Look what Canada is doing. Look at everywhere else. We need to follow what people are doing. Your health care should be provided for free. You shouldn’t struggle, or get broke, and then find—lose your home because you had an illness. And of course, you shouldn’t be struggling in order to get your kids in college and give them a better future. Once everybody in this country see a better future and know they can get there, many of the problems that we are talking about will disappear. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: And if I can just add one more thing: If we think about, like, even the community—the beloved community that we’re working toward building, I hear so many times, whether they are fourteen-, fifteen-, or sixteen-year-olds who are sometimes the ones who are the perpetrators of gun violence. These are babies. I have a fourteen-year-old, I have a twelve-year-old, a six-year-old. So I can’t imagine my kid being engaged in these type of activities. However, it is happening. So when we see—when we know that there are currently eight-year-olds who in maybe five to six years are going to be engaged in some of these activities, like, we need to be advocating for our kids now. Because oftentimes there are risk factors, there are things that we see right now in third grade classrooms, and fourth grade classrooms. So we can predict how many kids are going to be in prison from a third grade classroom. Then we need to be thinking about how can we support our kids now? And when elected officials come to your pulpit or when they come to your places of worship, we need to make sure that we’re holding them accountable to those type of ideas and not allowing them to put fear into our people to be afraid of our kids. So even in that, like, holding elected officials accountable to narratives, and really holding them to making sure that they’re investing in our kids and not criminalizing our youth. FASKIANOS: Great. Do we have one last question? OPERATOR: Our final question comes from Eliana Genatt from the Council on Foreign Relations. What do each of you think about the recently passed Safer Communities Act? What aspects of the act will you expect will best reduce gun violence, if you believe any will? Additionally, rules regarding background checks are notably left out of the legislation. What will it take to enact stricter background checks for gun purchases? FASKIANOS: Who would like to go first? And if you want to make any closing remarks, because we’re nearing the end of our time, that would be great too. BATES-CHAMBERLAIN: So I think the piece that—and a lot of my comrades fought for this—was the $250 million mental health funding. Although there were some other laws around boyfriend loopholes, enhancing background checks. And there were some other laws that would address gun trafficking that was included into that legislation. But again, I think the most important piece was the investment in mental health, because that money will be able to be used by those who are lifting up CBI strategies, community violence intervention strategies. And so I think that is the—something that we’re excited about, because we understand that gun policy is important. But like we’ve been naming, it is so important that people are receiving the resources and help to actually intervene in the violence, and receive some of the trauma and mental health support that’s needed for people to either begin to heal from being survivors or victims of gun violence. And also service those individuals who may need the mental health support so that they can get out of the lifestyle that’s perpetrating gun violence. And I would say that my closing remarks—and I’m going to speak specifically to the faith community—and encourage us, Micah 6:8, that walk humbly before God, that we love mercy, that we love charity, that we do justice. And even in the space of gun violence that, again, oftentimes we are warning to things that are mercy and charity and ways that we can do book bag giveaways, or even the ways that we can hold prayer vigils. But it is so important that we be reminded to actually do justice, because that is going to be the thing that is going to end violence and address the root causes of violence in our neighborhoods. MOKDAD: It is a step in the right direction. I’m happy to see it. But certain issues that in the United States unfortunately, even when we have good intentions to do, we don’t provide the right support in order to get it done. So let’s talk about it. For example, in it is domestic violence. If you look at rich people here in the United States when they have a problem, husband and wife, lawyers will settle it. When poor people have a problem, they call the police. And the police is not trying to deal with these issues. A social worker should come. So many times here in the United States many of the solutions that we say you should do it, we don’t think about, OK, who’s going to do it? Is he or she trained to do it? Is that agency trained to do that and deal with that? So it’s a good start and I’m happy to see it. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, thank you to all of you for today’s stimulating conversation. We really appreciate it. We encourage you to follow Reverend Ciera Bates-Chamberlain on Twitter at @revciera, and Dr. Mokdad’s work at @AliHMokdad. And you can also follow Ms. Woodward at @taliwoodward. Again, I apologize for the technical difficulties, but thank you, Tali, for your stimulating questions and to all of you for your questions and comments. We encourage you to follow CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy Program on Twitter at @cfr_religion for announcements about upcoming events and information about the latest CFR resources. And of course, please do email us. Send an email to [email protected] with any suggestions or questions. Thank you all, again. We look forward to continuing our conversation in this webinar series in the coming weeks. So thank you all.
  • Nigeria
    Gruesome “Blasphemy” Killing Brings Nigeria’s Long-Running Ethno-Religious Divide Into Sharp Focus
    The brutal murder of college sophomore evokes conflicting visions of citizenship and political identity in Nigeria.
  • Religion
    The Power of the Pope
    Podcast
    For the past two thousand years, the pope has been a major player in global affairs. He is frequently called upon to act as a peace broker, a mediator, an advocate, and an influencer; and with over 1.3 billion followers around the world, the pope and his governmental arm, the Holy See, have the power to shape the future. How has the pope's power changed over time, and what is his role today?  
  • United States
    CFR Fellows' Book Launch Series With Yascha Mounk
    Play
    A democracy has never succeeded in being both diverse and equal. Yet, treating members of many different ethnic or religious groups fairly is central to the democratic project in countries around the world. It is, Yascha Mounk argues, the greatest experiment of our time. In The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, Mounk examines how diverse societies have long suffered from the ills of domination, fragmentation, or structured anarchy and shows that the past can offer crucial insights for how to do better in the future. The CFR Fellows’ Book Launch series highlights new books by CFR fellows. This meeting is part of the Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy.
  • Elections and Voting
    Religion and Voting Rights
    Play
    Kelly Brown Douglas, dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary, and Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, discussed the history of the fight for voting rights by religion leaders and current interfaith efforts to protect the right to vote. Shaun Casey, the T. J. Dermot Dunphy senior fellow of religion, violence, and peace building at Harvard Divinity School, moderated. Learn more about CFR's Religion and Foreign Policy Program. CASEY: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy webinar series. I’m Shaun Casey and I’m the T.J. Dermot Dunphy senior fellow of religion, violence, and peacebuilding at Harvard Divinity School.  As a reminder, this webinar is on the record. And the audio, video, and transcript will be made available on CFR’s website, which is CFR.org, and on the iTunes podcast channel Religion and Foreign Policy. As always, the Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We’re delighted today to have two remarkable experts. We have Dean Kelly Brown Douglas and Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner with us, and we’ve shared bios with you but I’m just going to highlight from their august list of accomplishments for your own interests. Dean Kelly Brown Douglas is dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary and she’s a professor of theology. She also serves as the canon theologian at the Washington National Cathedral, and theologian in residence at Trinity Church Wall Street. Dean Douglas has taught religion at Goucher College, Howard University School of Divinity, and Edward Waters College. She’s the author or co-editor of several books, including Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective, and that was the first book to address the issue of homophobia within the Black church community. She’s considered a leader in the field of womanist theology, racial reconciliation, social justice, and sexuality in the Black church. Kelly, it’s great to have you. Welcome. Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner is director of the Religion Action Center of Reform Judaism. He’s also the senior vice president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Rabbi Pesner has been named one of the most influential rabbis in America by Newsweek magazine for his leadership in social justice activism. His work is focused on encouraging Jewish communities to reach across lines of race, class, and faith in campaigns for social justice. In 2006, Rabbi Pesner founded Just Congregations, which engages clergy, professional, and volunteer leaders in interfaith efforts in the pursuit of social justice. Over the course of his career, he’s also led and supported campaigns for racial justice, economic opportunity, immigration reform, LGBTQ equality, human rights, and a variety of other causes. He serves on a number of boards, including the NAACP and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, among others. Welcome, Jonah. So let’s begin by—I’m going to ask Kelly a question and then Jonah is going to provide his answer to the same question and then we’ll talk together. But I guess my larger question that maybe you can help us frame the history and context here is really how big are voting rights today in our current environment? How big a problem are we facing? DOUGLAS: Yes. First of all, thank you for inviting me to be a part of this discussion and this conversation, which is a very important conversation and one that I think is an urgent conversation for faith and religious leaders to be having and so that we can engage in the kind of action that will help us to protect our vision for a society and a democracy where everybody has equal voice and is treated as a sacred human being, and it’s always nice to be in conversation with my friend and brother, Rabbi Jonah Pesner. Let me begin to answer your question this way, Shaun. Of course, we are seeing not an unprecedented reality but, perhaps, unprecedented in our twenty-first century times, a number of states—I think some thirty-three states or more—passing a record number of, or trying to, and passing a record number of voting suppression bills and as opposed to voting rights, trying to find ways to suppress and strip people of their right to vote. This is not unprecedented or unusual, particularly as these bills are aimed particularly at communities of color, more specifically, aimed toward the African-American community, which, by and large, in our current context typically votes Democratic, and so even as people want to talk about the political divides in these bills we really have to reflect on the wider context of what’s going on historically in this country. So this has occurred—this pattern, if you will—began with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and, of course, we know that the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870 and that amendment told us that—or barred states from depriving citizens—at that time, male citizens—of the right to vote based on race. As soon as that amendment was ratified, we saw Southern states, in particular, beginning to enact a series of measures, be it poll taxes, literacy tests, all-white primaries, measures that would, in fact, prevent or keep African Americans from the polls, whether be it through them not being able to pass such tests, meet such standards, or through sheer intimidation. Nevertheless, what we began to see is that after the passage of that bill, more than a half million Black men joined the voting ranks and the voting rolls, particularly, during, of course, this period of Reconstruction. When that occurred—and then, of course, we saw record numbers of Black men elected to public office. It was no accident that as more and more Black people began to take advantage—and, of course, earlier on that meant men—began to take advantage of their right to vote, began to exercise even what limited power they may have had, their power through the right to vote, you began to see the backlash.  This was a backlash, of course, that we talk about the backlash to the sort of Reconstruction era amendments. This cycle would continue. What we saw in relationship to this backlash to the Fifteenth Amendment and Black people entering into the ranks of voting, Black men—(laughs)—entering into the ranks of voting and entering into elected political offices, Jim Crow, poll taxes, the rise of these white supremacist groups—the Klan, et cetera—trying to keep Black people from the polls and, by and large, they were. And so it would be from, really, this era of post-Reconstruction backlash, all efforts, by the way, let’s keep in mind that these were efforts to protect a white electorate, to protect the sort of underside of our country’s foundation, though the truth of our country’s foundation that it was, in many ways, founded to be a democracy that reflected white supremacist power, that lived in contrast to its projected vision of being a nation where there’s freedom and justice for all. And so this vote—all of this backlash in regard to other than white men being able to exercise their power, and right to vote, is a part of this wider narrative of what kind of democracy we want to be, who this democracy is for, what we mean by American exceptionalism, which has always been equated with white supremacist exceptionalism and who can be a citizen. What we saw then, really, it was not until the 1965 passage of the Voting Rights Act that we began to see, really, this response to, and turn back away from these various Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, et cetera, that kept Black people from the polls. Let’s fast forward in history. In 2008, of course, we had the election of the first African-American president. In 2012, he was reelected. In 2008 and in 2012, you saw record Black turnout. I think, in 2012, that turnout was 66 percent. It exceeded, in 2012, the turnout of white Americans and that was an unusual situation. I think the turnout of white Americans was somewhere around 57 percent or so, and I may be wrong on those numbers. But we saw record turnouts. Again, in 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, we saw record Black turnout. Didn’t quite reach the 66 percent level of 2012 but it was in the 60 percent—high 60s (percent). It is no accident, and, of course, we know that that turned the election, right, in these key states. It turned the election. We saw local organizing, whether it be in Georgia through the work of Stacey Abrams and others, whether it be in Michigan, Missouri, the Soul to the Polls, which began in the 1990s in Florida and became a national movement, really became energized and that is getting Black people to the polls after church services.  All of these things began to really emerge, become reenergized, and we saw a major impact on the national election as a result of the turnout—we’ve got to be clear—of Black voters and the activity that happened on the ground and in relationship to Black churches. It is no accident, therefore, that we began to immediately see these voting suppression laws being enacted.  Let me add one more thing and then I’m sure my brother will reinforce because there’s so much that can be said. So this is in a nutshell. But I must say that this could not occur with such success if in 2013 the Supreme Court had not gutted the 1965 Voter Rights Bill Act, because what they gutted—what they took away was that section of the bill—I think it was Section Five and I may not be recalling that specific right—but they took away the section that required states to get permission, particularly the states who had a long history of discriminating against certain groups, particularly, Black Americans, to get permission to change their voting procedures.  When that was taken away, immediately after that was taken away by the Supreme Court, you began to see this influx of legislation by states trying again to enact and suppress the Black vote, and even—and not only doing that in ways with the laws which they were passing, be it voter ID, closing polls, et cetera, but changing—closing polling places and changing the voting districts. They no longer needed federal permission to do that. And so what we now have, really, is an open attack on the voting rights of Black Americans once again. Why? Because it indicates the power of the Black vote and how that Black vote began to not simply change the balance of power, if you will, in this country but, really, what we fail to recognize is that what—when we allow more people to come to the polls and what has historically been the case in terms of the Black struggle for the vote, and Black struggle for freedom, that when Black people progress in that regard, guess what happens?  Our democracy grows, and we grow into the vision that we proclaim is ours, that we want to live in into. And so what we’re fighting here when we fight and enact these voting right measures we are also saying something about the kind of democracy we really want to be.  And so I’ll stop there simply by saying it is a major problem, it is not a new problem, and we could have predicted this if we recognized the historical pattern that every time Black people seem to progress in any way toward freedom there is a proportional backlash. CASEY: Thank you, Kelly. That was an amazing introduction. Thank you so much. So, Jonah, how about you? What is your take on how big the problem is today? PESNER: What she said. Kelly Brown Douglas, I was absolutely right. You needed to go first, provide that incredible grounding of our history and the challenges to really confront how we got here. So thank you for that, and thank you, Shaun Casey, and Irina Faskianos from CFR for hosting this important conversation. And I’m keenly aware we are a multi-faith panel—there are Christians and Jews—but in the audience, I know, watching—I saw the registration—we have our Muslim family, our Sikh family. We are people across the racial and religious divide, which really is a great reminder about this multi-religious multiracial democracy we’re trying to create and the challenge of anti-Black racism and white supremacy in the center of not only voting suppression, Shaun, but anti-democratic tendencies. And as just a kind of metaphor for how I think about these things, and then I’ll kind of give the Midrash, the, like, rabbinic interpretation of Kelly’s wonderful Torah, the Biblical text. I’ll give the rabbinic interpretation. I want to just share a kind of—a picture of where we are at this moment. So on January 6, 2021, the whole nation watched as a bunch of white supremacists, Confederate flag-waving goons, terrorists, took over the nation’s capital in an insurrection of violence, and not only were they waving their Confederate flags and they were, basically, saying we don’t like the outcome of this election—we’re going to change it—in the long tradition of Jim Crow and voter suppression, they were wearing “Camp Auschwitz" and “Six million are not enough” t-shirts. There is this incredible intersectionality of anti-Black racism, white supremacy, and anti-Semitism, which, of course, shows up around anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim bigotry as well.  So that same day, the first Black senator and the first Jewish senator were elected to the state of Georgia, the site of some of the worst excesses of enslavement, of Jim Crow, and voter suppression. And it happens that that white senator, Jon Ossoff, was bar mitzvah(ed) at the temple, the place that was bombed by the Klan during the civil rights era because Rabbi Rothschild, famously, worked with King and the other luminaries of the civil rights movement, and the temple in Atlanta’s sister church is Ebenezer Baptist, which wasn’t only King’s church but was also Reverend Warnock’s church, who became the first Black senator.  So that split-screen moment, right, of the white Jewish—majority white Jewish community in allyship with the Black community fighting for the transformation of the Old South into the multiracial multi-religious democracy they yearn for, with this gasp of backlash of violence to steal the election is where, I think, we are at this moment. So I want people to kind of hold that because it puts into context the four hundred years of history that Kelly so beautifully articulated.  So the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism that I’m honored to lead is actually famous—it’s part of the story that Kelly told because it’s the site of the drafting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was eviscerated in Shelby v. Holder in 2013. It was, in fact, Section Five that was eviscerated by the Court, the pre-clearance, which would have prevented a lot of states from passing these voter suppression laws. And why was it that it was at a majority white Jewish institution that the Voting Rights Act was written?  It was because of a bunch of white Jews who understood the threats to all minorities, including to Jews, because of the ways in which anti-Black racism was so foundational to this country and white supremacy was such a threat to all minorities, and so it was that people like Jack Greenberg, Arnie Aronson, A. Philip Randolph, gathered the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, that was housed in our Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and they drafted and strategized around the Civil Rights Act of ’64 and the Voting Rights Act of ’65. The founder of the RAC was a white Jew named Kivie Kaplan, who was born in Boston and was the child of immigrants who started with nothing, built a business, became incredibly wealthy, and then when he became wealthy he paid it forward through philanthropy. He became the president of the NAACP, which, when he retired, he was the last white Jewish president of the NAACP, and I trace by board seat to Kaplan, and he donated the RAC to the Reform Jewish—and why?  Because when he was a young man on his honeymoon to Florida with his wife, Emily, he was being driven around Florida by a Black taxi driver and they kept seeing the same sign over and over again, “No Jews, no dogs.”  Now, coming from the Northeast he had never experienced Jim Crow. He turns to the Black taxi driver and says, “is this common down here? What is this?” And the Black driver just looked at him and said, “they don’t even bother with us.” And Kaplan understood what King was trying to teach, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, that if you oppress one minority you oppress all minorities, and as I think about Kaplan’s legacy, having donated the Religious Action Center to the Reform Jewish movement, with the caveat that we would host the luminaries of the civil rights movement, which is why the Leadership Conference was housed there, which is why Dr. King, when he used to come to Washington, he would use our offices because Kaplan understood what has become a maxim for me during this current struggle for civil rights, that our safety in this country is in our solidarity.  When Muslims, and Christians, and Jews, and people of Asian heritage, and brown, and Black, and people across the whole spectrum are in deep solidarity we become safe, and we will only finally have redemption as a nation when we have democracy, right.  Core to the civil rights movement was understanding that the only way to finally throw off the hundreds of years of systemic racism, to finally end Jim Crow, really, would be through voting rights because if we actually had a democracy that reflected the reality of the mixed multitude, then our government would look like our people and we would actually all be able to flourish, that we would all be represented.  That’s why John Lewis got his head bashed in on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and he was marching not only with Dr. King but Rabbi Dick Hirsch, my predecessor as the leader of the Religious Action Center. So then we get to where we are now. I won’t repeat everything that Kelly Brown Douglas articulately said. I would lift up, though, another white Jewish voice, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her memory for a blessing, in Shelby v. Holder in her withering dissent, which I urge everybody to read her dissent—it’s incredible, almost scorcher at this point—when she said the logic of the Court—and by the way, the majority opinion was written by none other than Chief Justice Roberts—whose logic was, in essence, well, things are better now. And I don’t—I’m sure there are lawyers and jurists on this call who are now offended by my oversimplifying Roberts’s logic. But if I read it that’s kind of what it says, is things are better now. To which Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, that logic is like standing in a torrential rainstorm and saying, gee, I don’t need my umbrella anymore because I’m not getting wet. And so we saw, as Dr. Douglas said, hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation, voter suppression, passed state by state by state, and I’ll just land with the where do we think we are now with this incredible challenge.  My community, along with the Muslim community, and the diverse Christian community, and other religious communities, mobilized so powerfully not only in the 2020 election to do that overwhelming turnout that made history in a nonpartisan and 501(c)(3) appropriate way, but to make sure, that as we say in Hebrew, kol kolot. There’s a wonderful double entendre. The word kol in Hebrew can mean voice, it can mean vote, and, spelled differently, it can mean every. So we say, kol kolot—every voice, every vote—because we know that you really don’t have a voice if you don’t have a vote.  We had 15,000 Reform Jewish leaders who worked across lines of difference with the interfaith and multiracial community that turned out eight hundred and 875,000 voters alone, targeting communities that are the site of the historic voter suppression targeted by these laws, working across lines of difference, and then worked so hard to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, which failed, which would have rolled back lots of this voter suppression. And if you talk to anybody from the luminaries of the civil rights era of the ’60s into the civil rights moment we’re in today, it is about turnout, turnout, turnout. The single biggest antidote to voter suppression is overwhelming voter education, voter engagement, and getting people to the actual polls, and then watching those polls to make sure that their vote is counted, that their ballot is cured if it isn’t counted, and to actually reclaim the democracy for which we have fought so valiantly for. And with that, I will stop talking. CASEY: Well, thank you, Jonah. That, too, is a remarkable introduction. I was going to ask you to react to one another but the clock is not our friend here.  So I’m going to exercise what little power I have as the mediator here to really follow up what you closed with, Jonah, and tell us—Stacey Abrams’s name was mentioned by Kelly—tell us what is working now in terms of local tactical work to do the kinds of work you were just talking about, Jonah. So we’re going to pivot to Q&A from the audience soon. So if you’ve got questions, please put those in the chat or the Q&A button at the bottom and we’ll get to those after our panelists really tell us at the grassroots level. So, Kelly, tell us, in your experience and in your view, what are some of the organizations or what are some of the tactics that are really doing the kind of work that need to be done with respect to voting rights today? DOUGLAS: Yes. First of all, thank you, Jonah, for that and I’d like—and I want to affirm that our safety is in solidarity, and our salvation as a nation and—is in solidarity with one another. I think what we have to begin to focus on is what’s working, right, at the grassroots level and in our local communities because that’s where it really matters and this is where faith communities can really begin to be more and more engaged, and it’s a model that the Black church community has, throughout its history because the church has always been that place, that institution, that Black people could rely upon when other social institutions have failed them and failed our community. So what works? I think it is important, one, to—before we could get people to the polls, get them registered, and so what we’ve seen working even as a part of the Souls to the Polls movement, whether we’re talking about Black Vote Matters, whether we’re talking about the PAC of twenty-five Black—and I’m speaking from African-American context—of Black religious leaders, the—and I can’t now think of the name of Stacey Abrams’s organization in Georgia. But these were all centered, first and foremost, around getting people registered, also getting people to check their registrations, because there’s legislation that has been aimed, of course, at purging the polls and people are finding themselves purged from the polls not knowing it and then they get to the polls and they can’t vote.  You can do that through your local faith communities and begin to have movements that move through, go through neighborhoods, or voter rights to get people registered and provide easy access to registration, helping them to get registered, taking them to get registered, helping them. You can’t fill it out for them, but helping them to get registered.  The other thing that worked moving into the 2020 election was voter education and one—and I say this more broadly is that we have to begin to educate our communities on this—what we are saying in this conversation, what’s going on, because we know there is so much false information out there, and purposefully targeted to certain communities.  And so one of the things that Black churches conduct are voting education weekends and seminars, et cetera, to begin to educate them on the importance of this moment that we find ourselves in as well as to the issues at hand and what’s really going on. I think—and then I’ll be quiet—one of the most effective measures that we’ve seen in the run-up to elections, and that’s why this is being targeted—this is why early voting is being targeted, this is why reduction on weekend voting has been targeted—because of the Souls to the Polls campaign, and Black churches across the country ensuring that Black voters can vote by taking them to the polls on Sundays. Here’s the thing we have to recognize, and this doesn’t simply impact the African-American community—I only speak out of that context right now—is that for the most part, particularly poor communities and communities of color, they cannot afford to be standing at a poll all day in line trying to vote.  They’ve got to work, and so we have to understand the racist logic and exclusionary logic of these voting suppression—voter suppression bills. They know people can’t stand in line all day because these people have to work. They know that people can’t miss a day of their job so they—a lot of people—that’s why you have disproportionate numbers of people of color, in poor communities, voting prior to election day because they take advantage of the early voting so they can vote and engage in the, quote/unquote, “democratic process.”  And so I think that we have to continue to not simply attack these bills on the local level because that’s where they’re playing out, on the local level, at the same time—that’s one thing, that’s the reactive part—and then the proactive part, even as we do that, proactively we’ve got to get more, and more, and more people engaged and signed up and registered to vote, especially looking at—I don’t know what are they, Gen Xers?—but our new voters and getting new voters to the rolls. So I think there’s a reactive and a proactive role that has to happen simultaneously, and it is a moral—if you will, we have a moral reason as leaders of faith leaders and faith communities to, in fact, do this because what we are trying to do is create a society that is more reflective of the sacred creation that we are—with everybody having equal voice, equal respect, and equal participation. CASEY: Thank you so much, Kelly. Jonah, from your perspective what should be happening at the local tactical level? PESNER: Yeah, again, amen to everything that Kelly just said, so I just want to put a pin in that. But I won’t repeat it. I will do a little bit of just kind of building off of it. I want to frame this piece with emphasizing the local nature of this work with a very haunting reminder that I carry with me whenever I do this work. We first started getting deep back into voting rights because my movement had historically been in—but we got deep back in after Shelby v. Holder, and we were invited down to North Carolina by none other than Reverend William Barber—who is the cochair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival—that has tried to breathe a kind of new life into King’s original vision. And he was the head of the NAACP of North Carolina, and he called us and he said, what’s happening on the ground in North Carolina is antidemocratic and it is putting the nation at risk because of the voter suppression tactics that were unleashed by Shelby v. Holder. And he invited the Reform Jewish Movement in with our people, to ally with his church, and with his NAACP chapter to do the work that Kelly Brown Douglas just described, and it was an incredible education. Number one, in the depth and impact of the tactics of voter suppression and how it impacts mostly low-income communities, rural communities, and communities of color, and the way in which allyship is really about listening to the people who are impacted by voter suppression, hearing from them, and then taking the lead from what they actually need, and what the strategy is to actually change the dynamic. So we mobilized thousands of Reform Jews in allyship with Barber’s church, and others, to do the work in 2016, but one of the things that Barber said—after I got up, gave the sermon at church, and we did a whole mobilizing thing, and I told the story of the Voting Rights Act being written in our conference room—and he said, “Rabbi Pesner, let me issue a correction—a Talmudic emendation, if you will”—and if people know Barber, you know what I’m talking about—he said, “the Voting Rights Act was not written in your conference room. It was written in blood in Selma and transcribed in your conference room.” And I carry Barber’s teaching with me all the time because it’s happening in Atlanta, it’s happening in South Florida, it’s happening in Houston. This is where voting rights either happen or are suppressed. This is where democracy either happens or is suppressed. So the good news is, Shaun, there’s great work happening all across the country. I see that my friend Ruth Messinger posted—the former head of American Jewish World Service—she referenced Fair Fight Action—I just would lovingly say, Ruth, we actually don’t work with Stacey because she is partisan and running for governor. We’re a religious body; we’re a 501(c)(3). So we work with Nse Ufot—the name people don’t know, but you should know. Nse runs The New Georgia Project and has built a coalition with Natasha Brown, who does Black Votes Matter, and a whole range of local grassroots groups—some in the churches. As Kelly Brown Douglas said, we’ve got to leverage the power of the Black church, and the synagogues, and the mosques, and also the folk who are not in church but who are really impacted by voter suppression, and do the deep hard work of voter mobilization. What I would say to folks, every state that is dealing with this has a coalition. These coalitions are multiracial; they are multi-religious. One last one that I’ll just lift up, Shaun, and then turn back over the mic. We just had a big victory in Pennsylvania. A project—I want to get the name of the project exactly right—PA Voice and the Keystone Counts Coalition. This coalition of churches, mosques, and synagogues, advocacy groups, and other coalition partners were not OK with the gerrymandered, partisan redistricting that was racialized, and basically trying to bunch up and package all Black folk and other people of color into one or two districts. And they mobilized across the state. They acted in solidarity. They built a broad network of folks, and they were able to put enough pressure on the legislature, and on the governor, to actually get new maps that are much more democratic, and much more reflective, and much more protective of communities of color. So I actually am very hopeful and optimistic. As much as this stuff is and feels horrible, this work is a generational project. If Stacey Abrams were here, she would say it was a decade of effort. To me, this is not just about a decade. It’s not about the midterms or about the presidential—it’s about a generational commitment to democracy. CASEY: All right, thank you, Jonah.  We have gone longer than we anticipated before we pivoted to Q&A, but that’s okay because what Kelly and Jonah have given us is quite remarkable, and every second of it has been important. So we’re going to transition to audience question and answer, and I know we have some, so let’s go ahead and turn to those. And so we’ll let our two panelists field those questions. So go ahead and read one of those. OPERATOR: Great. (Gives queuing instructions.) We will take the first live question from Bruce Knotts of the Unitarian Universalist Office at the United Nations.  KNOTTS: Thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation. One thing that I think is true is that every election since Richard Nixon, the majority of white people have voted Republican, and if we suppress the Black vote in this country we will have Republican government, and we will not have a two-party system. And for us to maintain a two-party system, we need to have everybody voting regardless of who it is. And so I’m referring to Susan Neiman, who wrote the book, Learning from the Germans, and she resists the idea being an ally. She says, I’m an affected party, and yes, Black people are more effected. I have a Black husband. I know the danger he lives with. I know the privilege I have as a white man. But we’re all in this together, and we all face living in a one-party dictatorship if we don’t have everybody voting. And so we all have skin in the game. And one last comment, I was part of the consultative group that Shaun organized at the State Department, and I’m wondering if that’ll ever happen again because that was really a good consultative group. Thank you. DOUGLAS: I guess I will affirm what—thank you, Bruce, for your comment—what you said, and just add a couple little things. One, yes, this goes back to what Jonah said in terms of solidarity, and I’d like this word—perhaps Jonah—I’ve said to Jonah, I like this word solidarity much more than I do ally because when we say ally, we are suggesting that it’s your problem and I’m joining you and helping you to solve your problem, and I say, no, no, it’s your problem. This is our problem. It’s our problem, as we have to really determine what kind of nation we want to be, and what kind of people we want to be. And for those of us who are members of religious and faith communities, regardless of what those religious and faith communities are, it is a question of whether or not we really believe what we claim to believe as people of—representing our particular traditions, and that is a belief that we are all sacred human beings. And to be valued, valued equally, and if we really believe that, then we are fighting and struggling to live into that vision, into that claim. And so it’s our moral responsibility, and so it’s not about being allies with anybody. It’s about recognizing that this for us reaches a level of moral urgency because it says something about who we claim to be, and something about who we want to be, and it also says something about the integrity of our very religious and faith claims. And so I agree, and until we create voting rights, or just one layer of this, but a very important foundational layer that will help us move a little bit closer to who we want to be. PESNER: Yeah, amen to that. And I just want to reflect a little bit, Kelly Brown Douglas, on the deeper layer, and you and I have been in the anti-racism business together, and the multi-faith solidarity business for a while. So voting rights is the presenting crisis. There’s deeper, right? So I love the reference, Bruce, to we’re all impacted. Of course, we’re all impacted by white supremacy. White Christian people are impacted by white Christian nationalism, but we’re impacted differently. Kivie Kaplan understood that. As a white Jew, he had enormous privilege that he only understood was conditional privilege when he saw that sign, “no Jews, no dogs,” but he’d been fine up until that point. His solidarity with the African-American taxi driver was a recognition that we’re all impacted but differently, and so we have to just recognize that. Part of that then means doing the internal reckoning, and part of our campaign around democracy and voting rights is a racial equity, diversity, inclusion campaign inside the American Jewish community. We’re asking all of our activists, all of our organizers, all of our rabbis to do their anti-racism work within the synagogues, to ask ourselves, how have we actually been racist with the 10 to 15 percent of Jews in America who are not white? What ways are we perpetuating systems of oppression within the synagogue impacting Black and brown Jews, and Asian Jews, and Jews of all hues, even as we’re doing these external public fights for the common good, which make a lot of sense? And then, the only other thing I would say about the whole partisan thing, which I think really matters, because Bruce really lifted this up, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act were passed by bipartisan majorities. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized into law by presidents whose names were Reagan and Bush, not just Clinton and Carter, so there was a time there was a bipartisan consensus around democracy and voting. We need to reclaim that. CASEY: All right. Can we take our next question? OPERATOR: Our next question is a written submission from Tiffany Hartung from Interfaith Power & Light. She says: Interfaith Power & Light recently launched our 2022 Civic Engagement Campaign, the Faith Climate Justice Voter Campaign—and she provides a link—to mobilize faithful voters to turn out and vote their values for caring for our common home and loving our neighbors. We are focused heavily on Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In addition to voter registration and voter education, do you have suggestions on how our campaign can support the faith-led efforts in those states to counter the voter suppression efforts that might occur during voting? PESNER: Kelly, do you want me to jump in on that one? DOUGLAS: Because I jumped in it first, I was going to let Jonah jump in on that one. PESNER: All right. I will do just because immediately Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner comes to mind. She is the head of the African American Clergy Network and the Skinner Institute, and partners with Adam Russell Taylor—formerly of the World Bank now of Sojourners—in an interfaith strategy called Lawyers and Collars—said lovingly as a guy who doesn’t wear a collar, I wear a kippah. So, we—but we have a lot of lawyers in the Jewish community, so it kind of evens out. But it’s an effort to mobilize religious leaders together with lawyers to do election protection work, and what Dr. Skinner has done brilliantly, has figured out who are the local clergy state-by-state that are influential, and has the relationships that can build up the coalitions and networks now—do the training and do the support—so that we’re ready months ahead of the 2022 midterms. So to Interfaith Power and Light, who I love, I would say it would be a good idea—in addition to the voter mobilization coalitions in your state-by-state effort—to really look at what Dr. Williams-Skinner has set in each of those states where there is an influential pastor, an influential rabbi, and then a whole group of other religious leaders and lawyers who are getting set as we speak. But I don’t know, Kelly, that’s just one very specific answer. DOUGLAS: No, actually, yeah, I was going to say Lawyers and Collars, and—(laughs)—because what I wanted to point to—and you’ve just done it, so I’ll just reinforce it—is that it’s not only about building partnerships with people within the interfaith community et cetera, but what has become very significant in the finest partnerships with lawyers and even what we found—one of the things that happened on voting day was certain organizations made sure that they had lawyers there—(laughs)—ready to help people through the process if their right to vote had been challenged on that day. So I think that—yes, that was the organization that I was going to lift up. CASEY: All right. Great. We have time for more questions, so what’s up next? OPERATOR: We’ll take the next question live from Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons from Center for American Progress. GRAVES-FITZSIMMONS: Hello, everyone. Thank you for this great panel. Given the specific attacks on the Black church, I wonder if each of you thinks it’s strategic to frame this, partly, as a religious freedom issue? Thank you. DOUGLAS: Well, thank you, and good to see you in this conversation. Thank you for that question. And I’m going to answer quickly in light of the time. One, we have to understand the attacks on the Black church in relationship to the wider history and significance of the Black church. To attack the Black church—this is, again, nothing new—but to attack the Black church is to attack the center of the Black community, to center—to attack the institution that signals the survival onus, freedom of the Black community. As W.E.B. Du Bois said in 1903—I believe he said, the Black church is the religious center as well as the social center for the Black community. So to attack the Black church in essence is to attack the Black community, equivalent to attacking Black HBCUs. These are stronghold institutions that reflect the wellbeing, the future of the Black community. Is this an issue of religious freedom? I think Jonah said it best—all of these things go together. And so what we have to understand is, what is it that when we are trying to suppress the vote, when we are attacking certain communities? What do we mean by protecting white supremacy, and what does that look like? What you’re actually trying to protect is a particular understanding of what it means to be a citizen, and so, when you understand that, then it is about religious freedom in the sense of what it means to be a multicultural, inter-religious, multiethnic community. And so what’s really at stake here is trying to protect a particular notion of what it means or who is accepted as an American, and that has to do with religion, color, et cetera, et cetera—gender realities, et cetera. PESNER: I can only add—I mean, it’s a really interesting question, and I appreciate Kelly centering the Black church as another—the church fire is just an example of what this looks like. Religious freedom issues feel very complicated to me, and we keep—as a religious minority, where my predecessor Rabbi David Saperstein was famously part of the coalition that passed the original RFRA, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which really was to protect religious minorities—suddenly has become weaponized as a way to oppress to LGBTQIA folk, to take away women’s right to control their bodies. So I guess it’s a really interesting idea. Although I feel like religious freedom at this point just mucks everything up, and as a person who really treasures religious freedom, I wish it were less weaponized. It would help all of us who are religious minorities feel safer, frankly. DOUGLAS: Amen to that. And I just want to say for me it depends on who’s talking about it. (Laughs) And I mean, really it depends on who’s talking about it. CASEY: All right. We have time at least for one more question, I think. OPERATOR: Great. Next is a written submission from Emma Petty Adams from the Mormon Women for Ethical Government. She asks, “voting rights have historically been a point of bipartisan agreement. Thank you for your acknowledgement of that, Jonah. Do you have any specific advice for those conservative Americans who have watched their party walk away from this issue and instead pivot towards voter fraud as the most pressing issue? How can we or they speak persuasively to friends and family about the collective positive impact that comes when all Americans have access to the polls? For example, is there a collection of individual stories that help demonstrate the personal impact of voter suppression?” DOUGLAS: I think it was directed to you, Jonah. PESNER: Oh, no, I just heard a thank you for that. DOUGLAS: Oh. (Laughs.) CASEY: (Laughs.) PESNER: I mean, all right, I’ll just say a word briefly, and then kick it to Kelly. I mean, there’s a wonderful emerging organization called the One America Movement, which is trying to combat the kind of polarization that leads to the mess we’re in without doing just kind of touchy-feely reconciliation work, but actually deep. How do you get people who come out of very different traditions, kind of the—and I hate to use, white Evangelical Christians, right, as a basket as if they’re all the same, right—talking to Muslim American, coming at immigrant communities, et cetera—like an actual conversation where we rebuild the fabric of the One America? I have a critique because One America, if you ask somebody who lived under Jim Crow, what is that One America? Is that the One America we want? But it is an aspirational vision, let’s say, of what could be, and I think its theory of change is around relationship and conversation, where people who are reacting to what they see in disinformation, whether it’s mainstream media disinformation or online disinformation, humanizing the reality of people’s lives and getting them to talk to people who are not like them. But I must admit I feel like this is the great challenge of our day, is how will we invite in folk who see the world differently into—they respect and very Talmudic—you remember in the Talmud it’s all about the dissenting opinion, Hillel and Shammai. The minority opinion was always published and celebrated even as the majority won the day. We have to find a way in this country to celebrate the majority and the minority, but stay one sacred dialogue, and I don’t have any deep words of wisdom on how to do it. DOUGLAS: Yeah, neither do I, except to say this, that we have to—it begins with changing the gaze and helping people change their gaze. And that means engaging with those who are different than themselves, and because the more we can open up our perspective, the more we are able to even see the limitations, perhaps, of our own perspective. I don’t want to open up another can of worms, but best to open it up when we’ve got to close. That’s why not unrelated to this—because all of this is so inter-related—not unrelated to this is the attack on quote/unquote, “critical race theory,” because that’s about changing our gaze. That’s about hearing other people’s stories. That’s about engaging other histories and what it looks like from other perspectives to be in this struggle to become the democracy that we claim we want to be. And so I think we cannot see disconnected from voter suppression and what we’re seeing going on in this country—this whole critical race theory discussion—because it’s all about protecting a vision, protecting a gaze, protecting a view of America. And so we just have to find ways—and to the person who asked the question—in our local communities and congregations. If we believe that these things have to be opened up, we have to engage that in our local communities and not allow these various forms of legislation about voting suppression and controlling a particular—protecting particular views of truth and history. We’ve got to find ways to open those things up, and I think if we do then we will find ourselves moving closer, closer to understanding that we are all in this together, and that there is salvation and solidarity. CASEY: I would just simply add, as we come to our close here, I think that the struggle for people who are working for voting rights today—and really, it’s throughout our whole polity—is how you live in proximity with people who do not agree with you. Too often in my experiences having worked on some national campaigns, it’s all about turning out the base—that you try to turn out the people who agree with you. And the notion of trying to persuade and interact with all of American citizens has become really rare today and really, frankly, harder to sit down and live in proximity with somebody who does not share your particular political or theological views. And I would add a historical footnote, Jonah, when you were talking about January 6—those insurrectionists were also fueled, frankly, by white Christian theology, and I would simply argue, from my perspective as a Protestant theologian who is Anglo, we bear a greater burden in this. We have not engaged, in this case, Evangelical or fundamentalist Christian theology with any success. In fact, again, we don’t really live and work in proximity with the generators of that alternative theological view that fueled those folks we saw on January 6. So I think all religious communities, whether—no matter what the community of origin—have a duty to try to engage, and it’s much harder today than it was ten years ago. And I think that’s part of the key of preserving voting rights today. It’s more than just rallying our bases. It’s about how do we engage with people who are actually opposing and working against voting rights. Let me simply say, I think we’re going to actually end on time, which I’m not noted for as moderator, so let the record show. First of all, thank you so much, Kelly and Jonah. This was a remarkable conversation, and it will be posted. The transcript will also be posted. I think this is certainly a sharable hour that you can circulate among your friends. So look for that—look for those posts at @CFR.org. Thank you, too, to the audience for your excellent questions and comments. Let me also do the moment of advertising. You can follow Kelly’s work on Twitter at @DeanKBD, and you can follow Jonah’s work at @JonahPesner—all one word. And we encourage you to follow CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy program on Twitter at @CFR_religion for announcements about upcoming events and information about the latest CFR resources, and you can reach out to Council on Foreign Relations at [email protected] with any suggestions or questions. I’d like to thank Irina and her team at the Council on Foreign Relations for putting together this absolutely superb panel. Thank you, all, for coming. I look forward to your participation in future discussions. Take care. Thank you, everybody.
  • Religion
    Religion and Conflict Resolution
    Play
    Lisa Sharland, senior fellow and director of the Protecting Civilians in Conflict program at the Stimson Center, and Sukhsimranjit Singh, the Judge Danny Weinstein managing director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, discuss the United Nations’ role in peacemaking and how religion leaders contribute to conflict resolution around the world. Learn more about CFR's Religion and Foreign Policy Program. FASKIANOS: Thank you, and welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy webinar series. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. As a reminder, this webinar is on the record. And the audio, video, and transcript will be made available on our website, CFR.org, and on our iTunes podcast channel, Religion and Foreign Policy. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. So we’re delighted to have Lisa Sharland with us today to talk about “Religion and Conflict Resolution.” Unfortunately, Dr. Singh could not be with us. He might be able to join us later. We’re not exactly sure, so we will just roll with it. But we’re happy to have Lisa with us to talk about this important topic. Lisa Sharland is a senior fellow and director of the protecting civilians in conflict program at the Stimson Center. She was previously the deputy director of defense, strategy, and national security, and the head of the international program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Her research has focused on UN peace operations reform, peacekeeping effectiveness, protection of civilians, preventing and countering violent extremism, and women, peace, and security. She served as the defense policy advisor at the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations from 2009 to 2014; and represented Australia in multilateral negotiations in the UN Security Council and General Assembly bodies, including the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. So, Lisa, it’s great to have you with us to talk about this, given your experience, the research you’ve done, and the positions you’ve held. If you could give us an overview of the UN’s role in peacekeeping, especially the approaches that the UN has taken to deal with religious conflicts, and what you’ve seen over the trajectory of your career, and your prediction for or your thoughts on how we should be dealing with conflicts as we look out. SHARLAND: Thanks so much for the kind introduction, Irina. And it’s a pleasure to be here with the Council on Foreign Relations and those that are on the call today. As Irina has noted in my sort of biography, I’m by no means a religious scholar to comment on any of these topics. But what I’d really like to do in my introductory remarks is, I guess, offer a bit of some context in terms of the spectrum of different tools that the UN has available to it to engage in peacemaking and conflict resolution efforts, and then pivot a little bit to what this means for what we may term as religious conflicts. So what do we mean by peacekeeping—sorry, peacemaking in the context of the UN? So there’s a spectrum of different tools that are available to the international community through the UN when it comes to resolving conflict and addressing threats to international peace and security. Although, I think really at the outset of this conversation it’s really important to note that many of those tools may appear out of reach when we look at the context of what’s happening with the war in Ukraine at the moment, and the intractability of any action in the UN Security Council. So what are some of these tools? And I think I have no doubt we’ll come back to some of the challenges around utilizing them in the conversation. So we have at hand—and many of these tools have been around for seventy years; they came out and emerged from the UN Charter—conflict prevention, which is diplomatic measures that are focused on preventing tensions or disputes from escalating into conflicts. So, really, trying to target some of these tensions before they escalate into a context where civilians may be impacted by violence or those tensions maybe escalate into military conflict. We have peacekeeping, which is well-known around the world for those blue helmets that you see on personnel that are deployed to different mission contexts—at the moment across twelve in the globe, including contexts such as Mali and the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and many that have been in place for decades including within the Middle East. Further along that spectrum we have peace enforcement, which is really more direct intervention, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in terms of military action. And then we also use this terminology around peacebuilding, this idea of preventing the relapse into conflict, and how do we ensure that efforts to build peace don’t fall apart when some of these tensions emerge. So these processes are not necessarily linear and may be required upon during the different stages of conflict for intervention. Now, one of those that I didn’t mention in that spectrum was peacemaking, and this is sort of a terminology that has been explored for decades. We can go back to 1992 and An Agenda for Peace by the then-UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And that noted that peacemaking is action to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as were seen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. So, really, what we’re talking about here is diplomatic action to bring parties to an agreement, often while hostilities are underway. And it may be used in conjunction with other tools or facilitated by the actions of others, including peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, and so on. In this context the UN secretary-general may exercise their good offices to facilitate the resolution of conflict, and a lot of that may involve consultation behind closed doors. And I have no doubt this is an ongoing conversation in terms of another conflict—a number of conflicts that we see around the world at the moment. It may involve the appointment of different envoys who act on behalf of the secretary-general, and it may indeed be undertaken by individuals who have no official affiliation with the UN in terms of supporting those conflict-resolution efforts. What I think is notable at the moment is there is discussion about A New Agenda for Peace currently being driven by the secretary-general as part of his common agenda, recognizing that the world faces a new range of challenges and evolving threats to peace and security—climate change, cyber, information warfare—and I think these are all important to highlight in the context of what they mean when the intersect with religion and conflict. So, very briefly, I wanted to go through how has the UN engaged on conflict and religion. And I think a really important question here to ask at the outset is: What are we talking about when we refer to religious conflicts? Religion itself can be both a driver of conflict and a mechanism for fostering peace. Some of the comments that I’ll make here will draw on some of the research that the Stimson Center and the Protecting Civilians in Conflict Program undertook back in 2020 looking at the issue of violence based on religion or belief, and this was spearheaded by colleagues of mine, Aditi Gorur and Julie Gregory. Some of the things that this research noted that—is, in terms of geography, the Middle East and North Africa region has the highest level of violations based on freedom of religion or belief, followed by the Asia-Pacific, and Europe. And this is drawing on research by the Pew Research Center. These include violations by state and non-state actors. And there remain, of course, ongoing concerns about religious-related terrorism and violent extremism. Religious-related atrocities have been highlighted and amplified of particular concern by the UN special rapporteur on this topic, in relations to violence targeting Muslims in the Central African Republic, for instance; the Muslim Rohingya communities in Myanmar; and Yazidi communities in Iraq. Other areas of concern that have been noted generally by researchers in the international community focused on the forced internment of predominantly Muslim Uighurs in China, and the targeting of Christians by Boko Haram. In this context, in terms of UN engagement there has been a range of different interactions and tools that have been utilized. However, I should note that they have not focused explicitly on the issue of the religious nature of this conflict, although they have been reflected, obviously, in a number of the debates and discussions. So, for instance, dependent on some of the countries that are being looked at, some of the countries that are on the agenda of the Security Council at the moment where there are different levels of religious-related violence include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In the context of UN peacekeeping and peace operations, which I previously referred to, we see it in the Central African Republic, the DRC, and Mali. And we also see it in relation to efforts to prevent conflict and violence by and the work of violent extremist groups, and in discussions around sanctions that the UN may employ under that peace-enforcement mechanism in relation to different ISIS affiliates, or al-Qaida affiliates, and so on. The research that was undertaken by Stimson found that the issue of violence based on religion or belief was an underexamined issue in the Security Council. It was not an issue of thematic focus, unlike the discussions that have taken place in the broader membership within the UN in the General Assembly, and in the Human Rights Council. The Security Council has recently indicated that it may be willing to engage more actively on the issue of freedom of religion as a security matter. Indeed, back in August 2019 it hosted what they call an Arria-formula meeting, which is a more informal meeting of the Security Council, looking at the issue of advancing the safety and security of persons belonging to religious minorities in armed conflict. And I should note that a number of those country contexts that I outlined do indeed consider or refer to the issue of religious intolerance and violence and how it can drive conflict in the resolutions that have been adopted on some of these issues. But one of the key findings that emerged from Stimson’s research was the need for further analysis of some of these issues and to explore whether or not there is any further causality between the issues related to conflict. I want to refer to briefly some of the points that were mentioned in the research that looked at how perhaps religion may be related to the way that conflict develops, and I should note again this remains an underexplored area of research. But it may relate to, for instance, the identification of targets; to exclude individuals, making clear who is socially and politically included and who is not; to demarcate lines between those that may be perceived as the other and those that may not fall within that group. It may present risks that can trigger conflicts due to high levels of inequalities between different groups—that is, economic disparities, access to justice, access to different services that may exacerbate grievances. However, what I should note here is that it is likely a reflection of the overlap of different identity markers that are associated with religious belief or identity, and where politicization can enhance grievances and stoke conflict. So what I want to draw out here is a comment that was made by the special rapporteur in their recent report on this issue in the UN, and I quote: “A number of these crises and conflicts have a religious dimension, sometimes involving adherents of diverse faiths or adversaries within the same religious tradition. However, it is essential not to unduly overestimate the role of religion in either conflict or peacemaking to the exclusion of other factors and motivations involved. This approach is often reductive, concealing the complexities affecting the lives of peoples affected by conflict and crises, including members of religious or belief minorities.” So I think it’s important to note there that while religion may have a really important role in terms of, I guess, intersecting with some of these different issues of discrimination or marginalization, that there are, obviously, a range of different factors to consider. So what I want to conclude on before we have a chance to hear from our other panelist is, I guess when we’re looking at this role of the UN in peacemaking and engaging in some of these conflict scenarios and efforts to resolve conflict, what is the role of religious actors and faith-based organizations in these contexts? And again, I defer a little—a bit back to what the special rapporteur within the UN system has reflected on. And importantly, in looking at civil society engagement, they note the importance of promoting interfaith engagement, the importance of opposing narratives that may essentialize different parts of religious or belief communities, and the importance of faith-based leaders in terms of being influencers who can promote inclusive, peaceful, and just conflict resolutions. And I’m quoting directly there from that special rapporteur. So I think that’s a really important note to conclude on when we consider the role of the UN in this peacemaking space and the vast array of tools that are available, that there is a really important role for civil society and faith-based communities in those conversations depending on the nature of the conflict. And I’ll leave my comments there. Thanks, Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, Lisa. And thank you to Sukhsimranjit Singh for joining. We’re so happy you could be with us. As we have laid out in his bio, he’s the Judge Danny Weinstein Managing Director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, where he’s also an associate professor of law and practice, and directs the LL.M programs. His practice, teaching, and scholarship focuses on cross-cultural dispute resolution, faith-based mediation, and utilizing modern theories, science, and technology to devise creative solutions for global disputes. Dr. Singh has resolved disputes in countries throughout the world, including Canada, India, Japan, New Zealand, and U.S. states across the country. And he most recently published Best Practices for Mediating Religious Conflicts for the American Bar Association. So we’re really looking forward to your perspective, Dr. Singh, to talk about what religious leaders have historically contributed to conflict resolution, how they can continue to do so, and to talk about your Best Practices for Mediating Religious Conflicts as you have done and what you could offer to the group. So I’ll turn it over to you. SINGH: Absolutely. Thank you. Can you all hear me well? Good. All right. Thank you for inviting me. An honor to be here. And such a good pleasure to hear Ms. Lisa Sharland speak from her perspective. And, Ms. Irina, wonderful to be in your presence as well. Folks, let me tell you my specialty, or expertise, or experience, rather. Years of thinking has been on the idea of dispute resolution, so my lens will be more towards conflict resolution and how religion plays a role there. Besides religious leaders, I’m going to make some comments also on culture and cultural identity besides religion and religious identity, because I think both are intertwined in many ways. In fact, I’ll start with an example. In some countries, there’s a cultural practice of arranged marriage. People get arranged marriage. When it comes to—when it’s time to get married, their children, their grandchildren, people prefer to do arranged marriages. And I’ve been studying that for a few years. And I look—in those countries what is fascinating is the cultural trend of arranged marriages transcends across religious lines. So I’ve seen Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Christians all doing arranged marriage in that part of the village that I’m talking about. This one is in India. My interest in this area of international diplomacy came most likely when I started studying for my master’s degree in 2005 and ’06. But I published a piece in Cardozo Journal of Dispute (sic; Conflict) Resolution on international nuclear negotiations and the impact of culture and religion on them. To me, it’s fascinating to see how sometimes we miss this beat that religion can play a big role in negotiations. And I’m fascinated by this. So again, I’m a practitioner as well as a scholar, so I’m going to give examples from both sides. Let me start quickly with my scholarship there and then I’ll give you example from a practical part of the world. My scholarship looked into India and how India chose not to sign CTBT—Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty—when U.S. was negotiating with India on the signage of the treaty and that moment in time. And what’s fascinating to me is the impact played by religion in it, which is very, to my knowledge—my limitedness; sorry if I’m wrong—understudied topic, at least in that part of the region. Two things. There is national identity involved whenever you involve international diplomatic negotiations involving at least two states. There is organizational identity involved, speaking from a cultural lens. And then there is the personal identity of the specific negotiators who are negotiating. So there are three things involved. Let’s quickly talk about all three. National identity. I think national identity in this sense is what’s the major religion of the nation. Let’s say India: It is Hinduism. Some negotiator ought to—should have asked what is a Hindu’s mind about conflict resolution. Where does nuclear negotiation fit with the majority faith in India? Now, these are interesting questions. Here is one data I found out that I’m going to read for you, all right? Let me read this—quote this for you: “Some displays in the annual Ganapati Festival in Maharashtra, India, celebrates India’s technological progress”—and I’m quoting it—“which is seen as a force for the betterment of people as a whole. The progress is equated with nuclear weapons. You could see vignettes of electricity, dams, satellite dishes, fighter planes, and Agni missiles sitting in temples right next to the gods.” What’s fascinating here is this idea, why should India not be fighting or not be as strong to enter into nuclear power that other countries were at that moment, and how religion is supporting that idea. I don’t plan to go too deep into it. I just wanted to touch the surface, a fascinating idea how missiles could be prayed, could be blessed upon in a temple, and how religion and international foreign policy can be connected. Here is my general statement on this. How much do we study the impact of national culture? My article was published on India-U.S. nuclear negotiation. You can find it. I’m not going to go too deep into it. But my question is, when we negotiate, let’s say, with Iran, how deeply are we looking into the impact of religion, impact of cultural identity, impact of saving face for those negotiators who are at the table but who are also representing a national identity? And that is what fascinates me. So when I travel abroad—and I’ve done work in New Zealand, and I’ve worked with Māori community—I have looked at how religion and culture is playing a role before I become successful in those mediations. That’s point number one. Point number two. You asked about religious leaders. I think that is such a fascinating question, and I totally agree with that. Religious leaders are revered in most of the world, if not all of the world. People look up to them because they can lead a group of people, right? That’s what a culture is. Culture is a pattern of thinking followed by a group of people over time based on some values. So religious leaders can actually lead a group of people. That means they can lead a culture. They can lead a culture of people, culture with capital C. Any times you see resistance in the world, the first resistance you see is culture because cultures have a unique way of functioning. They have a unique way of working because that’s what makes culture. Culture is a software of mind. So come back to practical point: Can religious leaders play a role? I think they already play a role. I think in many ways they already have underserved for many of us around the world. My institute, Straus Institute, for example, had a blessing, privilege to work with Archbishop Desmond Tutu many years ago, and we have—we have it on tape. We had a wonderful meeting with him. We interviewed him. And we—part of my question—our question to him was, looking at—Professor Tom Stipanowich, my colleague, asked the question—was looking into the intersection of faith and dispute resolution, how faith is playing a role. And Archbishop Mr. Tutu’s comment was very powerful. He said faith not only plays a role in peacemaking; it plays a role in the daily lives of people, in everyday choices we make, in how we live, how we decide, who we talk to, how much we talk to. And I’m expanding on that. He didn’t go that far, but I’m trying to fill in the words, if you may. So this is a fascinating concept, then. The question you are raising in this important webinar—thanks to the Council on Foreign Relations—is, are we not only using religious leaders, but are we underusing them? Do they have a role to play to do two things, influencing a culture of people within a country—because negotiation has to happen in two ways. One is external. One is internal, right? There’s always an internal audience. And externally, can they represent that faith or be a leader on a world stage? And my colleague mentioned UN and the negotiations at the UN level. I was just with Ambassador David Carden two days ago—(inaudible)—who served under President Obama for ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations—and we were discussing how Indonesia, Philippines, many countries in that region are heavily influenced by faith, by religion, and how negotiations change the phase, how negotiations are different diplomatically when you’re dealing with a group of people that are emotionally intertwined with faith. My last comment’s my third comment. So, one, let’s take a look at culture and religion, how culture is bigger sometimes than religion—not always—and how we can influence this idea of culture—involvement of culture in different nations, and why we should not ignore it, especially the idea of saving face, the idea of gender, the idea of minorities in culture, the idea of just involving people as to where they are. Because people can be way more impactful when they’re emotionally involved in a negotiation. The second thing I spoke about is this idea of not just utilizing world leaders, faith-based leaders, but I think we have underutilized them. Yes, we have—we have the Vatican, as we all know, playing an influential role internationally in diplomatic negotiations with many connections, with many missionaries around the world, and with a powerful presence. But can there be more representation of faith in a neutral setting, in a strategic setting, where leaders from a country like India and China? Of course, we have to manage how the diplomatic heads of those states feel about it, how they are including it, and how can they be in consensus that this is the right way to go. We cannot ignore the diplomatic heads. And then, moving on from there, my last comments—and I want to go to more into Q&A—is going back to my piece on nuclear negotiations between India and U.S. in Cardozo Law Journal. I want to talk briefly about this idea of awareness, and I want to go personal for a second. My religion is Sikhism. A day ago, I spoke at a symposium at my own university and we looked at how—what we have learned from the pandemic. What I have learned is, first of all, on a—on a light note, I love people, so what I learned is I don’t want to be away from people. It’s good to be back, good to be without masks, good to be with people. On a more serious note, I hope it made us all self-reflect—self-reflect as to how we define meaning to life. What is meaning to life? What is it that motivates me on a daily basis? So we’re sharing on this panel that what motivates me is this idea from Sikhism, which is sarbhat dah phalla, which is “may everyone be blessed”—not just one group of people, one idea of people. So there are two ways to look at religion. One is religion separates us. The other is religion combines us or brings us together because you are believing in a common major force in life. Whichever you believe in, one thing is clear: religion is here and it’s going to exist. It’s a powerful force. So the next question for us is: How do we utilize people’s emotions? Because everyone wants to have meaning to life. Everyone wants to live through providing meaning to life, which I think is powerful from a macro perspective to a micro perspective around the world. I just wanted to share those opening thoughts, but I’m happy to take any questions going to any one of those three topics further. But thank you for being—inviting me here. Please. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much to both of you. And now we’re going to go to all of you for your questions and comments. You can either raise your hands and when I call on you please say your affiliation; or you can type your question in the Q&A box, and also if you could add on your affiliation there that would be great. And I think the first question is—do you see that question from Adem Carroll? Question to Professor Singh: Since high caste or other political elites make policies and shape popular views through mass media, isn’t there a risk in generalizing about religious culture? Isn’t the media the main filter? In India, for example, one sees the diverse—sorry—divisive policies like the discriminatory Citizen Amendment Act, promoted by the BJP. Should we be blaming Hindu religious culture for this, or specific politicians? SINGH: Very good question. Wow. Thank you for asking a difficult question. I thought you will start with a softball, but no, this is not an easy crowd. I would—this is a very, very good question. What we have to be aware of is the following: Every nation, to my knowledge, has a major religion that dominates, right—if not one, two religions. You can’t just focus on India. You can look at around you and you’ll see religious politics being played around the world. The question is, can you—let me rephrase the question. Can you ignore that religion and be friends with those politicians, or with the religious leaders, or involve them in a way in which we can have a peaceful dispute resolution? Let me ask you this way, a different way: The way to change, I believe, is first through trust-building, connection, involvement, listening, understanding people, trying to build empathy, and then, once you have built that channel, then pushing them slightly, then challenging them, right? I mean, let me give you quickly, from being a devil’s advocate for a second, what will their response be if you challenge India’s idea of whatever the idea is, a nationalist Hindu movement that you are mentioning in your comment, which many people, especially minorities will agree with, right? And one of the things you will hear back from—you may hear back—is who are you again to tell us to reform? Oh, OK, so you just did this in this country and you’re telling us to stop doing it? OK, so you did 1,130 nuclear bomb tests and you’re a nuclear power, but you don’t want us to be nuclear power? Oh, I see. And I address that in my article as well, it’s amazing that some countries have conducted more than twelve hundred, more than two thousand nuclear tests but when one country does five, we have issues, we have problems, we have judgment. So you have to be very careful in not going in as an outsider and telling them, here is how you fix your country and these are three problems you have. I believe in the other side of diplomacy, which is, how can I work with you, how can I involve you, and leave the issues that are local to them to be fixed but I’ll start by building trust. Long answer. Sorry about this, but that’s just a diplomatic way of involvement of religion because, again, I missed your name, but you have to see one thing: You’re dealing with one billion people who probably belong to that faith. Let me repeat the number: one billion people. Will they be open to lecture, or will they be open to working with us if you involve them? So great question. Sorry for my indirect answer. FASKIANOS: Great. So we are—we have several hands raised now, so I’m going to Katherine Marshall. MARSHALL: Good afternoon, and thank you for the presentations. I’m at Georgetown University and the World Faiths Development Dialogue. I think there are two dimensions that you’ve highlighted; one is understanding the religious dimensions, and then the other is the active involvement of groups that are specifically with religious roots in the very complex controversies that we have in the world—I think of DRC, or South Sudan, or the Rohingya-Myanmar issue. So I’m interested in more comments on the formal or the visible roles that religious actors, ranging from the Vatican, or Sant’Egidio, or maybe the OIC might play in working through the UN channels but through others in moving forward on what seemed to be perpetual and intractable problems. SINGH: Do you want to take this first? SHARLAND: Happy to, Professor Singh. Look, thanks, Katherine. I think that is a really important question and one that goes to the crux of, I guess, where some of the gaps are in terms of addressing conflict resolution and peacemaking, about the inclusivity of those processes. As you say, a lot of this work is undertaken informally and there is quite a bit of engagement by different actors on the ground. If we take the example of peacekeeping missions, for instance, working with faith-based communities, working with different civil society organizations, recognizing that they have an important and influential role, I think, in garnering support for peace processes, for ensuring that different grievances are addressed. But I don’t think perhaps that those roles are as formalized as perhaps there is capacity for them to be. Now, some of this may be indeed due to misunderstanding or sensitivities around the role of religion in some of these conflict environments, and therefore, perhaps there is an assessment that a lot of that work being undertaken at the grassroots is really important, and pivotal, and beneficial when there isn’t a very strong watch shined on the work that is being undertaken. But there is no doubt that in some contexts, particularly as Professor Singh had noted there about the visibility at the national level of religion, and identity, and culture, that there may be a greater role for highly visible religious leaders to be engaged in these processes to bring different parts of the community into those processes. And I think this is particularly important when we consider concerns about relapse into conflict. There is a tendency for international actors, the UN and others, to depart, sometimes on a timetable or sometimes when the Security Council decides that its appetite for engagement in a conflict is no longer there, and then really, at the end of the day, it is the communities, and it is the different leaders of those communities who are involved in picking up the pieces and trying to identify how to resolve those grievances and concerns about conflict and identity that have not been resolved. So I think, to go to your question there, there is capacity and I think it’s an important consideration that at times is perhaps overlooked a little bit in terms of engagement in these processes. SINGH: I’ll make a quick comment. I 100 percent agree with the comment of my co-panelist. And I think, Ms. Marshall, Professor Marshall, that’s a very good point you raised is the question of active groups, right—active groups is the word you used—and how religion—but the point I’m going to say—I just want to include a new thing, thought here, if you may allow me. We have to be careful how some groups use religion and manipulate religion for popular votes, and for popularity in their local regions, and how international actors and religious leaders can just do a bigger role—play a bigger role through still coming back and saying, OK, hold on, don’t blame religion for this; religion is not the cause, but the politicization of religion, the abuse of religion, the use of religion, the strategic ways in which you have used religious votes to gain power, and to manipulate local society has to blame. I think sometimes that slight distinction can help raise more awareness, as my colleague mentioned—that’s the word—raise more awareness locally as to how one may have to distinguish oneself from a group or from what they may be calling a religious political party but it might be just a political party who’s using religion. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Mark Webb. WEBB: Hello. Thank you for your remarks and for including me in this discussion. I’m a philosophy professor at Texas Tech University and I was very interested to hear about the idea of trust-building. It’s something I last heard when I was talking to some people at the EastWest Institute, and their idea was that there are already people who trust each other across these lines and if they are not the leaders, then perhaps former military leaders, former politicians, businesspeople who trust one another and have contacts, that those kinds of lines of connection can be used to build trust, to sort of get you out of the prisoner’s dilemma of international problems. (Laughs.) And I wondered, is there any reason why religious leaders can’t be used across borders for that same kind of track to diplomacy track 1.5 diplomacy, whatever it is. Is that some—that strikes me as a very promising sort of avenue. SINGH: Can I quickly comment, Lisa? SHARLAND: Yes, absolutely. SINGH: Thank you. I think that’s a very good—thank you, Professor Cook, for that question—Professor Webb. I think what—you almost gave the answer within your question, right? I could hear the answer within your question, but—if I’m right. Absolutely yes. The simple answer is absolutely. The question is how, right? And the very first question that was asked today—let me see if I can get the name here and that was by Caroll, if I’m not wrong, P. Carroll. FASKIANOS: Adem Carroll with the Burma Task Force. SINGH: OK, wonderful, by Mr. Carroll. Now, the question is connected in some ways. What we have to be careful is, when you appoint a religious leader, does that religious leader represent the diversity of religions of a state? That’s the question, right? Because some people may feel marginalized because religion has a very powerful force, is OK, who appointed that leader? So just a simple theory there, or suggestion there is I really enjoy being on interfaith panels, on interfaith conversations, on interfaith dialogues, on interfaith—that’s one of my best days—if you put me and ask my students and my clients, my best day would be when I’ve just attended a one-hour, two-hour, three-hour interfaith discussion. The reason is it challenges me. The reason is that I end up learning more about myself and others by being with friends who are from a different faith than myself. I think there’s a power there in appointing multiple—what I’m going there are religious leaders within a culture, someone who can represent, let’s say, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, and so forth and so on, just saying it quickly, from a religion, from a country to be on a panel, and that would be wonderful. In fact, let me give you an example, though it is interesting. Indian Supreme Court tried to come up with an interfaith panel for a very controversial case in Delhi. I’m not going to go into the case. I’m not going to talk about it or the panelists because I know a couple of panelists, but I will tell you that at least the approach, the idea that we can have this interfaith leadership was, I think, something we should remark about. Now, coming back to your other point, I think you made an amazing point about trust-building and there are people, you said, who already have trust. That’s an excellent, brilliant point, not only, I think—totally agree with you; I think that’s what you’re alluding to—not only they’re underused. We don’t ask, we don’t have awareness. Have we gone to Iran? I’m just saying it loudly—forgive me, I don’t want to be on record for this point. Have we gone to a people in Iran and asked, how do you get persuaded? Who is your leader? Can we work with your leader? How can I work—or a village in India, or a village in China. This idea of involving people who already have trust either from my side, or your side, or a global side, and utilizing them for peaceful negotiations, diplomatic negotiations is a brilliant idea. I think it’s truly underserved, and here’s a quick answer why. It takes time. It takes effort. And our international diplomacy, we all know, sometimes we do things, then we think about them, or we’re a little behind, or we don’t have time, as we say, or we have to be quick because we don’t have time because things change, especially now with social media, things change in an instant. Great question. I hope this was some help. (Laughs.) I don’t know if I was much but I’m going to stop here. SHARLAND: I might just jump in there briefly with a slight pivot to the point—(inaudible)—because I do not have the exceptional expertise of my current panelist on some of these issues, but the point about trust-building there and I refer back to my—(laughs)—native Australia in terms of the context, and the importance of building relationships that we saw around defense counterparts, for instance, between Australia and Indonesia when it came to the intervention in Timor-Leste, and the importance and fruition of those relationships twenty years later when it came to de-escalating hostilities in different contexts, purely because there had been that engagement, that trust, that building of relationships, so I think that is an incredibly important point when it comes to conflict resolution. And I think, on a related point to the inclusivity of different, I guess, groups, I really take the point there that Professor Singh made there around the representation of different religious groups in these processes, and ensuring that it’s not just one associated with identity or culture. And I think I would extend that to say that this applies obviously not just to religious leaders, but ensuring that different marginalized groups—traditionally, women we highlight in peace process is the fact that they are often not at the table, often not taking part in these conversations, and that that actually is to the detriment of being able to resolve the conflict and the sustainability of those efforts going forward. So I think there’s some related points to what you just made there, so thank you so much. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. And I’m going to go next to Tereska Lynam, who raised her hand and also wrote the question, but I would prefer you to tease it out, Tereska. There you go; you’re unmuted. LYNAM: OK, thank you. Sorry about that. Yeah, so I did write the question down, but, one, fantastic presentation. Thank you all so much; this is great. And I wanted to say, I just attended a Judeo-Christian meditation group before this call and we were talking about Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge and how it brought about many negative feelings and estrangement. And then later in the call we were discussing how much of the information, as just regular people, as citizens of the world, how much information we receive today, especially by anything broadcast media, creates anxiety within us, and that there are so many media outlets and sources; it’s not like  in the ’70s, ’80s, and even the ’90s when people would watch one—there was a consensus about what we were all watching, so we were reading the same newspapers, we were watching the same news programs. That’s not happening anymore, even within, among closest friends and families. We’re just getting constantly different information. And so this unregulated, if you will, information gathering compounds our own anxiety and creates divisions within our tightest community because we’re asked to be outraged or we’re asked to do—I almost got sick reading about what’s going on in the Ukraine the other day. And if someone’s—when you have that and then you have someone who has a totally different perspective, it creates divisions, right? So what I’ve noticed, bringing it back to what religious leaders can do, is that if they create safe spaces within the congregation for information sharing and arriving at peaceful consensus, we come together and, possibly more importantly, are optimistic about the future and/or the ability to effect positive change. And then, I didn’t write this down, but all the wonderful conversations you’ve been having, I think that we can—what I have been trying to meditate on is how I can be a spiritual leader for those not involved in my own congregation, or not involved in things, to kind of help them create a safe space for information sharing and optimism. And to that end, Irina, I feel like this—what you’ve done here with this community is, for at least me, you’ve created a spiritual congregation for information sharing and arriving at, if not consensus, at peace and optimism. So thank you all so much for it and I’ve been—I look forward to hearing your comments. Thanks. SINGH: Can I comment quickly? Can I, please? Yeah. This is beautiful. Thank you for that comment. I think it’s deep. It’s deep. (Laughs.) We can go into logistics. I always say, as a lawyer, we can go into legal arguments all the time, but the question is seeing the bigger picture, and I think what you just saw, ma’am, is a bigger picture. I want to comment on two things. Imagine we are all—I know it’s not an amazing analogy; forgive me for this—but imagine we are about to die and you’re closing your eyes. Are you going to think about your loved ones or are you going to think about your enemies? What matters to you in life is more love, and compassion, and the memories we create around it, not people we fight with. We’re not going to take them to our deathbed. I hope not. The question that we all have something in common is we’re going to die, right? The question here is the following—that’s why I took the example; forgive me—love has always sustained. Peace has always sustained. Wars start, wars end, but this mutual cooperation—if this ends, we will end as a civilization and that’s exactly the comments like you, I believe, people who will lead us into remaining believers, that at the end of the day we believe there are more people who believe in peace than of people who believe in war. That’s my comment on that. Thank you. SHARLAND: Just a very quick reflection. I think it’s such an important point that you’ve raised there, Tereska, in terms of information that we consume, and information that we obtain, and it’s something that really drives consent in the work that we’re doing in our organization, because there is a lot of divisiveness created out of that, and it’s very easy to manipulate and to polarize different populations. And how do you break down those divides? And I think a really important part of that is being open to contested ideas and debate, and conversations around some of these issues, and ultimately, the shared goal of—as Professor Singh has noted there, about peacefulness and trying to bring these into the conversations, but unfortunately, I feel like so much of it—it is much easier to weaponize some of these ideas and to cut off information, which, I will say, is such an important precursor to different levels of conflict. We see this playing out at the moment in terms of the war in Ukraine and other things as well, unfortunately. So I think having that ability to have contested ideas and to have those conversations in spaces where people are open and receptive to collegial debate is so, so important. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And thank you, Tereska, for your shout-out there. We really appreciate it. I appreciate it. So I’m going to go next to Victoria Strang, who has written a comment. She is the first faith advocate at Human Rights Watch. “It is very rare for secular human rights organizations to have specialists who are skilled in engaging faith leaders and communities, which I think can be a detriment due to some of the examples that have been provided.” And she’s hoping that both of you can speak more to the importance of secular organizations in taking faith partnerships seriously and investing in that kind of work. SHARLAND: I’m happy to jump in here to start. Thank you for the question, Victoria. I think it’s a really important point, and I think one of the risks that emerged or was highlighted in the research that we were doing, particularly in the context of UN at Stimson, was around one of these tensions, and often you may see this in terms of different religious or faith organizations when it comes to efforts to advocate for different human rights within the UN system. And we do see a lot of the tensions that emerge there in terms of advocacy around whether it be women’s reproductive rights, or whether it be the rights of different marginalized groups. And again, some of this comes back, I think, to the conversation we were just having there about the polarization of different ideas and what’s—how these ideas may compete with one another. So I think part of that conversation in terms of the benefits that may exist to bring faith-based leaders or those, at least, with an understanding of it into some of the work of these organizations, is to have really frank and open conversations around what some of these different issues and tensions are, because we do see them playing out in a very polarized manner in the UN environment and, of course, in a number of other contexts. So I think that would really be a first step to that conversation, because there is a lot that different organizations and those with different backgrounds can learn from one another, and it may be that some of the tensions cannot be entirely resolved, but I think we need to draw on our strengths where we can in these conversations, particularly when it comes to conflict resolution. SINGH: I will quickly comment that sometimes we need alliances with different partners, strategic partners who can do more persuasion in their groups, so your point about partnering with secular organizations who take faith partnerships seriously. And the rest is absolutely spot-on because what you then do is you invite people who may or may not believe in faith or who may have a different take on faith, and if you believe in faith, you’ll accept them too, right, and everyone is the same. So the idea of how do we—the idea you’re going at is persuasion. How do we persuade more and more folks to come to belong to this peacemaking mission? And the idea of persuasion is to go through alliances, to go through connection, to go through the bridges that have already been built instead of starting a new bridge. And I think that’s exactly where your comment—again, you provide an answer to us within your question—is absolutely right and it’s needed, and needs to be more studied. And there is some really good work done on it already, as you can see, you can find, by terrific scholars, but still, we can do more implementation of that work in the practical field. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Thomas Walsh, who’s the Universal Peace Federation. He’s written the question: Today we heard from the Security Council special session on atrocities that are horrifying. I would like to hear your thoughts on how religions can contribute to conflict resolution in Ukraine—obviously not simple or easy—and how can we support the UN in its efforts? SHARLAND: Here’s my short answer to this very challenging question that you’ve raised there—(laughs)—and I’m certainly not going to do justice to it in the few minutes that are remaining. I think the one major point I would make here is the need to avoid having religion weaponized in a way to stoke the conflict further. And I—we have seen in terms of the misinformation around the rationale for Russia’s invasion and other things sort of on different precursors or different information around what was happening in Ukraine. But I think the key point I would make here, as a starting point is that this context is not manipulated to the advantage of different groups to stoke the conflict further, and indeed, I think we have seen some instances where that has occurred. I think, obviously, in terms of—we talked early on, and indeed, Professor Singh mentioned early on in his comments—one of the notes that I made here was the importance of, I don’t want to say saving face in this context, but a lot of people have talked about what’s the off-ramp, how do we de-escalate the conflict, how do we come to some political resolution? And I think core to that is trying to understand what the motivations, and the different identities are that are attached to different groups that in no way, in our line of work in the program that I work in at Stimson, we are very much focused on the atrocities and what sort of is coming out of this conflict, which is absolutely abhorrent. But I think that gives us more impetus to really focus on, well, how do we de-escalate this, how do we ensure there are justice and accountability mechanisms when it comes to the atrocities that have been committed, and how do we ensure that the civilians that are being impacted by the conflict right now have the protection that they require, and unfortunately, we are falling incredibly short in that right now and we need to continue looking at how we mitigate some of the impacts of this conflict going forward. FASKIANOS: Dr. Singh, I’ll let you conclude. SINGH: OK, totally agree with my esteemed colleague there, beautifully stated. So let me say, in addition now, after—in consensus with her comments. In addition, I would say, I think from a young age we should teach empathy and listening as two skills. Imagine some of the world leaders right now if they know what empathy is. That’s so totally missing. It’s bizarre how much some people have no idea what empathy is. Seeing children dying on the street—I mean, you just got to not have a heart, right? The connection is missing. The empathy is missing for—of course, the idea that who you are. And the other thing is you’re not being heard. You’re feeling—but you don’t know how to listen to other people but you’re also crying to be heard. So the idea, now, to come back to the role of UN: My quick idea there is we have faith communities. The word is community. What builds a community? What is a community? Can communities be powerful? I think every faith-based communities are very well connected. You can look at my community, look at other faith-based communities. We have a unique way of connecting, which also means we can use that as a power tool. We can use it as a tool to make good influence in the world. But we haven’t done that. We haven’t gone there. We haven’t used systemically faith-based communities to lobby whatever we need to lobby at the UN level, but also to give more prestige to UN, the work that UN has been doing. So two things. Last thing I’ll say is, I think we need more focus outside of UN—whatever it is, schools, colleges, everywhere else, in spaces like this one, so I’m so thankful you’re doing this—on peace. Why is peace important? Is peace a culture? When peace is missing, what are we losing? How can we teach peace and idea of peace from a young time, and what happens when humanity loses peace? If these concepts are explored from a young age, at a young mind, I think we’ll be able to create more sustainable—because our time is going, right? We’ve already seen the disaster in the last few weeks on earth. The question is, how do we not make it happen again, twenty, thirty, fifty, hundred years from today? FASKIANOS: Thank you. A very powerful way to end and we really appreciate you both being with us today to share your expertise, and insight, and analysis, and to all of you for your questions and comments. So I encourage you to follow Lisa Sharland’s work on Twitter at @LJSharland and Sukhsimranjit Singh’s work at @Sukhsimranjits, and his website, singhadr.com. So we will circulate resources as well as a link to this webinar so you can reference it, as well as the Stimson report that Lisa mentioned. And I hope you also follow us, CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy program, on Twitter at @CFR_religion. And as always, we encourage you to reach out to us to send your suggestions, comments, questions to [email protected]. Thank you all again. Our next webinar will be on Thursday, April 14 at 12:00 p.m. for a Social Justice and Foreign Policy Webinar on Religion and Voting Rights. So thank you both again for being with us today, and to all of you, stay safe.
  • Ukraine
    Understanding Russia's Invasion of Ukraine
    Play
    Thomas Graham, distinguished fellow at CFR, and Oxana Shevel, associate professor of political science at Tufts University, discuss what is happening in Ukraine, the religious component to this conflict, and how the United States and its allies are responding. Learn more about CFR's Religion and Foreign Policy Program. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Religion and Foreign Policy webinar series. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. As a reminder, this webinar is on the record, and the audio, video, and transcript will be made available on our website, cfr.org, and on our iTunes podcast channel, Religion and Foreign Policy. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We’re delighted to have Thomas Graham and Oxana Shevel with us to talk about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So I will just give a few introductory notes. Thomas Graham is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a co-founder of the Russian, Eastern European, and Eurasian Studies Program at Yale University and sits on the faculty steering committee. He is also a research fellow at The Macmillan Center at Yale. Dr. Graham was special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff from 2004 to 2007, during which time he managed a White House-Kremlin strategic dialogue, and he was a foreign service officer for fourteen years. Assignments included two tours of duty at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in the late Soviet period. Oxana Shevel is an associate professor of political science at Tufts University. Her research and teaching focuses on post-communist regions surrounding Russia and issues such as nation and state building, the politics of citizenship and migration, memory and religious politics, and challenges to democratization in the post-Soviet region. Her current research projects examine the sources of citizen policies in the post-communist states, church-state relations in Ukraine, and the origins of separatist conflict in Donbas. She is published in a variety of journals and is the author of Migration, Refugee Policy, and State Building in Post-Communist Europe. So thank you both for being with us today. As we all know, the invasion of Ukraine began on February 24. So we are now over a month into this war. So I thought we could begin, Dr. Graham, with you to talk a little bit—give us an update on where things stand with the war in Ukraine and, as far as you can divine, your analysis of Putin’s intentions right now, and how the United States and allies are responding, and what more they can be doing. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Irina. And it’s a real pleasure to be with all of you here today. Just three sort of brief points. First, as we all know, the Russian military operation in Ukraine has stalled. The initial goal was to take Kyiv, but the Kremlin thought they could do that in three or four days. That clearly isn’t going to happen. The Russians now are in the process of regrouping. They have said that they will concentrate their forces in the east, that is in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, and try to make progress there. They have withdrawn some of their troops up from the vicinity of Kyiv, although they’re digging in for defense purposes. And then in addition, despite the claims that they’re going to concentrate in the east, air strikes continue across the country. So there really hasn’t been a significant lessening of the Russian military assault on Ukraine at this point. Second, there are negotiations underway between Ukraine and Moscow. They had a session in Istanbul yesterday. You will read in the press that progress has been made, that the Ukrainians have made certain proposals as a way of reaching a ceasefire and a resolution of this conflict. The point I would stress is that the two sides are still very, very far apart on this. There’s not going to be a ceasefire or, indeed, a resolution of this conflict anytime in the near future. And for all that we can see at this point, the Russians haven’t backed down from their maximal demands. They still want to see Ukraine as a neutral. They still want to see Ukraine demilitarized. They want the Ukrainian government to recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and also the independence of these two statelets in eastern Ukraine. Independence that Russia recognized in the very eve of the invasion. This, in fact, is demanding that Kyiv capitulate. And I would also underscore that nothing in the Russian proposals say that even if Ukraine agrees to these demands that Russia is prepared to withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory. So the conflict is going to continue. What Putin wants ultimately is very difficult to divine at this point. He has Russian troops on Ukrainian soil at this point. I think at a minimum he does want to retain the Donbas within the confines of the two provinces in that region, which is a bit more than the separatists occupied at the beginning of the conflict. He’s also intent on building what we call a land bridge between the separatist region and Crimea. That will facilitate the movement of all sorts of things, including military forces, but also commercial traffic between Russia and Crimea. And he also wants very much that Ukraine takes on a neutral status, that it move—that it not move away from Russia into a European orbit at this time—irretrievably, from Russia’s standpoint. Third, on the Western reaction,  what we have seen from the very beginning of this conflict is the letting over very severe sanctions by the United States and the European allies. Those countries have made an effort to try to escalate the sanctions over time to keep the pressure on Russia. The impact is very difficult to divine from the outside. It’s clear that it has had some bite on the Russian economy. After all, the Kremlin is complaining about them. They would like to see them ease. But there’s nothing that indicates that the sanctions are of such severity that the Russian government, Putin in particular, is reconsidering his conduct of this conflict in Ukraine. He’s still pressing ahead. And that, I think, is going to be true for many weeks into the future. My own read on this is that we’ll see a significant change in Russian conduct only when the casualties mount to levels where the Kremlin can no longer conceal those from the Russian public. The Russians are taking heavy casualties. The Kremlin narrative is only admitted some fifteen hundred. The numbers are much larger than that at this point. But when the Russian population begins to realize the cost of this to their sons, their husbands, and brothers, I think that that will lead to a change in public opinion and a time when Putin will have to reconsider what his ultimate goals are vis-à-vis Ukraine. So let me stop there, Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much, Tom. And, Dr. Shevel, let’s go to you to talk about how or if religion is playing into this conflict. And especially vis-à-vis the split of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from its Russian counterpart, I think, four years ago. SHEVEL: Thank you, Irina. Thank you for inviting me to join this conversation. So let me say a few words about the religious landscape in Ukraine and how it has been affected by war. I’ll put it in a little bit broader perspective, because I think one interesting and sort of tragic or paradoxical thing that we see in Ukraine as a result of Putin’s aggression is that Ukrainian society is getting unified even in areas where it has been divided historically for quite some time. And ironically, it’s really Putin that can take credit for that. So it’s very peculiar irony because, I mean, his quest to keep Ukraine closer to Russia to  kind of weaken the pro-Western sentiment within Ukraine actually has achieved the opposite. We saw that already starting 2014 on issues—anything to do with NATO membership to EU membership. And the religious divide, actually, it’s one of the few remaining divides now in the Ukrainian society, as you said, between the two Orthodox Churches. Just for the listeners, I mean, probably everybody knows, but in Ukraine there has been two competing Orthodox Churches that are the same as far as kind of the set of beliefs, rituals, and so forth. But one church is in unity with the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate. And the other one is the one that was received—(inaudible)—from the patriarch in Constantinople in late 2018. And since early 2019 there has been a transfer of some of the parishes, by different counts anywhere between sort of five hundred-plus to seven hundred parishes that switched, or at least tried to switch. I mean, the process itself has been very complicated. If there is time, I can go into that maybe in the Q&A. But basically, this divide has remained. And what happens now that it was started, unfortunately, the patriarch in Moscow has essentially endorsed the war. And that puts Ukrainian Church, the Moscow Patriarchate Church which is unity with Russian Orthodox Church, in a very difficult situation. Because, obviously, in Ukraine there is this great sense of national unity, opposition to aggression. And the parishioners of that church, by and large are, obviously, not in support of the war, and they volunteer to fight in the armed forces, and so forth. So the church has basically put them in this very difficult situation. So the hierarchs—the leader of this Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate even appealed to Putin to stop the war. Of course, that didn’t work. And now the question becomes, what happens to this church? Does it keep its ecumenical kind of organizational unity with Moscow—with the Church in Moscow, Russian Orthodox Church? It’s essentially basically been kind of keeping its traditional religious affiliation, but now really in opposition or in very kind of confrontational relationship with a big part of its own flock in Ukraine, including some of the lower-level hierarchs. So we see this situation where the church leadership essentially took kind of a moral wait and see position. So they have spoken against the war. They have appealed to Putin to stop it. But they have not left. They haven’t made a decision to leave the Russian Orthodox Church, break affiliation and join this Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which is independent. That’s the one that received the—(inaudible). So this is the development that I think we need to watch and see what happens. I just want to kind of suggest a few ways it might go, and what we already see happening. So, for one, what we see happening, there is not a massive but certainly some movement within the lower-level hierarchs and the parishioners, individual parishes, of this Moscow-affiliated church to break ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. By different accounts, as many as a hundred parishes—there is no exact statistic but that’s sort of the higher estimate—but there are certainly dozens of parishes that since the war started broke affiliation with the Moscow Patriarchate Church and asked to join the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. What is interesting, what’s happening now, which was less prevalent in 2019, that now in many of these parishes it’s not just the people who want to switch, but the priests as well. Because what was happening before in 2019, some parishioners wanted to switch, but the parish leadership by and large did not want to switch. We can sort of talk about reasons for it. Some of it was political. Some of it was religious. Some of it—there are accounts that people were basically paid. There were sort of unofficial civil society groups, for lack of a better word, on both sides, and sometimes these confrontations were violent. And the legislation was kind of ambiguous. This is another aspect we don’t have time to go into in detail now but, again, if there are questions. The very process of sort of what constitutes a switch of affiliation under Ukrainian law is very, very complicated. It basically meant that all of these attempts to switch in 2019 ended up in courts because there it was sort of not clear who has the jurisdiction to make this decision, who doesn’t. And essentially it has been—there are hundreds of cases pending in Ukrainian court over this. So what we see the difference now, so it’s not just the parishioners but also oftentimes the priests and even the hierarchs at the regional level. There are, again, different estimates, but among the eparchies—I think that’s the English word that they—sort of organizationally, the church is divided into these eparchies, like regional centers, and about a dozen of these regional centers now in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate have asked the leadership to break ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. And the leadership of the church remains, again, kind of undecided. So I think once the war ends, that might be—it’s a little bit too early to say—but it might be another area where Putin’s aggression against Ukraine might actually end the division that existed for many years, if indeed these two churches might unite. I don’t think it’s a predetermined outcome, because there is a lot of sort of, you can say, bad blood in the relationship between these churches. The position of the Moscow Patriarchate Church has been that the Orthodox Church of Ukraine is essentially schismatic, that they cannot perform rites with them and so forth. So they, in a way, put themselves in a situation that sort of outright joining together would be very difficult. But they don’t really have many other good options, because one possibility, of course, would be to ask for autocephaly, independence, from the church in Moscow. And that’s obviously clear to everybody that the Russian patriarch will not give its Ukrainian Church autonomy. So to have two autonomous churches that would not be in unity with Moscow in Ukraine would be very strange, because there is already one that received autonomy from the Constantinople patriarch. So the Moscow Patriarchate Church is really—the leadership is in a very kind of difficult situation, I think. They are trying to kind of weigh their options. There are some reports, again, in the social media, in local press, that they essentially tell the priests that, we want to wait and see how this war ends because, of course, if Russia, if they were to win somehow, that would be different political playing field and  different references in the church. Last thing that I would mention that so far there hasn’t been much violence as far as parishioners trying to take over the parishes. There are some isolated instances of the priests being kicked out of the churches, but now in Ukrainian parliament there is draft legislation to ban the Moscow Patriarchate Church all together, exactly because it’s sort of perceived as collaborating with church affiliated with the so-called aggressor state. That draft bill has not passed. I personally don’t think it’s a great idea to have this law. It would violate some principles of religious freedom. But sort of emotionally, I mean, if, say, such a law is passed, I think it might receive kind of emotional support among many in the society. So that’s also something to watch. But so I’ll end, again, with a smaller point, another paradox, really. This creation of unity within Ukraine and ending many long-term divisions as a result of Putin’s policies and exactly his goal to actually keep the divisions and kind of increase the Russian sentiment in Ukraine that produces the opposite results. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much to both of you. Let’s go now to your questions and comments. You can either raise your hand by clicking on the “raise hand” icon, or you can write your question in the Q&A box. We would love to hear from you live, though. But I will start with Martin Raffel of—and if you could, when you—if you’re going to write a question, if you could put your affiliation, that would be great. But I will try to raise affiliations as well. So, Martin is with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. And his question is: Could Russia’s pullback from Kyiv be preclude to use of WMD? Is Putin chastened by Biden’s threat of severe consequences if WMD is used? So, Tom, do you want to take that one? GRAHAM: Making sure I understood the question correctly, does he say—is it that the pullback precludes the use of WMD, or? FASKIANOS: Could Russia’s pullback be to—I believe to stop the use of WMD? Martin, do you want to unmute and you can ask it? Because I also think we need a little more clarification. GRAHAM: There’s Martin. RAFFEL: Yeah. I was asking could it be a prelude— GRAHAM: A prelude, OK. (Laughs.) RAFFEL: To the use of WMD. Moving Russian troops out of harm’s way. GRAHAM: Right. That’s what I thought. FASKIANOS: OK. GRAHAM: It’s a different type of question. The short answer to that question is we really don’t know. The defensive—withdrawing the troops, I think, is an indication that the Russians want to transfer some of the forces to the east in order to intensify the struggle and their operations in that part of Ukraine right now. All that said, the Russians have, as you know, for the past several weeks talked about the possibility of biological weapons, chemical weapons being used by the Ukrainians. But they’ve made much of these biological labs that have been discovered in eastern—or, in Ukraine. They’ve been there for years. The Russians were well aware of them. They’re well aware of what the United States was doing at those labs, in part because the United States did similar things in Russian labs in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union. We have always been concerned that Russia might use biological or chemical weapons. After all, they have used chemical weapons before against individuals—most famously against the opposition leader Alexei Navalny, a little over a year and a half ago. It also used them on the ground in Syria as part of that conflict. So, again, whether withdrawing the troops is a prelude to using these weapons, we don’t know for sure. All that—but what I would say is this is always a possibility. We are watching this very closely. And I think you probably notice that President Biden spoke about that issue very forcefully on his European trip, that there will be some sort of response. But he left out the particulars of how the United States would respond to that type of use by the Russian Federation. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go next to Azza Karam, who has raised her hand. KARAM: Well, lovely. Thank you so much for unmuting me. And thank you very much for the speakers, Dr. Shevel and Dr. Graham. My question is really more for—to Dr. Shevel. And it has to do with thanking you for the way that you elaborated the tensions between and within the various Orthodox Churches. I’m just curious, I hear you very clearly that in a sense the aggression has brought so many of the Ukrainian people together, including the religious communities. I’m just curious to understand two things: If the Moscow Patriarchate Orthodox Church in Ukraine hasn’t yet made up its mind, and there seems to be different positions inside as you described so eloquently, then where is the unity in that? I mean, either they’re united or they’re disparate. But the other question also has to do with everyone’s focus on the Orthodox Church, which I fully understand. But had the situation been elsewhere in the world, in a Muslim majority country, the question on everybody’s mind would be what about the religious minorities? So can you perhaps just share something about the other religions in the Ukraine, and that particular dynamic? Thank you. SHEVEL: Yes. Thank you for the question. Let me address that—address all of these briefly. So on the unity part, I think what we see, what I’m—again, I think the end result, that’s if I were to make some sort of educated guess  where it would end—I think the end result would be these two churches, or at least most of the—of the Moscow Patriarchate Church uniting with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Because you’re right, at this point the leadership is essentially fence sitting. But among the lower-level hierarchs, we see quite substantial movement. So I think at the very least if the Moscow Patriarchate Church were to survive as an institution in Ukraine, it will be much smaller. They are going to lose a lot of parishes. They are going to lose whole eparchies. And sort of, somewhat paradoxically, it’s in the areas where people are more religious because, as you may know, in Ukraine, say, people in the east of the country generally are less religious than people in the west, and this is kind of western-centered. That’s where we see the whole eparchies, not just individual parishes, trying to basically break institutional affiliation with this church that’s affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church. Now, as far as the other minorities, I think here what I would first of all point out, that if Russia gets to keep any of the territory—additional territory that it’s seized so far—where its troops are stationed—I think we’ll see a lot of persecution of so-called nontraditional religious minorities, because we already saw that happening in Crimea. We saw that happening in Donbas, that has been occupied with these pro-Russian separatists since 2014. So various Protestant denominations, Crimean Tatars, right? The accusation of Islamic militants and so forth. But certainly, a lot of Protestant communities have been quite severely persecuted. Priests sometimes are forced to leave, some of them disappeared. So we will see, I think, religious minorities really suffering in the territories if Russia is able to sort of exert control over the long term over a greater part of Ukrainian territory. So I think, I would say, is important to keep in mind for the religious minority. And also if I can—Irina, if it’s OK if I jump in—because there was a question in the chat I saw about Russkiy Mir, sort of this ideology of the Russian world and the Holy Rus. And I think that’s very important. I’m glad to whoever wrote this question, because that’s essentially what Russian Orthodox Church leadership kind of presents as ideological or spiritual justification for this war, right? So it really dialogues with Putin’s claim that Ukrainians and Russians are really ultimately one people, right? His is sort of more primordial, if you want to call the argument, but here the patriarch offers, of course, an ideological/religious argument that there is really this civilization, right, of Holy Rus, of Russkiy Mir that extends to Ukraine, right? And then it is threatened by Western civilization, by gay pride parades, or whatever sort of these threats come from. So the Russian Army here is just on a civilizational mission to essentially uphold the spiritual purity and so forth, so this is Russkiy Mir. And I think this narrative is essentially failing, certainly failing in Ukraine. So, again, it remains to be seen to what extent—sort of how Russian Orthodox Church survives this war, what happens within the global orthodoxy. But I think as far as this narrative of essentially being many—not a lot of people. I mean, we can sort of look at different statistics, how it’s evolved over the years. But there were certainly people in Ukraine who broadly maybe were OK, especially among the religious parishioners of the Moscow Patriarchate Church. I think that narrative is basically going to lose any potency in Ukraine. So Russia might try to continue to propagate it. It certainly offers justification for the military aggression. But as far as it being—resonating among the people who supposedly belong to this Russkiy Mir, right, the Russian civilization, the Holy Rus, in Ukraine I think it’s failing majorly. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go next to Saffet Catovic, who has a raised hand. CATOVIC: Thank you. Thank you very much for a wonderful program. Very much appreciate it. Saffet Catovic, the imam and head of Office of Islamic Society of North America in D.C., interfaith and community alliances and government relations. I wanted to follow up on something that our dear sister Professor Azza Karam said with regard to both the minorities and the reach of the Orthodox Church, specifically with regard to the Balkans, and the Republika Srpska and Serbia itself, and Montenegro, and their open alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church in support of what is going on in Ukraine. And of course, both Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina have Muslim populations there. A couple weeks ago we were fortunate to have a call with the head of the Muslim community—one of the heads of the Muslim community in Ukraine, Sheikh Zayed, who said there were 10,000 Ukrainian Muslims that have been killed in the fighting thus far of the 1.5 million-plus, primarily Tatar Muslims, in Ukraine. And the streets in Banja Luka in particular were livid with protests in support of Vladimir Putin and specifically the Orthodox Church. So my question is, how does this pan-Orthodoxy play itself out in the Balkans, especially given that some of the nations in the Balkans are on track to become part and parcel of NATO, and Russia’s possible influence through those nations into NATO policies. So I wanted to ask that. Thank you very much for your—once again allowing me to share. FASKIANOS: Great. Oxana, do you want to take that? SHEVEL: I’ll try. I mean, I should say right away I’m not an expert on the Balkans or sort of global religious issues, kind of, in that part of the world. But I think the idea that there is now among different religious—including global orthodoxy. So the decision has to be made, right? Like, what do you do? Do you continue business as usual with the Russian Orthodox Church? Do you take a position, right? There have been some statements made. Somebody mentioned in the chat that it’s quite unprecedented that religious leaders globally try to weigh in on political processes and appeal to the Russian patriarch. So I’m not sure kind of what happens—what would happen within the Balkans. But I think the question, could the Russian patriarch be somehow swayed by these religious leaders outside Russia who are appealing to him to maybe weigh on Putin, I personally remain very pessimistic. I don’t think that’s likely. I think we see this—sort of this whole so-called symphonia, or symphony between political and religious leadership in Russia. I can’t imagine kind of under what circumstances, short of maybe really major defeat of Russia on the battlefield, and it’s sort of clear that  Russia lost the war and there is no way to present it otherwise, maybe under those circumstances we could see something. I think that would also go back to what Graham was saying earlier. Each day there are many Russians coming home in body bags, right? Could that change something, because, again, presumably people receive religious services, like last rites and so forth. Maybe that might begin to kind of—the process, maybe. But, again, from what we’ve seen so far I think the propaganda remains very strong, including the parents of these killed Russian servicemen, either because they’re scared or because they really believe it, kind of continue to maintain that that was the right—their sons died for something, to save Ukraine from Nazism and so forth. So we do see some processes within the Russian Orthodox Church, again, individual priests who spoke against the leadership. But here, again, to my mind, the question is, would that make a difference at the institutional level? The centralization or this power vertical—vertical command-and-control method within the Russian Orthodox Church has been established, it’s very strong. So kind of the autonomy of individual priests is not really there. So I—again, I realize I’m not really answering the question about the Balkans. I just don’t know. But this broader question, could these processes, and pressures, and appeals from religious leaders in different parts of the world somehow persuade the Russian patriarch to change his position and therefore try to pressure Putin to change his position? I don’t think so. So that’s what I would say. FASKIANOS: Tom, I know that—do you want to say anything about the Baltic states, or should we go onto the next question? GRAHAM: I think we should go onto the next question. FASKIANOS: Great. So there are two chats from Nancy Ammerman, who’s at BU, and Donald Tinder with the Zinzendorf School of Doctoral Studies. And essentially both are talking about the role of other religious groups in Ukraine—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, other. How present are they? Do they have any public or civic role? Donald Tinder’s is focused specifically Protestants. Does the reality of three distinct groups of Orthodox/Greek, Catholic make society increasingly acceptance of religious tolerance and freedom? SHEVEL: Yeah, I can try to comment just briefly on this. I mean, definitely I think other—all religious groups in Ukraine, and this also answers another of the questions, there is really great sense of unity. I mean, one can’t say to what extent it will last after the war, but I think at this point people have put aside their—be they linguistic differences or  religious differences. And we certainly see Protestants—for example, there were reports that the Protestant—the preachers helped the evacuation efforts of civilians from Irpin north of Kyiv, and, very actively supporting humanitarian aid and all these things. Ukraine historically has been a very tolerant society religiously. It’s very religiously diverse. Of course, the Orthodox Church is sort of the bigger—and the Catholic Church would be the biggest ones. But there are dozens if not hundreds of different  religious denominations, groups in Ukraine. There is also this council in Ukraine that unites all religious leaders. They have also issued statements. So I think what sort of I would say, again, given that this law that’s now tabled in the Ukrainian legislation—in the Ukrainian parliament to ban the Moscow Patriarchate Church, they might see, again, if this law were to pass, you would say that’s probably a sign of religious toleration becoming lessened by the war, but specifically aimed at the church that is seen—at least its leadership is seen as not having sufficiently broken ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. But I think as far as all of the other religious groups—from Muslim groups, to Protestant groups, to various other minority religions, I think there are—at least from what I can say—I don’t think there are any tensions. As I mentioned before, they would be in danger, many of them, under Russian occupation, for sure. But within Ukraine government-controlled territory, I think there is great unity and different groups working together for what they see as a common goal of defending the country. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go to Jim Wallis, who has a raised hand. And if you could unmute yourself, Jim. There we go. WALLIS: Can you hear me? OK. FASKIANOS: We can. WALLIS: This may be more asking you to do a reflection than a question. We were one of those many groups. I’m with the Georgetown Center on Faith and Justice. But we got a big ecumenical, a hundred church leaders here writing to the patriarch our concerns. But we’re talking, again, this week, this same group of church leaders. And the question is, you would describe—we see the holy mother Russia religion, sort of a conversation, is its own kind of nationalist religion. And in the U.S., white Christian nationalism, specifically, is the biggest obstacle, I think, to democracy in this country. So there’s a parallel here of nationalist—this is our conversation for Friday—nationalist religion around the world versus more independent kind of faith that is critical of the state. As King would say, reminding churches that we are not the master or servant of the state but, he would say, the conscience of the state. That’s an ecclesial question about faith and politics. So we’re having a conversation on Friday about that question. And what parallels do you see? And there’s people in this country, the people who are most supportive of Putin are from the white nationalist tribe here in the U.S. And what’s the parallel here? Underneath the conflict there’s a battle between autocracy and democracy we all see. And the religious part of that is what kind of global Christianity are we talking about here? The nationalist kind or the more kind in the more prophetic, Dr. King tradition that’s critical of the state wherever it is? What parallels do you see between the Russian, you might call, nationalist religion and our own white Christian nationalism in this country? FASKIANOS: Oxana, I think that might be one for you. SHEVEL: I was going to say, maybe Tom has some thoughts on that. I honestly have—I think it’s an excellent question. I’m kind of thinking on my feet here. I haven’t really given it much thought before. It’s—I mean, there is this white Christian nationalism certainly is a phenomena. Again, if I think of the region that I study, I think there I would not even describe it as nationalism but more of like imperialism, right? Because really the sort of people who support this narrative in Ukraine, in Russia, about this Holy Rus and how there’s this civilizational struggle, and Russia and Ukraine are one people, and so forth, it is not really nationalism in the way that you sort of keep political borders, but within these borders you want to have white supremacy, or something like that. It is essentially about erasing these borders, right, and to have Russian empire, in some way, some sort of greater Russian state, and so forth. So I think in the post-Soviet space white religious nationalism is not really nationalism but more like imperialism. Thatkind of was my first thought. And maybe that would be the difference with countries elsewhere because, again, if we’re talking about white religious nationalism in the U.S., or in Western European countries, right—again, maybe I’m wrong here. I’m just kind of thinking out loud. It doesn’t seem to me—it’s really imperialist, right? It’s really about autocracy, an authoritarian form of government, denying rights to the minorities, so-called traditional values, racist underpinnings. But it sort of operates within the borders as they exist, as opposed to aiming to change the borders. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but that sort of the thought that comes to mind to me. But maybe Tom has other ideas. GRAHAM: No, no, look, I think that’s absolutely right. For the Russian Orthodox Church, I mean, clearly it is the former Russian empire is the space that they think of. So it’s not limited simply to Russia. And the whole idea of the Russian world extends beyond the borders of Russia as well, and there’s some overlap between that and the Russian Orthodox viewpoint as well. One other point I would make is that it’s clear there’s an affinity between the white Christian groups here in the United States and perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church or the—or even Putin’s ideology, at this point. I mean, Putin has made a very specific point of defending what he calls traditional values, something that resonates with the white Christian churches here in the United States. It is anti-modern. It is opposed to what Putin and, I’m sure, the white Christian nationalists here in the United States see as the decadent elements of modern Western civilization. And that, I think, explains some of the support that you’re seeing here in the United States for Putin over the years that hasn’t been erased by this very violent act of aggression against Ukraine over the past several weeks. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Dr. Mary Nyangweso, who is at East Carolina University. The response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been very revealing. The absence of the United Nations’ serious action is even more revealing. What do you think this says about security organizations around the world, especially when policies get in the way of protecting human lives? And what more can be done to protect the children, the elderly, and pregnant women from the line of fire? GRAHAM: I guess that’s a question for me, right, Irina? FASKIANOS: I think so, Tom. GRAHAM: Look, I mean, that’s a very good question. What we have seen during this conflict is that the UN Security Council is not really a very good forum for working out these issues, in part because of the way it’s structured. Russia is one of the five permanent members. It does have a veto. And that limits what the Security Council can do in terms of voting resolutions and either to condemn or to propose certain ways forward in this conflict. All that said, the auxiliary organizations at the United Nations are going to play a significant role on the ground in and around Ukraine. Refugees, for example, High Commissioner for Refugees has a role to play in helping to deal with this tremendous outflow of Ukrainians over the past several weeks. The latest numbers are four million. As this conflict continues, we will expect even more. There are probably six million or more internally displaced people in Ukraine because of this conflict. And that will require the work of the United Nations and its auxiliary organizations in dealing with this challenge going forward. There will be working in cooperation with a number of other relief organizations as well. So this is a massive effort. It’s only beginning. Much greater thought needs to be given to the longer-term settlement of these refugees. I think there is a hope that the conflict will end quickly, that these people will return. After all, the overwhelming bulk of them are women and children, and old people. The men are staying back in Ukraine, along with some of the women, to continue the fight against Russia. But this is not going to be a problem that is going to go away quickly. as the conflict continues and even after the conflict there’s going to be tremendous need to deal with refugees outside of Ukraine, and then the even more important task of rebuilding Ukraine after this devastation that we’ve seen, particularly of its major cities over the past several weeks. FASKIANOS: And—yes, please. SHEVEL: Can I just co-opt just to add to this? I agree with everything Tom said. One thing that I would mention, kind of talking about the UN role, I think they’re really in a crisis of sort of world government, for lack of a better word, because we have a country that is one of the permanent members of the Security Council that’s supposed to guarantee world peace that’s totally gone rogue. So I think this is something to think about, that Putin basically is able to hold onto power. And that’s quite possible, I think. It’s also possible he will not be, but he is, right? What is it—so what is UN’s role? Is this still a stable system with the UN Security Council as it exists now, with Russia and the role that it plays there? I think that’s something that would be a question for world leaders to think about as far as international relations. There was a question also I saw in the chat about the destruction of sacred sites, and I just wanted to comment on that. Unfortunately, this is going on. The statistics I just read this morning in one of the Ukrainian cultural—officials from the Ukrainian culture ministry is saying on average two holy sites get destroyed in the war every day by the shelling. So there is—and most of them are churches, but not only, right? So there is definitely, again, going to sort of this narrative that there is Holy Rus, that there is Russian Army bringing together this Russian world as they are bombing the churches, including Moscow Patriarchate Churches. So that’s also something, I think, going to the point of how that narrative of the Russkiy world, Russkiy Mir, is going to be perceived, how credible is it, especially with the people in Ukraine. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Let’s go next to a raised hand from David Adams. ADAMS: Thank you, Irina. And thank you to our panelists. It’s a very interesting, if depressing, presentation that you’ve given. I’ve got kind of a two-part question linked together. One has to do with the ability of the international community to track where the Ukrainians who have been spirited out of Ukraine into Russia are being taken, and what—how many of them there are and what they’re being forced to do. I’ve read or heard that  manual labor in Siberia, for example, may be the destiny of some of them. But I don’t know if that’s empirical data-based or not. And the other thing is, conversely, do you see the Russians—unless there is a peace agreement, I would imagine the Russians bringing migrants, Russian migrants, into Mariupol and areas such as that, that are being absolutely devastated and possibly depopulated, if the refugees are able to—or, displaced persons are eventually able to get out of a place like Mariupol. GRAHAM: David, those are two very good questions. Oxana may have more information on this than I do. I think in answer to your first question, the simple answer is we don’t know at this point. We’ve heard there’s reports. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, himself has talked about two thousand children or so being taken out of Mariupol into Russia. Their whereabouts are unknown. Unfortunately, we have very little insight into what is happening inside Russia at this point. And part of that is a consequence of the drawdown in our—in the American embassy in Moscow. I think the less travel across the country, fewer people who are prepared to talk willingly to Westerners about what’s going on inside Russia because of the consequences of that, this fear that has been conveyed across the country by the Kremlin at this point. So the short answer is we don’t know. There are a lot of rumors. And it’s something that we will want to track, but it’s also something—a question of which we should be demanding answers from the Russians at this point. This would be a role for the UN Security Council, for example, to raise those types of issues and hear what the response is from the Russian government. On the second question, clearly if Russia does conquer this territory in eastern Ukraine, the city of Mariupol in particular, there’ll be questions of reconstruction and repopulating those areas. How the Russians will go about doing that I think is an open question. Yes, there may be a certain number of migrants that they would—from Russia itself that they would want to move into that area. Perhaps people from the Donbas, people from Crimea, for example. But I think you’re right, they would hesitate to return to that city people who they saw as anti-Russian, who had been in opposition and fought against the Russian forces at that point. And so the preference would be for Russians elsewhere who might be more loyal to Moscow. But in any event, I think that’s way down the road. This conflict is continuing. Mariupol has been destroyed. And before anybody’s going to move back to Mariupol there’s going to have to be a large reconstruction effort undertaken. SHEVEL: Let me just add to that. I think it’s a very important question. I’m glad you brought up these forced disappearances and forced removal of the population. I think it’s really tragic. And, first of all, the numbers we really don’t know at this point. I mean, I’ve seen estimates as high as thirty thousand people altogether. We really don’t know. But I think what we do know, this is part of the Russian playbook of the so-called de-Nazification that Putin claims to be pursuing in Ukraine, and who counts as a so-called Nazi needing to be de-Nazified is anybody who seemed to be in opposition to Russian goals, and Russian plans, and Russia ideals. So it's not just sort of you’re original, so to say, Nazis, right? Like the Azov Battalion is fighting in Mariupol, right? It has about a thousand membership or so forth. But they’re really going after—and that what they’re saying—that they have blocked humanitarian corridors to Ukraine-controlled territories, so when people leave through the Russian checkpoints they are being essentially vetted. Especially men, but also women. They check their phone communications. Sometimes they have actual lists, like in Kherson and elsewhere, where they’ve occupied. So it goes to civil society activists, certain religious leaders, local government, bloggers—anybody who’s perceived to be in opposition and disagreement with Russia. And we have now dozens of cases of forced disappearance, from local government officials, to journalists, to these unknown number of thousands of people who have been moved to Russia. And what’s going to happen with them? And I think, first of all, we don’t know. But I think there are very good reasons to be very concerned because certain sinister things can be happening, and are likely happening, given, again, what we saw in Donbas in 2014. These so-called basements where people were held, sort of like filtration camps. There are books written about it. This infamous Izolyatsia prison in Donbas where people have been tortured and held for many months incommunicado. Many died. So we could see some of that. Or, again, we could see removal of people to far regions of Russia, from which they may not be able to come back again. We have these unconfirmed reports that people who were taken from Mariupol, their Ukrainian documents were taken, they were given some sort of piece of paper that only allows them to move to some farming town, and then it’s sort of unclear what happens to them after that. And as far as reconstruction and repopulation of Mariupol, I think—I mean, I think Tom is right. It’s kind of down the road. We don’t really know. But I would mention just two things here. So, first of all, if Russia does hold onto these territories and doesn’t pull its troops back, I think that basically means that the sanctions will continue, the Ukrainian government will not agree to give up any additional territory, right? They may have reached some agreement over Crimea. Zelensky was proposing maybe a fifteen-year referendum, what have you. But certainly not giving additional territory. That would have to be imposed by Russia by force. Right, then it means, again, that there would be a continuation of sanctions and all the economic problems it creates in Russia. So to think that they would have the money to rebuild this territory, which is now—Mariupol is like 90 percent destroyed—I don’t think so. I think that would be essentially wasteland. Probably militarized, right, again, given its strategic location on the Black Sea, like we saw in Crimea. And again, if we look at Donbas, the region—the so-called separatist republics, their, economy has been very depressed, and there wasn’t nearly that scale of destruction there. So this sort of idea of moving more Russian people to Mariupol in particular, I think is unlikely given how destroyed the city is and how Russia will not have the funds to rebuild it. But certainly deporting or disappearing or otherwise dealing with people who, quote/unquote are “Nazis,” not just in Mariupol but also in Kherson and these other parts of southern and eastern Ukraine, I think that’s very possible. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question from Wesley Granberg-Michaelson of the Reformed Church in America, general secretary emeritus. And the question is, to follow the discussion of the theological vision of Russia’s role and destiny, are these dimensions generally overlooked by Western policymakers who are focused on geopolitical issues and diplomatic compromises, but don’t take account of the underlying religious dimensions of the conflict? Tom, I think you can start on that one, since you’ve been at the table. GRAHAM: (Laughs.) I’ve been at the table. I think the short answer to that is that there is a tendency inside, certainly inside the U.S. government, not to pay sufficient attention to these underlying sort of ideological, theological issues to see how they might play in the process. The focus is largely on geopolitical matters, military forces, and so forth. That isn’t to say that there aren’t people inside the government that focus on these things very clearly. And within the State Department, within our intelligence community they can provide information on those matters. But I would say that there is, inside the U.S. government, a certain amount of hesitation to get engaged in these issues because of the separation of church and state in the United States. And people are concerned about crossing those lines. So even if we’re aware of it, the extent to which we would get engaged or try to exploit it in some way to our advantage is quite limiting because of those constitutional restrictions inside the United States. Now, whether that’s the right way to approach it or not I think is an open question. But it is a factor when the issue of religion comes up as part of a larger geopolitical crisis or conflict. FASKIANOS: Oxana, do you want to weigh in? SHEVEL: No, I would agree. I think it’s fair to say—(inaudible)—that that’s probably not the main priority, right, for the Western policymakers, when they actually formulate policy. But at the same time, I think there is awareness, and sometimes the sort of religious underpinnings or divisions might be actually a very—could be very consequential for, say, military or political outcomes. And I think that they are, or they’re perceived to be. I think that’s probably when they receive more attention. You put this more on the historical level, right? Like you say in the case of this war, Putin says Russia and Ukraine are one nation, even though all evidence from Ukraine shows that they aren’t, right? And then the patriarch is basically saying the same thing but now he has more  religious justification or narrative. Is this changing anything? Kind of. I think if you’re saying something different, that probably would be something for policymakers to maybe pay more attention to, because here there is conflicting narrative or something along those lines. But when we have political narrative being reinforced by religious narrative, both on the same point, reality on the ground is something different. Maybe that’s why it’s not getting that much attention. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’ll take the next question from Father Thomas Zain. Do you think the center of Kyiv is somewhat safe from the type of destruction seen elsewhere because of the especially sacred sites there, like the Kyiv Caves Monastery? SHEVEL: Yeah, I don’t think anywhere in Ukraine is safe at this point because we have seen  places bombed west, and north, and south, and everywhere. The idea that, say, the Caves Monastery would be purposefully protected, I mean, you might think so. But then again, given that many Orthodox Churches, including there are some historical ones in Chernihiv, which is a very ancient town north of Kyiv—also, again, I’m not a military strategist, but from what I read the sort of precision-guided missiles in Russia are maybe kind of getting in short supply, and they’re using less precision, especially when they bomb the cities. So even if, say, there may be an intent—or, not an intent to, say, to target the Caves Monastery, right, if you’re using the kind of munition that is not particularly precise, it could be damaged without intent. So my short answer would be that I don’t think it is safe, just because there is this religious site there. FASKIANOS: Great. So I want to try to get in Don Frew, Covenant of the Goddess. I’m in communication with Pagan groups in Ukraine—Slavic, Greek, Scandinavian, and Celtic. As one might expect, they’ve been discriminated against in Ukrainian society, but people have been putting aside religious discrimination in the face of a greater enemy. And do you think this greater acceptance is likely to continue after the war? SHEVEL: Yeah, it’s a good question because, for me, I mean, I agree that people have put aside many differences, including religious differences. Would that continue after the war? I think it partially depends on how the war ends, right? I think if the war ends in a way that Ukraine gets its territory back that Russia has occupied since February of this year, there is reconstruction effort, there is support—great support from the West, eventually maybe even prospect of EU membership. So there is kind of enthusiasm, I think we can expect this unity to continue. Again, just on the point of refugees, most refugees come out, they want to come back. I have a lot of friends and family there, and everybody’s talking about how they will rebuild. This is what people talk about, right? And you can say it’s in part kind of a psychological self-defense mechanism, but there is this great optimism, right? Some, over 90 percent, of the population, according to opinion polls, believe that Ukraine can win, right, and sort of good things can come. So I think if there is this, we can say, sort of positive end to the war in Ukraine, then I think this continued cooperation and greater unity would probably continue. Not to say that some of the old differences, or discrimination, or animosity may not—would be completely erased. But it probably, it would be my guess, would be that it won’t be the dominant sentiment, right? Now if, say, Ukraine somehow loses, and so it becomes, who’s to blame, which groups maybe didn’t do your right share, if the government did this or should have done that. So I think that then we might have more divides in the society, right? Sort of this finger-pointing, blaming, right? And the question is, we have to live under new reality. Do we keep fighting, do we not? So there I think we may see maybe potentially in looking for groups to blame, right? Again, I’m not sure it’s going to attack Pagan groups specifically, but sort of broader, looking for internal enemies or people to blame, finger-pointing, and therefore more divisions. FASKIANOS: Great. And I’m going to give the last question to Nathan Hosler, who’s with the Church of the Brethren Office of Peacebuilding and Policy. What are the possibilities for, or risks associated with, bodies such as the World Council of Churches engaging with either of the Orthodox Churches regarding the present situation? So, Oxana, why don’t you start and maybe— SHEVEL: Let me see. So I’ll just—so the question is about the World Council of Churches doing what? Sorry, I missed the beginning of— FASKIANOS: That’s OK. Let me just—it was basically how can bodies such as the World Council of Churches engage with either of the Orthodox Churches regarding the present situation. So essentially, what can religious leaders do to help, to do their part in this conflict? SHEVEL: Yeah. I don’t know. I mean, it’s—I think condemning the war and calling on the Russian patriarch to not endorse it is certainly the right kind of acts that these groups already are doing. Would it have any effect? I remain somewhat skeptical. I think one thing that, again, maybe we haven’t seen that yet—and I don’t know, I haven’t really followed it that closely so maybe there have been some reports—about how, say, other Orthodox Churches feel about recognizing—(inaudible)—because—which has now only been recognized by four churches—Orthodox Churches, this Ukrainian independent Orthodox Church. I’m not sure if that’s something now that’s a discussion within global Orthodoxy, sort of what role the World Council of Churches plays in, right? So there is—yes, I see the question in the chat. The World Council of Churches, right, that the Russian Orthodox Church is a member, so there is kind of a conflict since the World Council is against the war. So I’m not sure if the Russian Orthodox Church can—its leadership in particular—can be somehow persuaded to take different position. I honestly don’t think so. Sorry, that’s not a very satisfying answer. FASKIANOS: No, that’s fine. And, Tom, I just wondered, from your perspective, what you think religious leaders can do or— GRAHAM: So it’s not beyond what Oxana has said already. I mean, they should be condemning the war. They should be condemning the aggression. They should be condemning the unwarranted and indiscriminate attacks against civilians. That is what is a fundamental precept of most world religions. Is it going to have an impact on the Russian Orthodox Church, the leadership? I think Oxana is absolutely right: No, at this point. But it—this is a case where people ought to stand up for their principles and their faith. And I think that makes it incumbent upon religious leaders to condemn the violence in the most forceful terms possible. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, we did not get to all the questions. I apologize for that. We are at the end of the hour. So we will have to leave it here and come back. Alas, I think that, as you both have said, this is not going to end any time soon. So we will continue to focus on it in our discussion. So thank you to Tom Graham and Oxana Shevel for being with us today. We really appreciate it. You can follow Dr. Graham at CFR.org and Dr. Shevel on Twitter at @oxanashevel. And I also hope you’ll follow us, CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy program at @CFR_religion. And of course, as always, please visit CFR.org and ForeignAffairs.com for the latest policy analysis on this crisis, as well as other regions and topics around the world. And as always, please send us your suggestions of topics, speakers, feedback to [email protected]. We love hearing from you and want to continue the dialogue. So thank you all again. Our next session will be on Tuesday, April 5, at 1:00 p.m. And we will be discussing religion and conflict resolution. So, again, thank you both. SHEVEL: Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you.
  • Nigeria
    Mummy G.O.: Nigeria’s Much-Derided Pentecostal Preacher Enunciates a Powerful Social Critique
    Despite the mockery she receives, Pastor Mummy G.O. is an exception to the Nigerian Pentecostal norm as her strict theological model contrasts sharply with Pentecostalism’s current adhesion to the Prosperity Gospel.
  • Religion
    Refugee Resettlement and Faith Communities
    Play
    Kelly A. Gauger, deputy director of refugee admissions at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and Rick Santos, president and CEO of Church World Service, discuss U.S. responses to refugee resettlement and the role faith communities play in refugee assistance. Learn more about CFR's Religion and Foreign Policy Program.   FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR’s Religion and Foreign Policy webinar series. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach at CFR. As a reminder, this webinar is on the record, and the audio, video, and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, and on our iTunes podcast channel, Religion and Foreign Policy. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We’re delighted to have Kelly Gauger and Rick Santos with us today. Kelly just learned that she needed to do this, to step in for Nancy Izzo Jackson, who has gone overseas, given the events that are unfolding over there. So, Kelly Gauger, thank you for being with us. She is the deputy director in the Office of Refugee Admissions at the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Her work includes oversight of the administration’s annual report to Congress on proposed refugee admissions, development of the bureau’s budget for the Refugee Admissions Program, and managing oversight of its seven resettlement support centers worldwide. She also helps manage the bureau’s relationship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, and refugee resettlement colleagues in governments around the world. And she joined the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in 1999 and has served in a variety of positions, obviously, before becoming deputy in 2011. Rick Santos is the president and CEO of Church World Service. He previously served Church World Service as a program officer in Vietnam, then as a coordinator of strategic planning and evaluation. He has held positions as director of communication and advocacy at International Relief and Development, and as the president and CEO of IMA World Health. He has more than two decades of experience working for and with faith-based organizations, including more than a decade of living and working in Asia. So thank you both for being with us to talk about refugee resettlement and faith communities. And, Kelly, let’s begin with you to talk about—give us some global contexts for resettlement work, the trends that you’ve seen over the course of your time at the bureau, and the role that the United States is playing and can play. GAUGER: Sure. Thank you. Can you hear me OK? FASKIANOS: Yes. GAUGER: Great. OK. All right. Thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for the invitation to join today, and my apologies that Nancy Izzo Jackson can’t be here nor that Sarah Cross, who was supposed to fill in for her, couldn’t be here, who fell ill in the last twenty-four hours. So it’s my privilege to be able to speak with this group, along with Rick Santos from Church World Service, and to have this opportunity to talk about recent trends in refugee resettlement, and reflect a bit on the long-standing and unique role of the faith-based community in advancing refugee resettlement in the U.S. This conversation is, of course, a timely one amidst the historic effort that’s been underway to resettle the tens of thousands—actually, seventy-four thousand people, to be exact—who were evacuated here last August and who have been sheltering in domestic military installations for the last six months, awaiting final resettlement to their destinations. As Rick will discuss, the engagement of the faith-based community has long been the foundational hallmark of refugee resettlement in the United States, prior even to the Refugee Act of 1980, which formally established the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which we refer to as the USRAP. As we know it today, diverse, wide-ranging, and grassroots coalitions of local faith groups across the country were some of the most active and prominent actors engaged in refugee resettlement. The Refugee Act of 1980 formalized the State Department’s partnership with the nine national nonprofit organizations, which lead on providing initial reception and placement to newly-arrived refugees resettled in the United States through the USRAP. The faith-based communities’ lasting role in resettlement is evidenced by the fact that six of our nine resettlement agencies, including Church World Service, are faith-based organizations, as well as additional organizations, reflecting the diversity of America’s faith traditions. Since the creation of the USRAP in 1980, our resettlement agency partners have enabled the United States to resettle over 3 million refugees from more than a hundred countries, who have made a tremendous economic and social contribution to communities across the country. You all probably know that each year the president sets an annual ceiling for refugee admissions, which we work diligently to meet, sometimes under very challenging circumstances. Although the annual ceiling for refugee admissions to the U.S. historically has fluctuated with highs well over a hundred thousand during parts of the 1980s and early ’90s, and then a fairly consistent ceiling in the range of seventy (thousand) to eighty-five thousand during most of the 2000s, the ceiling hit historic lows in the last four years, in the last administration, including just eighteen thousand in 2020. And as arrivals plummeted in those recent years, so did our international and domestic capacity to resettle refugees, which we’re now working intently to build. With our new admissions target of 125 thousand for this fiscal year, we are setting an ambitious goal for ourselves, recognizing the difficulty we face in reaching it due both to the diminished capacity and the operational challenges that COVID continues to pose. Knowing these challenges, we established an initial operating level of sixty-five thousand for fiscal year 2022 when funding our overseas and domestic partners. At a month shy of halfway into the fiscal year—so as of today, we’re at the five-month mark in the fiscal year—we have, unfortunately, admitted just north of eight thousand refugees so far this year, largely, due to the continued impact of COVID overseas where, for the last two years, our operations at both—at all of our resettlement support centers have been challenged, and USCIS went about eighteen months of not conducting any overseas interviews at all, which has seriously impacted our overseas pipeline. USCIS—we are now back into the field. Most of our resettlement support centers are operating on a nearly full in-person basis except for Ukraine, which I’ll talk about in a little bit, and USCIS is heading back out into the field doing interviews, but just not at the levels that we would like them to, given the number of cases we have queued up for interview. USCIS lost a lot of staff, mostly through attrition, during the last administration, and they are assiduously hiring new staff to beef up their refugee corps to be able to resettle—to be able to interview more people. Over the last several months, in particular, our resettlement partners have stepped up in extraordinary ways to support the historic effort to resettle newly-arriving Afghans who relocated to the United States. As I said, to date, more than seventy-two thousand Afghans have been resettled into local communities across the country through Operation Allies Welcome, which is the largest influx of arrivals at one time in such a short period in over fifty years, not seen since the Vietnam War. Resettling this many people in such a short period of time is unprecedented and involves significant efforts from local faith groups and other community partners to welcome refugees at a historic scale and pace. Over the course of OAW, we have welcomed the engagement of additional faith-based organizations who have helped to expand our capacity to resettle Afghan(s) by entering into new institutional partnerships at a national level with our existing resettlement agency partners. We’re particularly excited about the new partnership, that I’m sure Rick will speak about, between Islamic Relief USA and Church World Service, marking a significant engagement by the USRAP with an organization grounded in the Muslim faith. The work of OAW has been taking place against the backdrop of this administration’s efforts to rebuild and expand our domestic resettlement infrastructure, which was significantly decimated in the previous four years. We have made good progress over the last year of this administration with 272 resettlement affiliates currently in operation and supporting the resettlement of refugees through the USRAP—an increase from 199 affiliates just a year ago. Factoring in the capacity that was rapidly stood up to welcome Afghan newcomers, there are around a hundred additional community partners supporting the resettlement of Afghans. This expansion of our affiliate network is a true testament to the commitment and dedication of faith-based groups alongside our broader range of community and resettlement agency partners to grow resettlement capacity to meet the challenge of resettling tens of thousands of Afghans in a few months while also welcoming refugees from some seventy to eighty different nationalities globally. And before I turn it over, let me just say a few words about Ukraine because I know that’s of intense interest to a lot of people. The U.S. government is working closely with European allies and partners who will be at the forefront of any response, as well as international organizations and NGOs, to support those displaced internally within Ukraine and those who may seek safety in the neighboring countries. We commend our European allies and partners for keeping their borders open to Ukrainians who need to seek international protection and for implementing a three-year EU temporary protection directive for Ukrainians. Our cooperation with our European allies and partners allows us to provide immediate assistance on the ground for those who are fleeing Ukraine. The United States is and will continue to be a global leader in international humanitarian response and including in refugee resettlement. The Department of State—my bureau—will work with UNHCR in our overseas post to determine whether Ukrainians who have fled to another country require resettlement to a third country because they are not safe in their current location. I will say that we have been—as I think I’ve hinted, we have been incredibly impressed and humbled by the welcome that the neighboring countries to Ukraine have welcomed Ukrainians fleeing to their countries. So we do not anticipate at this time that we will be doing any large-scale refugee resettlement at this stage. We rarely turn to refugee resettlement in the early stages of a conflict. But we will remain open to particularly vulnerable cases who either may be a target of the Russian regime and others who cannot find safety in Poland or Romania or Moldova or any of the neighboring countries. Let me just—finally, I’ll just finish by saying unrelated to the current conflict, the United States has a long history of resettling Ukrainian and other FSU religious minorities processed under the Lautenberg Amendment, which was first passed in October 1989. As such, we have the capacity both overseas and domestically to process Ukrainian refugees who meet requirements of the eligibility. Lautenberg cases are processed by our regional resettlement support center based in Kyiv, which we refer to as RSC Eurasia. A lot of their international staff have been evacuated. A lot of the Ukrainian staff, which are an incredible group of young people that I met when I was in Ukraine about two and a half years ago—a lot of them are still in Ukraine and are continuing to work from home, believe it or not, to continue their work on our program. At this time, we’re not currently departing individuals from Ukraine due to the closure of Ukrainian airspace. We had to cancel about 170 people’s flights this week and we’re looking at another, I believe, 84 next week. The office that we have enlarged in Chișinău, Moldova, can arrange departures for approved Ukrainian Lautenberg applicants who are USCIS approved and who have completed all USRAP processing requirements. So we have tried to widely publicize the fact both on our website—the RSC website—and all email communications, that those Lautenberg cases which were being processed in Ukraine, and who have changed location are instructed to write to the RSC in Eurasia at [email protected] to update their location and contact details, and if the cases are ready for departure and in a location where we can organize their departure, they’ll be informed of next steps. So why don’t I stop there? And I’ll save anything else for the Q&A. FASKIANOS: Thank you, Kelly. That was a great context for us in what’s happening today. So, Rick, let’s go to you to talk about the role that faith communities have and continue to play in refugee assistance and what you’re doing at CWS. SANTOS: Great. So thank you, Irina, and I appreciate the Council inviting me today to talk about faith communities and resettlement. Maybe I’ll start by going backwards a little bit, creating a little bit of context for this conversation and, frankly, my experiences over the last twenty-five years of doing not just humanitarian work, but relief and development work over—across the globe with faith-based communities and partners. I think one of the first things I just want to say—I think it gets lost in so much of our conversations today—is, actually, the faith community historically has been, actually, a very innovative group. We’ve been on the forefront and cutting edge of a lot of different things, including refugee resettlement. One of the experiences I had very early on in my career, I was based in Thailand from 1987 to 1990. I was there when the first Burmese—Myanmarese refugees came over the border after Aung San Suu Kyi won and was imprisoned the first time, and, actually, a colleague of mine, a friend, somebody I knew named Jack Dunford, organized a group of about a dozen faith leaders, church leaders, to go to the border. These are European, American, and, actually, a local Thai church. So we always—I think one of the things I like about the way the faith community responds is we almost always have some type of local component or local relationship there as well. So Jack led a group to the border, essentially, with private dollars. The faith community began, essentially, the first response to those refugees. UNHCR, of course, and then other multilateral and bilateral groups came in after that. But we were—the faith community was, really, one of the first to respond to that situation. If we go back—I’m going to go back seventy-five years to World War II. In fact, the faith community was probably one of the largest groups of people supporting refugees as they came out post-World War II. Church World Service itself, we had what we called freedom trains where we would send grain over to Europe in terms of the response feeding post-war—the situation there, and then those trains would, literally, bring back folks—refugees—back into the country and to the communities where that grain came from. So the faith community has, really, been, I think, at the forefront of refugee resettlement since the very beginning. And one of the things that, for me that’s, really, I think, important to realize is that for us—for example, for Church World Service, we started with seventeen-member denomination. So Church World Service is an organization that has the Mainline—what we would call the Mainline Protestant churches as our founding members. Today, it includes historic Black churches, the Anglican, and Orthodox communities as well. But in those first few years after World War II, refugee resettlement was very—it wasdifferent than it is today, as Kelly mentioned. Before the Refugee Act of 1980, it was, essentially, a private enterprise and people would—it was faith communities and other private groups that would bring refugees into the country and then resettle them. And so for Church World Service, in our first ten years we resettled over a hundred thousand refugees in the U.S., so during that 1946 to 1956 time period. I think that’s really, frankly, stunning. I mean, I think, when you think about what was behind this, and I think, at least, I know for Mainline Protestant communities it was the service impulse of these communities, that they wanted to reach out. They wanted to support—it’s considered part of—if you read the Bible and you interpret it in a certain way, the theology of welcoming the stranger, welcoming someone who is not from where you are, is a really big part of some of the stories and some of the scripture passages. And so our core group—our core constituency—was really motivated to do refugee resettlement. And, frankly, in that—in, I think, that early period it was predominantly faith-based organizations who were doing this work. I’m just going to speed up a little bit and talk about  the period, I think, from—really, from 1955 through, let’s just say, 1980, especially the ’60s and ’70s. If you take refugee resettlement aside, if you look at some of the other sectors—the international humanitarian sector and development sector—with the advent of the U.N., there’s, actually, increased secularization of, essentially, the work that faith communities had done kind of initially post-World War II. And I think in fact, many—I always find it interesting because I think in the refugee world it’s very different. The faith communities have been part and parcel of this work for—since the very beginning, and I find, for example, in the public health space where I spent a decade, that you find that people look at the faith communities, and faith organizations, and faith-based approaches sometimes as—with a little bit more suspect, though, not understanding that, in fact, actually, faith communities and faith-based organizations have been doing this work ever since the beginning. So, as I would say, the work became more secularized, I think, as I look back, and I look at the Refugee Act of 1980 and the involvement of—really, the much bigger involvement of the U.S. government in terms of refugee resettlement, looking at basically aligning to UNHCR’s definitions, creating more controls and systems around who comes in, how people come in. Of course, it’s the presidential determination each year, adding that piece to it; so organizations like Church World Service had to adjust and I would say that’s probably another feature of what we did as an organization, and as I know many of our other colleague organizations have done, how we’ve addressed and resettled refugees has changed over time as well. Kelly mentioned six of the nine resettlement agencies either being faith based or faith founded. I think all of us have gone through some—different types of evolution of how we’ve addressed refugees and resettlement. And so for Church World Service for a period in the ’80s and early ’90s and maybe even early 2000s, it was really dependent upon our main institutional denomination. So the larger denominations we had a refugee committee and we would resettle through, essentially, those networks. So there was denominational representatives. They were in contact with their array and networks of local churches, and refugees would be apportioned to whichever church and community could best support them. I would like to say, also during this time, I think, for me, and one of the things I always find, really, I think, important about Church World Service and our work is we’ve always been—we’ve always tried to do what’s in the best interests of the refugee and the refugee family. So we went through a period where now—we went through this period where it was really dominated by, essentially, national bodies, and then over time that’s changed. And so, in fact, Church World Service, through our twenty-three affiliates and our nine national offices, that we actually resettle folks through more of a community sponsorship model today and that includes individual churches. That includes also national bodies. But, frankly, it really looks at the community as a whole. So not just the faith-based part of the community but how can we bring different elements and different players in the community itself to help support refugee and refugee families. And I think maybe another feature kind of post-1980 that I think it’s really important to say is that Church World Service has always looked at the work, especially post-1980, as a public-private partnership, that we, as the nonprofit community, as, essentially, NGOs, are really the private side and that we bring a lot of value—that the faith communities and our relationship to the whole refugee process has created a lot of value, whether that be through support of individual churches, co-sponsorship with churches. We have many different ways for the community to be involved in the co-sponsorship of refugees and, really, bringing refugees into the community. And I would say probably another piece of that that’s really important to me is that as a faith-based community it’s not just the looking—specific service issue for us. We, of course, are part of the resettlement grouping and we try to do the best we can and we bring in different, like I said, community sponsorship. But, really, a part of it for us, too, is also the—essentially, the advocacy side of refugee resettlement. We believe in welcome. We believe in welcoming your neighbor, and we believe that there’s been a lot of misinformation about refugees and what they add to our communities and to our country. Even though we’ve had these huge waves of refugees coming in post-World War II, post-Vietnam War, of course, Cubans, so we’ve had a different—different waves, this—now, of course, Afghans coming in most recently. But, really, the idea that we want to—as we build community support for refugees, we also feel it’s really important to build within the mind space of American people that this is a really important thing. It’s important for us as a country. It adds value to us as a country. But it also is, really, part of who we are. And so the ability to go out and do community organizing around refugee admissions, to be able to do advocacy on Capitol Hill, to do state-level advocacy. I think you saw, coming off the previous administration, a tremendous amount of faith-based actors going into their State Houses and actually having them make really clear pronouncements and give funding support. I know, for example, our affiliate in Portland, the Ecumenical Ministries—their group, SOAR—actually lobbied their—the Oregon House and actually got funding directly from the State of Oregon. So, really, the ability for us to do advocacy alongside the service is really critical, and the faith community has been doing that for many years and I think that’s one of the, really, truly, added values that we have as a community and we, as Church World Services, have done. As we look at the current crisis—I think Kelly mentioned the new types of partnerships—I think the reality of what we faced over six months ago when the fall of Kabul—when Afghans were coming in great numbers in a very compressed period of time was the ability to look at the way that we resettle refugees and try to innovate what that might look like. So for Church World Service, one of our historical strengths has always been working in coalition or working in partnership, and so when we started something called an Institutional Partners Program, we invited groups that we felt really strongly about who could really be helpful to this situation and one of them was Islamic Relief. I’ve known and been in partnership with Islamic Relief in different ways over the last decade. I know some of the leadership, and when we started talking to them they were really just more than willing to get involved and they were just looking for the opportunity to get involved. So the Institutional Partnership Program allowed for them to really to begin to be part of the solution. We also have partners like Lions Club, so we have secular partners, and also Samaritan’s Purse, and Samaritan’s Purse has been a really good partner in this program. And I think on a couple of levels, I’ve appreciated, one, their absolute ability to reach out and to resettle people in their communities, but also their ability to really speak forcefully for the need for refugees in this country. So I feel some of the programs that we’ve done recently have, really, actually strengthened the entire refugee resettlement network. We also started a program—a Community Partner Program. It’s similar to our Community Sponsorship Program. But we really were looking at—because some of the rules changed when Afghans were coming in—the ability to resettle someone within a hundred miles of either a—one of our offices or one of our affiliate offices was loosened, and that we were able to really partner with things like individual congregations, businesses, sports teams, people who were really interested. I got a call from a guy I’ve known for twenty years who was actually a refugee from Vietnam and he’s, like, how do I—how do I help resettle an Afghan refugee? So, really, the ability to reach out to a larger group of community players was—is, really, I think, frankly, just one of the real benefits of this moment of crisis that we responded to. So, finally, I’m just going to end. I know we’ve covered a lot of ground, a lot of time—period of time. But I just want to say that, for me, there’s—we, as a faith—we are a Protestant Christian organization but I know our fellow agencies, whatever their religious leaning, we have a consistent—we have a consistency across faith traditions about how we live that faith and how we’re inspired by it, how we—how welcome is a part of these different traditions. And I’m just, really, just grateful that we have such—kind of a similar approach and, really, a similar set of beliefs and that we’re all rowing in the same direction on this issue. And just, finally, I want to end by saying that  Don Kerwin wrote an article in 2018 where he really outlines just what do refugees mean to this country, and in that article he really goes into depth about  essentially the benefit that refugees have brought us as a country. So not just economic benefit but, I think, cultural benefit, bringing a fresh perspective, keeping us connected to the rest of the world. Church World Services has resettled refugees from over eighty-six countries. Just the richness that comes from that enriches all of us. And so I’m just really grateful for the work that we do, and our ability to be involved in this, and to be innovative in different ways in refugee resettlement. So, thank you, Irina. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much, Rick. And now we’re going to go to all of you for questions and comments. You can either raise your hand or you can type your questions in the Q&A box and I’ll read it, and we already have questions lining up. I’m going to, first, go to Simran Jeet Singh, who’s with the Aspen Institute Religion & Society Program. “We’re seeing so much racist and religious bigotry in the unfolding refugee crisis in Ukraine. There’s a strong and explicit preference for white and Christian refugees. What can we do to ensure equal treatment for refugees of all backgrounds?” GAUGER: Rick, do you want to start? SANTOS: Yeah. Maybe I’ll start with that one. I would say, this is really, clearly, unfortunate and there has, clearly, been a trend. I think one of the most important things  in this—for example, in the most recent situation with Afghanistan that, really, we’ve had such a broad-based support. We’ve had U.S. military. We’ve had, as I mentioned, Samaritan’s Purse, Islamic Relief. We’ve been able to create a coalition across many different organizations that will—that, basically, say that people who come here are people of worth and value and they can help the United States, and I think part of this is a message in terms of advocacy. We have to continue to reinforce that message and we have to make sure that people see all refugees, all people in need, as equal and of equal worth. Thanks. GAUGER: I think I would just add that for—in many of the years where we have had a robust refugee resettlement program and, actually, even during the last administration the majority or, at least, the plurality of our refugees have been from Africa. So I think that the U.S. does a very good job of having an extremely diverse Refugee Admissions Program, even more so in recent years. I mean, in Africa alone, I think, we admit twenty-five nationalities per year. This year, African arrivals are not as high as they have been in recent years, partially because COVID has really impacted even more so our operations in Africa than elsewhere. But I think that the welcome that African refugees and also the seventy-two thousand Afghans who have arrived in the United States, the welcome that they’ve received in our communities around the country, I think, is really a hallmark that, yes, we are all aware that there is racism in the way that refugees are treated in many locations. I would argue that it’s a bit different here in the United States. And I’m not trying to be a Pollyanna here, but I think that our communities have done an exceptional job in welcoming refugees of all faiths, and colors, and ethnicities to the United States. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go—next raised hand from Azza Karam. KARAM: Thank you very much, indeed, for this opportunity, and a very quick note of appreciation for what Ms. Gauger was speaking about and the work that they’re doing, but a very special note of appreciation for Church World Service. Rick, I know that you’re one of the institutions that has delivered so much and you have garnered plenty of wonderful attention but, honestly, not half as much as you deserve. So hats off and shout out to the work that you do that, I think, is exemplar to many other faith-based organizations. I was delighted to hear of the different partnerships that you spoke about, including with Islamic Relief and others. I just wondered at something that—I just want you to give your own read on something that we’re encountering in Religions for Peace when we set up our multi-religious humanitarian fund, how difficult it was—it still is—to get different religious institutions and organizations to commit even a nominal amount to this kind of a(n) effort that is intentionally geared at multi-religious service, multi-religious collaboration, pooling together the resources at the national level not only here in the United States but actually in the developing context where you know that that’s—faith-based organizations can often be the first responders to all of these spaces of refugees and internally-displaced and forced displacement. Why do you think it still remains so challenging for faith-based organizations to contribute to a multi-faith mechanism that is, ultimately, aimed at actually ensuring that the response is exactly along the lines of what you’ve been describing—that it’s not just one organization but several representing different religious traditions coming together to serve in exactly the same space, exactly the same communities, at exactly the same time? What do you think their—where do you think their reticence comes from, and what would you suggest to help get over that particular reticence so that we’re actually doing social cohesion as we are delivering our respective services from our respective institutional religious spaces? Thank you. SANTOS: Yeah. So, thank you, Azza. So just, really, thank you for all you’ve done. I mean, you—I know, you’ve been a leader in interfaith space and bringing different groups together. I think it’s a great question. I think a lot of groups, especially historically, have a certain way of working and, I think, maybe it might just be this historical inertia that sometimes it’s hard to overcome. Church World Service is part of something called the ACT Alliance. We’ve been part of the World Council of Churches for a very long time. And so the ACT Alliance is an ecumenical group that, basically, I would say, sister agencies across Europe belong to—for example, Christian Aid in the UK would be an example, or Bread for the World in Germany. And so, I think, one of the historical problems is that people have a historical relationship with these other groups and then just trying to open those up and making them a wider forum, I think, is sometimes difficult. I’ve known Anwar from Islamic Relief for years and, really, I feel one of the reasons why we were able to work well together with Islamic Relief is that we knew each other and we were able to kind of break down some barriers very quickly with that. And so I think maybe that’s another way, just the ability to maybe bring a table together—a multi-faith table together to have this conversation. I know there are different versions of that out there. But very specifically that we are talking about I don’t know if there’s one, and I would say that Church World Service would be willing to be a part of that if someone was to try to call that together. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to pull together two written questions from Shannon McAlister and Eleanor Ellsworth, respectively, from Fordham and the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego. And just for clarification from you, Rick, notice that the list of collaboratives named for resettling refugees did not include the Catholic Church. Has the Catholic Church been involved in refugee resettlement as well or have you reached out to the Vatican and/or National Catholic Bishops Conferences about collaboration? And then from Eleanor, if you could also talk about the Orthodox, how they’re engaged with CWS. Does this reflect American Orthodoxy only or are they international—Eastern Orthodox bodies—are they involved? SANTOS: Great. Yeah. So on the first question, the Catholic(s) have their own resettlement agency and they’re one of the nine. And so we all collaborate, in a sense, together as those nine agencies to do resettlement. I mean, off the top of my head, I know in terms of the faith based includes LIRS—Lutherans. It includes the Episcopal Migration Services. So they’re definitely including—and also the Catholics as well. World Relief, of course, is more representative of the Evangelical family. So there are—the Catholics do participate and are very active. I would say—I’m sorry, Irina. The second question that you asked? FASKIANOS: About the Orthodox. SANTOS: Yeah. So we have two levels—I would say, two layers of relationship with the Orthodox Church. One is, Orthodox Churches are, of course, a member of Church World Service as well as we partner with the Orthodox Churches globally through this ACT Alliance that I was mentioning. And then, finally, just individually. I’ve known Dean Triantafilou for twenty-five years. Dean is the CEO of International Orthodox Christian Charities—IOCC—and we don’t specifically work with them on these types of resettlement issues but we actually have been in collaboration over the years in terms of humanitarian response overseas. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. And, Kelly, I don’t know if you also want to take that on. But I’m going to throw another question to you. You can answer that as well as this one from Hamelmal Kahsay. GAUGER: The— FASKIANOS: Go ahead. GAUGER: Oh. Sorry. I was just going to add, if I could, that for many years the Catholics actually had the largest—they resettled more refugees than any other of our domestic partners for many years. I think the International Rescue Committee has overtaken them recently. But, yes, for sure, the Catholics are a very strong partner on refugee resettlement. FASKIANOS: Right. And people should just pay attention to the chat where there’s some interesting commentary. Donna Markham—Sister Donna Markham—talks about Catholic Charities is resettling thirteen thousand Afghan refugees this year and they’ve resettled refugees and migrants for a hundred and ten years. There is a written note from Hamelmal Kahsay from the Ethiopian Development Council specifically about the Tigrayan refugees in Sudan. There are a lot of stats there in the chat about 70 thousand refugees in Sudan, 2 million internally-displaced people, 5.2 million people facing famine. How do we—how would you open the siege that was imposed on the 7 million people of Tigray and save lives? I mean, what policy can happen in terms of resettling as well? GAUGER: I’m going to say that some of that question is above my pay grade and out of my expertise. So I’m the deputy director in the Refugee Admissions Office so my mandate is refugee resettlement, and I will just say that, yes, we have been tracking the plight of Tigrayan refugees for some time now. Sudan is one of those countries in which it has long been extremely difficult to operate. We have tried over the years to launch larger resettlement programs of Ethiopians, of Eritreans. I guess those would be the top two nationalities in Sudan. But it’s just been extremely difficult to operate there. And I will just say that in terms of resettling refugees out of Ethiopia, so not Ethiopians but other refugees in Ethiopia, has long been one of our larger areas of work in Africa. But we have had to halt most resettlement operations in Ethiopia because of the current conflict. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Steven Paulikas, who has a raised hand. PAULIKAS: Hi, there, Rick and Kelly. Thank you so much for your presentations. I’m the rector of All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Brooklyn. I really appreciate all the work you’re doing. We are in the process of resettling an Afghan refugee family here in New York City, and just at a sort of  ground level perspective, I have to say that the system looks incredibly broken. Basically, we are working with a faith-based partner who is a refugee resettlement agency. They received the one-time payment of—I think it’s 2,275 dollars per refugee—and then, basically, the onus is on us to take care of everything else and to deal with all of the other—sort of navigating everything from housing discrimination, which is real, against refugees, especially in many different parts of the country but even in New York City, to finding adequate health care providers. Benefits don’t really kick in from the government until after a certain period of time. And we’ve been—it’s a true blessing to work with them and they’re wonderful. The agency is wonderful. The family is wonderful. But I’m just wondering, just if we zoom out a little bit, do you really think that the system as it is now is tenable to continue this way? And, Rick, you used the term public-private partnership, which is a great way of describing it. But I’m just sort of wondering if  an issue that is as important, the humanitarian and national security issue, if a public-private—PPP model is really appropriate for it, going forward? Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. GAUGER: Thank you, Steven, for that question. I’ll start and then I’ll ask Rick to chime in afterwards. I’m sorry to hear that your perspective from the ground has been that the system—I think you used the term broken—I’m sorry to hear that that has been your experience. I would, I guess, just urge you to consider that the just incredibly huge number of Afghans who have had to be resettled in such a short period of time, immediately coming upon a very difficult period for the resettlement program, both between the last administration—the policies of the last administration, which were, really, to shrink and diminish the program, and COVID, which has really—as I said, really impacted our ability to operate overseas but also domestically. Although things are getting better domestically COVID wise, it’s still not the case overseas. And so I guess I would just—while taking your criticism, I’d urge you to consider that this is—this was an extraordinary kind of confluence of events, kind of a perfect storm that, I think, really taxed the domestic refugee resettlement program. We— FASKIANOS: Kelly, you just muted yourself. There you go. GAUGER: I’m sorry. My screen keeps going black and then—OK. So it’s just been an unprecedented effort, and I think Rick and I both spoke about some of the new partnerships that we’ve brought online. We recognize that we still have a lot of work to do. In terms of your last question, I mean, I think I know how Rick will answer but I’ll answer for myself to say I don’t think that these challenges would lead me to say that this program is too important to leave to a public-private partnership. I would say that that aspect, that public-private partnership, is one of the things that sets the U.S. resettlement program apart from a lot of other programs in the world—a lot of other resettlement countries in the world—and I think it’s been one of our strengths. It comes with challenges and, yes, it comes with less funding than, I think, any of us would like. But I think—I would not say that I would want to jettison the public-private partnership, despite the challenges that we’ve faced. SANTOS: Yeah. So thanks, Steven. I mean, I’m sorry that you’ve had that experience. I think we use a community sponsorship model where we try to get as many actors involved in the resettlement process, local actors to help with different parts. As you’ve realized, resettling a person and a family is actually really hard and it’s complicated, and there are things that we have to make sure we do for them. So it’s in their best interests getting them settled, getting them homed, getting the furniture, health checks, enrollment in school—all these different things that take a lot of time. And so, I think  the best way to do it is, of course, working, I think, from my perspective, as many community actors as possible to help out with that to lighten the burden. I really think, actually—I would say, for me, and I’m going to echo what Kelly said—I think the advantages of the public-private partnership that we have just are—far outweigh maybe some of the limitations that we have in them. And I think one of the biggest pieces is just getting a larger set of stakeholders who really see that actually resettling a refugee in their community is a good thing. And so by getting as many touches on it from different community members as possible allows that to expand. We faced in this country—it’s just shocking to me. My mother is an immigrant—not a refugee, but an immigrant—and so I know—I’ve seen how immigrants—a lot of my cousins, and aunts, and uncles were also immigrants, so I saw how they were not always treated with, I would say, the best of intentions. And so, for me, just making sure that this is really, really such an important part of who we are as a country. We’re not going to achieve that if it’s just solely, I would say, a government program. And so, for me, I would argue very strongly that not only do we need to continue this public-private partnership, but actually try to include more people from the private side. Thanks. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Alan Bentz-Letts, who also wrote his question. But I think if you could just ask it and identify yourself, that would be great. (Technical difficulties.) FASKIANOS: Oh. Alan? There you go. (Technical difficulties.) FASKIANOS: OK. (Laughs.) We’re getting some distortion so we don’t understand. So I’ll read it. Alan Bentz-Letts is from the Riverside Church in New York City and—oh, let’s see. Hold on a minute. I’m looking for the question, which was in the chat, actually, about climate change. Sorry. I have a lot of inputs. OK. We haven’t talked about climate refugees. The IPCC report just released on Monday warns the climate crisis is accelerating and societies may be collapsing in the future. Questions are what do you anticipate in terms of climate refugees in the future, and what is the government and CWS doing to prepare for these refugees? GAUGER: I will start and say that this is, obviously, a monumental question for the United States and other resettlement countries. I don’t profess to be someone who has a great deal of knowledge about this topic. Other than that, I will say the United States this year is the co-chair of a process called the Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, which is a forum for all of the—so the thirty or so resettlement countries around the world to get together and share best practices or strategies—that sort of thing. The ATCR has been, largely, virtual for the last couple of years because of COVID. But, normally, it results in one meeting in the hosting country. So we’re hoping to host a meeting here in Denver later this month, COVID permitting, and we have a large meeting that we’re hosting in Geneva with UNHCR in June, and this topic will be on the table for discussion. I am told that we need to proceed carefully with this discussion because there are many countries in the world who fear that there may be interest in kind of reopening the refugee definition that’s been in place since 1951 to include climate refugees, which could just absolutely overwhelm the system, which is already overwhelmed by the number of refugees in the world facing one of the five protected grounds of persecution. So, I think, I’ll just say we acknowledge it’s a looming and huge challenge and it’s something that we’re all—all of us are going to have to work together to address. Rick, I don’t know if you have something you’d like to add to that. SANTOS: Yeah. There are a few things. There’s a lot of conversation going on now about this issue, migration and climate change. The Biden administration invited a Blue Ribbon Panel that included RCUSA members. Mark Hetfield from HIAS was on that with me along with others, and we gave a set of recommendation(s) to the administration on how to begin to address these issues. I don’t have a link with me right now but at Church World Service we’ve done some preliminary research on, basically, adaptability and climate change and migration and what are coping strategies that people are using right now, and, actually, if you go to the website you’ll be able to find that piece of information. But I think there’s a couple of steps before we, really, talk about the number of climate-affected refugees and possibilities. I think what we found in our initial research is that communities want to stay close to where they are from—that they don’t actually want to move to other countries if they don’t have to—that they want to do—they want actually to be supported with adaptive strategies to be able to stay in place. And so this includes agriculture, new agricultural techniques or seeds that can deal with climate change or more arid conditions. It includes strategies on WASH. It includes a lot of different strategies. And the final strategy would be either kind of internal migration or a refugee status. So I think, I know the issue of climate change is really high in people’s minds, and I know that there’s a lot of organizations that are trying to figure out other strategies, including adaptability—how do we become more adaptive, where we are, and how do we do that first. So I would just suggest that if you look at some of the stuff that’s out there, look at the Blue Ribbon Panel report, the Biden administration actually adopted a lot of what we had put forward, including this idea of disaster risk reduction as kind of a key strategy for climate migration adaptation. So that’s all I’ll say for now. But I think there’s going to be a lot more work on this and a lot more conversation. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And Ali Khan with the American Muslim Council asks if there’s an update on resettling Syrian refugees. GAUGER: Yes. Syrians were a population that we, of course, resettled a fairly good number of toward the end of the Obama administration. Their numbers fell off significantly during the last administration. We do have a good number of Syrian refugees in the resettlement queue, largely, located in Jordan and Turkey. I will say that what we have found, since many of these cases had very little movement on them for a number of years, a lot of them are very difficult to try and contact, especially those who had been living in Turkey. We assume that many of them have moved to Europe. So I don’t have any specific figures to give you other than that for cases that were in our pipeline and in the process during the Obama administration, they’re—if they can be contacted they’re still in the queue and they—their cases can be reactivated. But, again, some of them have been very hard to contact. But we are contacting them. I don’t believe that we’re getting new referrals of Syrians from UNHCR. But we are working with an existing caseload. And I’m sorry, I don’t have the figures in front of me. FASKIANOS: And, just quickly, there’s a question from Tsehaye Teferra from the Ethiopian Development Council, and also had their hand raised, but I want to just get to it. Do you think the influx of Afghan refugees and now Ukrainian refugees will have an impact on African refugees—on the numbers? GAUGER: On African refugees. Hi, Tsehaye. Good to hear from you. I don’t believe so because I believe there is room for all three. First of all, I don’t expect, at least in the near term, an influx of Ukrainian refugees, given, again, what we’ve seen in terms of countries in Europe showing them hospitality. Of course, most of the Afghans who have been resettled came in through humanitarian parole so they don’t count against the refugee ceiling at all. I think there’s room for all three. Of course, one challenge is, as I noted earlier, there is a limited number of USCIS refugee officers who can conduct interviews overseas. And so right now we work on a quarterly basis and we submit kind of a request to USCIS every quarter and we have to—sometimes we’re told we have to pick and choose which are our priorities. And, for instance, when they came—when USCIS came back to us and said, we can actually probably do a second set of interviews in the second quarter, so coming up soon, we did ask for circuit rides not entirely in Africa but we—I think we kind of increased the African circuit rides the most. And then the number will go down in the third quarter. So it’s kind of a constantly shifting scene. But I guess my answer to your question is no, I do not. I believe that we will continue to resettle a good number of African refugees and I know that for some in the administration it’s a priority. FASKIANOS: Great. I just want to give you, Kelly, thirty seconds for closing, and then I’ll go to Rick just to make any last point. GAUGER: Thank you. So my screen has gone black so I don’t know if you can see me. I can’t see any of you. But so I’ll— FASKIANOS: We can. We can still see you. (Laughs.) GAUGER: OK. OK. I’m staring at a black screen right now. I’m glad you can hear me. I guess I would just say thank you so much for having me. Thank you for the interesting questions. It was nice to speak and hear from a different cast of characters. We often talk to a lot of the same people in Washington about refugee resettlement so it was a pleasure to get some questions from people that I have not encountered before. Thank you, all of you, for the work that you’re doing to—if you are, to help Afghan and other refugees to resettle and I look forward to more such communications—conversations in the future. FASKIANOS: Rick? SANTOS: Yeah. Irina, I just want to thank you and the Council on Foreign Relations for inviting me to this conversation, and thanks, Kelly, for, really, just a lot of really good information. I’m really—I feel, in some ways, very privileged to be sitting in this spot where any of the other six, at least, of the nine, if not all of the nine, other resettlement agencies easily could have been sitting in my space. I’m so grateful for them. We really work as a collaborative group and the work that all of them do is just as important as everything that we do, and so just really appreciative. I just want to give them a shout out for that. Just finally, just really happy to be able to, really, have a conversation around faith and resettlement. I think sometimes people think of this as a, really, secular approach to things, and I have that in all the other development work that I do. So, really, just grateful for the Council and you for having this session. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you, Rick Santos. You can follow Rick’s work at @ricksantoscws. And Kelly Gauger for stepping in at, really, the eleventh hour. What is the Twitter handle for the bureau? GAUGER: Oh, my gosh. I don’t know. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: OK. GAUGER: I’m sorry. I will send—I will send it to you. FASKIANOS: Great. And we will—I think the office Twitter handle is @stateprm. But we will circulate links and some information to follow up for this conversation. Thank you both, and thanks to everybody on this call for the work that you’re doing in this space. It really does take a lot of hands to tackle this really enormous problem, and as we can see, it’s going to get even bigger as more crises come—are happening and the climate change that’s barreling down on all of us. So thank you again. Please follow us on Twitter at @CFR_religion and you can always email us suggestions, feedback, to [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you and to continuing the conversation.
  • Nigeria
    Ritual Killings in Nigeria Reflect Mounting Desperation for Wealth and Security Amid Creeping Collapse of Law and Order
    The rising incidence of ritual killings in Nigeria reflects a weakening state control and Nigerians' desperate attempts to achieve economic stability.