Thinking About the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy: a Framework for Analysis

Foreign Policy Analysis (2011) 7, 113–135

Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy: A Framework for Analysis

Carolyn M. Warner, and Stephen G. Walker Arizona State University

The article outlines a framework for the analysis of religion and foreign policy. Despite the increased attention to religion in international relations, questions remain. Particularly controversial, yet relatively unexplored, is the role of religion in the foreign policies of states. We extrapolate from theories in the fields of international relations and comparative politics to explore religion’s potential avenues of influence on foreign policy. There are potential tools of analysis in these fields, which can be fruitfully extended and applied to understand the role of religion in foreign policy. We propose a framework within which various causal pathways and mechanisms can be situated. We also show how contributions from the field of religion and politics might be used to frame theories and specify further hypotheses about religion and foreign policy. After identifying the main threads of these lines of research, we discuss how to apply them to the question of the role of religion in foreign policy and set out a new research agenda. We conclude that the potential of these theoretical approaches to the analysis of religion has not yet been exploited.

Religion’s influence in the interactions of states is one of the great and least understood security challenges of the twenty-first century. Religion’s role in international politics also presents an intellectual challenge to scholars of international relations and religion and politics. While religion has emerged as a significant factor in some analyses of international relations, controversial and unexplored questions remain concerning the role of religion in the foreign policies of states (Huntington 1993; Albright 2006; Mead 2006; Mearsheimer and Walt 2006a, 2007; Haynes 2008; Hurd 2008; Inboden 2008; Shaffer 2006). Many empirical studies have attempted to assess the opinions that adherents of different faiths hold about foreign policy and to assess whether international conflicts since the end of the Cold War have occurred along religious lines (Jelen 1994; Russett, Oneal, and Cox 2000; Henderson and Tucker 2001; Chiozza 2002; Roeder 2003; Zunes 2005; Furia and Lucas 2006; Grim and Finke 2007; Barker, Hurwitz, and Nelson 2008; Haynes 2008). Both sets of studies leave open questions of whether religion actually has a noticeable effect on foreign policy in some circumstances, and if so, how that

Authors’ note: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scien- tific Study of Religion ⁄ Association for the Study of Religion, Economics and Culture, Tampa, FL, 2007. This paper benefited from earlier extensive discussions with Mark Woodward and George Thomas. We thank Linell Cady, John Carlson, Roxanne Doty, Elizabeth Shakeman Hurd, Ramazan Kilinc, Halit Mustafa Tagma, Robert Mochrie, Mark Vincent, Murat Somer, Yoav Gortzak, and Carolyn Forbes for helpful comments and the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict at Arizona State University for providing research support for the initial phase of this project. We appreciate as well the comments of three anonymous reviewers and the editors at Foreign Policy Analysis.

doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00125.x 2010 International Studies Association 114 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy effect is generated, and what are the possible mechanisms or means of religion’s influence? President Dwight D. Eisenhower, baptized Presbyterian while in office, was well known for having framed the Cold War in religious terms: ‘‘When God comes in, communism has to go’’ (in Inboden 2008:259). It has been assumed by most that Eisenhower meant ‘‘God’’ was a Christian God. Yet Eisenhower also reached out to the Muslim world and opposed the US’s Judeo-Christian allies of Israel, France, and Great Britain in the Suez Canal crisis (Inboden 2008:290–8). Was his faith irrelevant to his foreign policies, or did it lead him to see an expan- sive community of faith? George W. Bush, in his first speech after September 11, used religious rhetoric familiar to Christians but took pains to stress that the United States was not at war with Muslims or Islam (in Lincoln 2003:99-101). Studies have described both Bush and Jimmy Carter as having an evangelical presidential style, but the two had strikingly different foreign policies toward the Middle East (Daalder and Lindsay 2003; Guth 2004; Berggren and Rae 2006). Was that due to different interpretations of their faith, or different geopolitical circumstances, interest group pressures, and electoral conditions at the time of their presidencies? The same puzzle also occurs in assessing religion’s role in the foreign policies of other states. Under the guidance of an Islamic party, Turkey in recent years seemed to have turned toward the West. Then, by some popular accounts it turned to the Middle East (Friedman 2010). Did its population become more Islamist in the past year, or are elected Turkish leaders responding to geopolitical circumstances and opportunities? Is a leader’s religion a reason (cause) of his or her foreign policy decision or a rhetorical rationalization used to persuade others? Is knowing the religious affiliation of a leader ever a predictor of which side a leader will take in a dispute that could have religious overtones (see Dunn 1984)? These examples illustrate the problems of causal inference from rhetorical argument or simple correlational models and the need to ‘‘unpack’’ the dimensional properties of religion rather than simply use the ID tag that names the religion and sees a possibly spurious correspondence between the religious label and a policy choice. While there have been a number of studies on religion and foreign policy by several scholars, whose contributions we note throughout this essay, we suggest that the time is ripe for the development of a framework within which to better situate this research and assess progress in the field. In this essay, we survey theoretical perspectives from the fields of international relations and comparative politics and offer such a framework to understand the role of religion in foreign policy. We contend as well that contributions from the field of religion and politics may be used within this framework to specify further hypotheses about religion and foreign policy. We conclude from our review that these research possibilities have not yet been fully exploited. Foreign policy is defined initially here simply as the formal policies of a state which affect various military, economic, humanitarian, social, and cultural dimensions of its relations with other states and nonstate actors. This focus excludes from consideration the role of religion in extraneous phenomena, such as rebellions, civil war, NGOs, transnational organizations (including terrorist), unless it is from the purview of a state’s foreign policy. Religion as the other half of our topic is also a multifaceted phenomenon (Bellin 2008). As Fox and San- dler (2004:176-7) suggest, religion plays various roles in peoples’ lives: it is a source of world views and values, as well as a source of identity and legitimacy, and is also ‘‘associated with formal institutions.’’ This conceptualization comple- ments Bruce Lincoln’s definition of religion, which recognizes that religion is a set of collectively held spiritual beliefs articulated in a discourse, perpetuated and interpreted by institutions, communities, and associated practices (Lincoln 2003). Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 115

Much attention regarding the role of religion in international politics has been paid to religion as a set of beliefs or theology, an attribute of a culture, and a source of values (Huntington 1993; Norris and Inglehart 2004; Philpott 2007). When operationalized as a variable, it is typically measured by religious denomination or frequency of practice.1 If there is an organization attached, it is often as a large-scale, transnational actor such as the Catholic Church or as a covert terrorist network such as al Qaeda (Hanson 1987; Walt 2001 ⁄ 02; Hehir 2006). These views of religion may limit the effects that we see. A variety of theories of religion and politics also tell us we cannot ignore the role of religion as an attribute of individuals and communities, as an organized interest, and in its institutional connections with the state (Gill 1998; Gill and Keshavarzian 1999; Warner 2000; Ammerman 2003; Manza and Wright 2003; Kniss and Numrich 2007; Philpott 2007). These varying manifestations of religion would seem to be significant in the arenas in which a state’s foreign policy is formulated, as individual leaders constitute the vortex and domestic organizations are the pathways through which the influence of religion often passes to influence political decisions—including those taken in the foreign policy domain. A country’s religious heritage may affect its overall orientation toward foreign policy and which countries are its more likely allies and enemies, but how that effect occurs, the extent of its impact, and how it interacts with existing domestic political structures and groups is as yet poorly understood. Fox and Sandler (2004) provide a general description of how religion might affect international relations, but many of their examples primarily address how religion affects domestic politics. Although they attribute some causal effects to religion in international affairs, their attention to foreign policy is limited. They analyze the extent to which interventions in domestic conflicts are performed by countries of the same religion (on the side of the same religion) and note that leaders can use commonly held religious understandings of their own population, as well as of other countries, to legitimate foreign policy choices and to build support. However, they do not explore more extensively the various mechanisms through which religion leads a state to intervene on behalf of coreligionists. A variety of such studies have suggested that religion matters as a variable in understanding a state’s foreign policy. Our goal in this paper is to advance those efforts by shifting the focus from religion as a variable to encompass as well the mechanisms that generate or permit religion’s effects on foreign policy, what the limits of its role in these processes might be, under what conditions and through which mechanisms various aspects of religion exert more or less influence, to say nothing of developing methodologies for doing so. In sum, our goal is to create a framework for cumulative research on how religion might operate in specific foreign policy domains. Our assumption is that more attention to various mechanisms linking religion and foreign policy is warranted, to make theoretical progress in understanding the role of religion in foreign policy analysis.2 We contend that insights and arguments from theories of international relations and comparative politics have the potential to be applied to the study of the role of religion in foreign policy as part of an emerging field of religion and politics. We apply these theoretical perspectives in this paper to show how the reasoning in these various explanations can work as theoretical solutions when applied to the puzzle of the role of religion in foreign policy. We want to show

1 See the review piece by Fox (2001). 2 By mechanisms we mean interaction processes between variables in a complex social system of individuals, groups, institutions, and states, which generate foreign policies as outcomes. See Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998) for a discussion of social mechanisms and Axelrod and Cohen (1999) for the analysis of complex social systems. 116 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy the promising potential of several approaches to religion and politics, most especially those mapping with the aid of four general theories (realism, liberalism, institutionalism, and constructivism) the respective roles of power (geopolitical position) in realist theory, interests (parties) in liberal theory, institutions (states) in the ‘‘new institutionalism’’ theory, and ideas (religious heritage and culture) in constructivist theory. We limit our theoretical survey to the main positivist schools of realism, liberalism, constructivism, and institutionalism in North American IR theory (Elman and Elman 2003) and exclude other schools of thought, such as the English school, various Marxist approaches, feminist IR theory, and hermeneutic or postmodern schools of thought (McGowan and Walker 1981; Alker and Bierste- ker 1984). These four approaches share some assumptions about the nature of causality in forming hypotheses about the relationships between cause and effect, which are to increase the likely commensurability of insights drawn from these various schools of thought. These mutual commitments allow us to bracket an extended consideration of methodological issues and focus on the identification of causal mechanisms that express hypotheses about the sources of foreign policy. We also do not treat these theories as rivals, nor are we going to test empirically any hypotheses. The value of our effort is primarily heuristic, the mapping of causal mechanisms identified by these theories and specifying hypotheses about religion and foreign policy that merit further investigation. While these theoretical approaches are compatible with a mechanistic concep- tion of causality as a process of interaction among variables that produces an effect, they do not emphasize the same type of causal mechanism.3 Structural realism emphasizes the distribution of power while structural constructivism privileges the configuration of cultural ideas and norms as ‘‘permissive causes,’’ structural mechanisms that permit certain foreign policy decisions as effects while excluding others (Waltz 1979; Wendt 1999). Liberalism identifies certain values and interests as goals while institutionalism prescribes state-based rules of behavior to shape and direct foreign policy decisions as effects (Keohane and Martin 2003; Moravcsik 2003). All of these theoretical perspectives assume a decision maker that internalizes and actually makes foreign policy decisions on the basis of these structural constraints (Ruggie 1983; Ashley 1984). The cognitive, motivational, and affective capacities of these agents would be the ‘‘efficient causes’’ that produce decisions occurring under these environmental constraints, and they may also vary by theory as we shall see below.4 It must also be stated that religion, in one or more of its varying manifestations, could be a necessary cause, a sufficient cause, or play yet a more complicated role in a set of causal relations (see. Brady 2008:226–230:Mahoney 2008).

3 Elster (1998:45. Italics omitted) characterizes the idea of a causal mechanism as ‘‘intermediate between laws and descriptions… frequently occurring and easily recognizable causal patterns that are triggered under generally unknown conditions or with indeterminate consequences.’’ This conceptualization does not rule out that some causal relations may attain the status of laws within a theory while allowing for the search for causal mechanisms out- side an explicit or fully specified theoretical context. 4 These IR theories distinguish collectively between two general types of causality, permissive and efficient causes (Waltz 1959), while disagreeing on the exact causal mechanism within these two categories that constrains or specifies foreign policy effects. More extended discussions of causality in IR theory and the social sciences are Waltz (1959); McGowan and Walker (1981); Little 1991, 1998; Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998); Yee 1996; Collier, Brady, and Seawright 2004; Jackson 2010). Other scholars note that analytical differences in causality and causal mechanism depend on correlation-based and process-based causal inferences (Collier et al. 2004). The former derives from the neo-Humean regularity approach, the latter on there being causal mechanisms and capacities to produce an effect (Brady 2008:226–32, 241–8; Collier, Sekhon, and Stark 2010). For an extensive discussion of theories of causality in social science, including counterfactual reasoning and experimental manipulation, see Brady (2008). Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 117

Theoretical Perspectives: Religion and Foreign Policy The sources of foreign policy are a contested issue. To simplify, we group arguments into several categories: first, we identify realism, constructivism, liberalism, and institutionalism as general theoretical categories; second, we address more specific subcategories of geopolitical position, domestic culture or heritage, the nexus of public opinion, interest groups and parties, and the logic of state institutions; third, we consider the intervening impact of causal agents between these sources and foreign policy. To keep this tangle of theories, concepts, dimensions, and cases accessible and orderly, we adopt the convention of ‘‘mapping’’ their relationships with the aid of the example set by Smith (1968) and applied by Greenstein (1987) for the study of personality and politics. Our project also resonates with previous efforts to map the analytical terrain for studying foreign policy by Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin (1954) in foreign policy decision making, by Rosenau (1966) in comparative foreign policy analysis, and by McGowan and Walker (1981) in foreign economic policymaking. Smith’s map consisted of six conceptual boxes containing dimensions extracted from each category of concepts. Some arrows identified causal paths by connecting dimensions within each box, and other arrows connected dimensions of one concept to dimensions associated with other concepts. We present a similar mapping strategy in Figure 1, outlining theoretically derived causal pathways as arrows leading to foreign policy outcomes. Our discussion outlines relationships and identifies processes as causal mechanisms along these pathways, which might be expected were we to consider systematically the role of religion in foreign policy and then introduce relevant features of religion into each of these causal pathways leading to foreign policy outcomes. To initiate this examination of linkages between religion and foreign policy, we begin by identifying shared properties of interest at the most immediate site of their interaction. These reciprocal relationships between agents and actions are in Box V and Box VI and represent the steering effects of leaders’ beliefs and intentions on foreign policy actions versus the learning effects of feedback from actions on those beliefs and intentions. It follows that if religion is to have a local (direct and immediate) steering effect on foreign policy, its causal impact must be represented in the beliefs and intentions of the agents of foreign policy. If environmental feedback is to have a similar local learning effect on religion, it must alter or reenforce the beliefs and intentions of the agents. To reach these points of local impact between agent and action properties, however, it is also possible for religion’s influence on agents to originate in the culture of the society (Box IV) and travel through the

IV. IDEAS/CULTURE Religious Heritage

V. AGENTS II. INTERESTS III. INSTITUTIONS Parties, Groups Organizations/State VI. FOREIGN Public Opinion Structures POLICY

I. POWER Geopolitical Position

FIG 1. A Macroscopic Map of Religion and Foreign Policy 118 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy causal pathways linking groups (Box II) and institutions (Box III). The impact of feedback from the external environment to reach agents can also follow these pathways as well as the more circuitous route through the cultural matrix (Box IV) of the society. We hypothesize that what is transmitted about religion along these pathways is information about the appropriate actions to take, based on religious beliefs about human nature, society, and the world. In other words, information from the worldview contained in a particular religion identifies relevant aspects of the political universe and provides guidance for ethical action in that environment. Depending on the receptivity of the agents and the energy in the transmission of this information, its message may be relevant and applicable to states as well as individuals. These possibilities raise two questions for investigation: what is the nature (content) of this information and how is it transmitted (with what force and via what channels)? The following analysis focuses first on the mechanisms of transmission and then on the content of the messages that link religion and foreign policy. We employ IR theories to analyze mechanisms and distinguish different levels of resolution and magnification in examining our map with the aid of an optics metaphor (McGowan and Walker 1981). Using different theories, we specify known or predicted relationships among dimensions at different locations on the map. This step requires a lower resolution ⁄ higher magnification view of some locations (the trees) at the expense of an aerial, holistic overview (the for- est) provided by the high-resolution ⁄ low-magnification map in Figure 1 above. In this figure, we can see the broad outlines of the map (concepts and relationships), but it reveals relatively little information about particular dimensions, the causal directions of the relationships between dimensions, or the actual mechanisms (processes) represented by the arrows. The causal directions for the relationships specified in the macroscopic view in Figure 1 are the reciprocal arrows between (Box V) agents and (Box VI) foreign policy, the arrows linking (Box II) interests, (Box III) institutions, and (Box VI) foreign policy, and the arrows around the periphery anticipating relationships between (Box I) power and (Box IV) ideas ⁄ culture and the intervening relationships represented by interests and institutions. These postulated effects are based on theoretical arguments drawn from (I) realist, (IV) constructivist, and (II and III) liberal-institutional theories; the roles are not specified for particular variables contained within the concepts of power, ideas and culture, interests and institutions associated with these theories. Their specification in more detail is in the following discussion of these different IR theories and their causal mechanisms. The links between the theories and the boxed dimension(s), such as power, are not mutually exclusive. For instance, constructivists and liberals both have conceptions of power. Furthermore, we note that comparativists may see that some of their theoretical frameworks apply to these dimensions. The goal here is to see how these theoretical perspectives, with significant input from religion and politics theories, would conceptualize and hypothesize the role of religion in foreign policy.

Realism and Constructivism: Anarchy and Culture in the International System Mainstream realist IR theory holds that because of the anarchic nature of international relations, in which there is no sovereign power that exercises authority over all others, each state does what it must to survive in its particular geopolitical position, namely, protect its territory and exercise sovereignty (Waltz 1979; Jervis 1999). Consequently, states are fundamentally concerned with key variables from the concepts in Box I of Figure 1, namely, power (both military and economic). They assess their relations with other states and take actions with or Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 119 against them based on a clear calculation of power and survival (Jervis 1978; Waltz 1979; Lake 1996). States, no matter their culture or religious heritage, face the same security dilemma in the form of threats because of power and geogra- phy. As Stephen Krasner (1993a, 21) writes, ‘‘The behavior of individual states, regardless of their domestic political characteristics, is constrained by their own capabilities and the distribution of power in the system as a whole.’’ Religion in any form in this view has little impact on the security dilemma and states’ responses to that dilemma.5 Yet scholars have noted that there are various ways for states to survive, to protect, and to enhance their power; other influences should not be so readily dis- missed. One of these influences is ‘‘values,’’ which might be expressed in culture. States with common cultural values are argued to be less likely to go to war against each other (Kant 1939; Doyle 1986; Russett 1993). By extension, states with common religious values would be expected to be less likely to go to war with each other, as represented by the arrows directly connecting Boxes IV and V as well as them with Boxes I and IV. As many readers will recognize, this argument is a restatement of Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ thesis. Huntington (1993) famously argued that a country’s religious heritage determines its enemies and allies in the post- Cold War era. For Huntington, religion enters as a defining feature of the culture concept in Box IV of Figure 1. In turn, culture is part of the larger construct of ‘‘civilization’’ in Huntington’s argument, which determines cooperation or conflict between states. The security threat a state faces might be motivated by cultural differences, including religious ones. The approach assumes religion dominates and determines a country’s culture and ‘‘identity’’ and therefore specifies the state’s international allies and enemies. Although the Huntington thesis has been extensively tested and thoroughly critiqued, surprisingly few studies (including Huntington’s) have explicitly assessed the role of religion in ‘‘civilizational conflict’’ (Fox and Sandler 2004:118-125; Chiozza 2002; but see also Henderson 1998; Roeder 2003; Grim and Finke 2007). Religion may have a role in international conflicts, even if it is not the deter- mining or dominant factor. Extrapolating from a milder version of the ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ thesis, one might expect that religion could lead a country to relate differently to other countries depending on whether they have the same or a different religion. The causal mechanism in this argument postulates that countries of the same religion may have a significant level of ideological affinity. States with the same religion or religious heritage see that they have a common cultural bond, which fosters a common identity that mitigates the ‘‘us versus them’’ dynamic of the international system (Johnston 1995a; see also Philpott 2007, 518). One hypothesis resulting from the ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ approach is that a common religious heritage may provide common norms which, in turn, might facilitate convergence on policy, including international treaties (Gehler and Kaiser 2003; Fox and Sandler 2004). This causal mechanism may also operate at the level of realpolitik: a state may use claims to a common heritage to foster alliances. While these dynamics could lead to peaceful, collaborative, or cooperative foreign policies, they could also lead to aggression if one state uses a common

5 Realism has a variety of interpretations, although fundamental to each is an emphasis on power and state survival. One can point to differences in Morgenthau, Carr, and Mearsheimer, for instance (Carr 1964; Morgenthau 1985; Mearsheimer 2001; Oren 2009). Space constraints prevent us from analyzing and extrapolating from all of its intellectual variants. We focus primarily on structure-oriented, neorealist analyses in this paper while omitting agent-centered, classical, and neoclassical variants of realism. The latter schools of realism share insights with domestic analyses and psychological analyses of agents by other theories discussed later in our essay, which cover this ground more extensively than realism. 120 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy religious background to justify taking over another, or to assist foreign insurgencies and civil wars. For countries of different religions, conversely, the lack of ideological affinity may make cooperation more difficult. At the level of realpolitik, religious differences may be used instrumentally as one justification for aggression or noncooperation with another or to fund foreign insurgencies or civil wars. Religion is typically viewed as one aspect of culture, and thus in the international relations literature its influence is theorized in the context of culture. The main proponents of culture as a variable in international relations have been (Box IV) constructivist theorists who argue that the very essence of a state is its identity, which is derived from its culture (Wendt 1992; Finnemore 1996). The religion embedded in a country’s national identity, which shaped its institutions, would be expected to shape how that country defines its foreign policy interests. State actions in the international arena are derived from that identity: ‘‘The identity of a state implies its preferences and consequent actions’’ (Hopf 1998:175). If states react similarly to similar threats and other foreign policy situations regardless of identity or culture, it is because the ‘‘background of social ⁄ discursive practices and meanings which make possible the practices as well as the social actors themselves’’ has been universalized in the system of international states (Doty 1993:298). Although this thesis is a decided advance upon essentializing arguments, such as Huntington’s ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ thesis, though it still needs a means of understanding how culture or identity affects policy in different issue domains. Some argue that religious norms are too broad and vague to account for policy specificities if one simply asserts, like Huntington, that cultures or civilizations based on the same world religion have a similar set of norms (Katzenstein 1996). A narrower version of the constructivist approach would contend that culture can provide ‘‘the logic through which interests are rationalized and prioritized’’ (Ansari 2006:259). If religion is one aspect of culture, it may contribute to that logic because religions are characterized by a system of beliefs, norms, and practices that provide a guide to right living (Lincoln 2003). Religions have systems of moral authority that rationalize and prioritize certain interests while refuting and dismissing others. To add more specificity, one might further hypothesize that if a religion is regarded as an integral part of the state’s identity and if particular mechanisms are present, governments are more likely to take religion into account in formulating foreign policy. If the state’s identity has been defined as strictly secular, as in France, it is much less likely that religious factors will affect foreign policy. Recent works on religion and politics have argued that religions cannot be analyzed as monolithic entities. Any religion (especially the major world religions) is instead comprised of myriad interpretations, organizational structures, communities, and practices (Lincoln 2003; Hehir 2006; Philpott and Shah 2006; Warner and Wenner 2006; Collins 2007; Kniss and Numrich 2007). When Max Weber wrote of the ‘‘practical religion of the converted,’’ he noted that religions vary in their expression across countries and that religious practices vary mark- edly within countries (Laitin 1986). Thus, an effort to assess the influence of religion on foreign policy by searching for the effects of a monolithic religion in a particular case, for example, ‘‘Islam and the foreign policy of Pakistan,’’ might miss differences within Islam and their varied potential influences on the foreign policy of Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan’s complex religious culture likely interacts with other aspects of its culture and political history. Emphasizing religion as a key factor in foreign policy, Walter Russell Mead (2006) argues that the Christian religious heritage is important in the United States, precisely because that heritage has bequeathed several politically important strands of Protestant Christianity (mainline, fundamentalist, evangelical) to American culture. To Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 121 research the role of religion in US foreign policy, therefore, one needs to start by differentiating between the strands and understanding their different implications for attitudes toward foreign policy. Another constructivist argument challenges the simple or nonexistent role of religion in realist international relations theory. It posits that the whole arena for foreign policy has been defined to be secular; hence, the traditional positivist research agenda will find inevitably that religion does not have any or much influence (Hurd 2004, 2006, 2008). In other words, religion’s role is limited in foreign policy because the international system is based on the Westphalian secular state. However, Daniel Philpott (2000) argues that the Protestant Refor- mation gave rise to the system of sovereign statehood, which characterizes much of international politics, lending credence to Elizabeth Shakman Hurd’s (2004, 2008) claim that the system is premised on a false secularity. That is to say, secularism is a tenet derived from religion—the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation detached religious authority from state (secular) authority. Indeed, it defined the state as an entity distinct from theology and from religious authority and institutions. Philpott argues that without such a move, the Treaty of Westphalia and the resulting system of states would not have been possible. The Reformation’s definition of a state and its authority underlies a system that accepted that matters of religion were internal affairs of state. Hurd and Philpott emphasize with constructivists the historical contingency of the state system. Hurd then argues that the state system, which privileges the secular in international relations, is not morally superior or otherwise better than some other system that conceivably could have evolved were it not for haphazard historical events. Its secularism is also the expression of the religious norm in the Protestant Reformation of locating authority at the local level of agents (individuals or states) rather than in a universal organization such as a catholic, that is, universal, church or a Holy Roman Empire (Krasner 1993b, 1999; Philpott 2001; Carlson and Owen 2003). Combined with the argument of other IR theorists, that shared ideas can be ‘‘encased’’ by institutions, thus structuring the policy arena and privileging those ideas embedded in institutions (Sikkink 1991; Goldstein 1988), the Hurd and Philpott perspective is a powerful reminder that we may not be seeing much religion in foreign policy because it has been defined out of the system as a legitimate, sovereign force. As Hurd reasons about the United States, ‘‘secularist authority is an influential part of the socio-cultural context within which US foreign policy is formulated’’ (Hurd 2008:106). Secularism, based on particular histories and understandings of religion and coming under different forms, is embedded in the international system and in national identities that suffuse the foreign policy bureaucracy, the military, and foreign policymakers’ decisions.

Liberalism: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions Because religion can be said to have as one defining feature a set of ideas (theology), a key place to think about the role of religion in foreign policy is to consider the role of ideas within institutions. This perspective is distinct from a constructivist approach emphasizing the role of culture, as the latter tends to argue that culture includes symbols, rituals of meaning, norms, and other social practices. As conceived by a variant of liberal IR theory, ideas operate in a more limited way, providing a set of concepts or beliefs about a political issue area, such as foreign policy (Goldstein and Keohane 1993a:3). Scholarship on the role of ideas in foreign policy turns on the point that, even in traditional security areas such as war, states make choices. Collectively held ideas, ideas pushed by specific interest groups or coalitions (parties) with access to policymakers, and the ideas of leaders influence those choices (Goldstein and Keohane 1993b; Yee 122 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy

1996; Legro 2005). Precisely because the realist view of the world holds that the international system is anarchic, thus characterized by high uncertainty and complexity, states and their policymakers cannot make strictly rational judgments. Even if states and leaders are rational, the situations they face are complex and uncertain. As Douglass North argues, under such circumstances ‘‘substantive rationality results do not hold. One has to model the decision maker as holding a mental model’’ (quoted in Legro 2005:26; see North 1999:248–50; Malici 2008b). The costs and benefits of policies and actions can vary, depending on the conceptual or ideational lens through which they are viewed or the ideational scale on which they are weighed. Constructivists agree and argue that ideas construct ‘‘both identities and interests’’ (Houghton 2007:29), which is why elements of both liberal and constructivist theory overlap. Contemporary liberal theory in IR posits that states pursue preferences and ideals derived from domestic political considerations and constrained by domestic and international institutions, with the ideational variant of the theory focusing on ‘‘domestic social identities and values as a basic determinant of state preferences’’ and thus of foreign policy (Moravcsik 2003:168). Comparativists might note that IR seems to have ‘‘discov- ered’’ domestic politics. IR theorists might counter that while preferences and ideals are domestically derived, relations in the international system depend on the distribution of preferences and values across states and how states can interact with other states to reach their goals. To investigate religion’s role in foreign policy, the analysis must include specification of religion’s role in creating identities and values. To start, one should ask what does it mean for religion to be an idea? First, it would mean that religion is the theological doctrine, which proclaims and describes the religion and ‘‘provides guidance for living a moral life consistent with the religious conceptualizations’’ (Laitin 1986:25). It makes ‘‘truth claims’’ based on an understanding of a ‘‘transcendent authority’’ (Lincoln 2003:5-6). Carried over to religion in foreign policy, a basic ideational approach would suggest that different religions—or (more precisely) different religious groups prac- ticing their version of a religion—will have different ideas about goals and assign different weights to trade-offs on the means ⁄ ends scale to reach those goals (Warner 2000; Kniss and Numrich 2007; Elman 2008). Second, as Philpott (2007:507) argues, it would mean that the religion’s political theology describes what it sees as ‘‘legitimate political authority,’’ answering questions about who may hold power: ‘‘To what degree ought the state to promote faith? What is jus- tice? What is the right relationship between religious authorities and the state?’’ Extended to foreign policy, such an approach would focus on the ideas that the religion might have about who or what constitute enemies of the state or the religion or its religious followers, and what the legitimate range of actions and purposes of state power vis-a`-vis other states are. Constructivists might go further to argue that the foreign policy arena and all participants in foreign policy-making would be influenced by shared beliefs as a subset of ideas about the ‘‘national interest’’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001). Thus, to the extent that religion is a part of those shared beliefs, it will affect foreign policy. This approach ‘‘requires an analysis of the ideational causal mechanisms or capacities that render the meanings of ideas and beliefs compelling to actors’’ (Yee 1996:102), as well as an explication of the doctrine and practices of the entities in question. Dimensions of interests, institutions, agents, and even power must be understood in terms of the constitutive capacity of religious ideas. Houghton (2007) notes that the potential of ideas to have causal influence in foreign policy had been articulated much earlier by Snyder et al. (1954). A religion has vocabularies and concepts which ‘‘proscribe and prescribe speech’’ and Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 123 thus how policies are formulated, and even whether they can be thought of to be formulated (Yee 1996:95). The counterpoint to an emphasis on ideas is that, ‘‘Ideas have not made possible alternatives that did not previously exist; they legitimated political practices that were already facts on the ground’’ (Krasner 1993b:238). In the significant case of the Westphalian state system, however, Phil- pott (2000) argues to the contrary that the idea of such an arrangement pre- ceded the ‘‘facts on the ground.’’ Shared social identities, based on a common idea, here religious, would shape a state’s foreign policy. The ways the policies and actions of states and other international actors are interpreted by national policy-makers are constrained and formed by those shared understandings. The preceding account of the relationship between religion and foreign policy is a relatively ‘‘thin’’ account, fueled by the concepts of power and ideas, without specifying the mechanisms that encapsulate and channel these influences in politics. In this section we examine the impact of ideas, interests and institutions embodied by interest groups, organized religions, and political parties or movements in the society and by organizations and institutions of the state, which IR scholars would recognize as variants of republican liberal theory, and comparativists as interest group politics and the new institutionalism (Hall 1986; Baumgart- ner and Leech 1998; Immergut 1998; Warner 2000; Moravcsik 2003; Gourevitch and Shinn 2005; Schmidt 2008). These levels of analysis are the domestic locations for mechanisms, which transmit ideas and power within the architecture of their respective structures. We begin by investigating the impact of the attitudes and opinions of the mass public on policymakers’ choices. Doing so moves us to considerations of (Box II) domestic-level sources of foreign policy emphasized by liberal IR theory (Doyle 1986; Moravcsik 2003). Scholars have debated whether publics generally have strong opinions about foreign policy and by extension whether different religious denominations have different opinions about the same subject—and if so, what those views are (Jelen 1994; Nelsen, Guth, and Fraser 2001; Furia and Lucas 2006; Baumgartner, Francis, and Morris 2008; Froese and Mencken 2009; Rosenson, Oldmixon, and Wald 2009). Barker et al. (2008:307) find that those in the United States who adhere to a Christian ‘‘messianic militarist’’ belief are more likely to have hawkish attitudes on foreign policy and that ‘‘as belief in the authority in the Bible increases, so does the perceived electoral salience of foreign policy issues, relative to domestic issues.’’ Some recent studies have gone a step further and tried to examine how public opinion would impact policymakers’ decisions (Aldrich, Gelpi, Feaver, Reifler, and Thompson Sharp 2006; Lai and Slater 2006; Baum and Potter 2008). Findings are mixed, though they tend to show that the institutional context filters how public opinion affects leaders. Aldrich et al. (2006:496) conclude that public opinion affects US foreign policy through the electoral and party system. Scholars who emphasize (Box III) institutions in international relations and domestic politics argue that ideas do not simply infuse the spirit of the culture or the collectively held national understandings and then result in policy. Instead, there is a complex process in which the differential power of competing societal groups and the institutional structures of a state’s political system affect whether and how ideas affect foreign policy (Katzenstein 1978; Gourevitch 1986; Milner 1997). Ideas must have an ‘‘organizational means of expression’’ to ‘‘acquire force’’ (Hall 1986:280; see Yee 1996:92-94). The point ‘‘is not to show that ideas ‘trump’ other traditional factors—specifically power or interest groups —in explaining foreign policy change and continuity, but instead to make sense of how ideas interact with other factors in specific ways to cause outcomes’’ (Legro 2005:13; italics in original). Extending this approach to the study of religion and the foreign policies of states, one would need to focus on the institutional features of a religion and its connections with the state, particularly in the 124 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy processes by which a state formulates its foreign policy (Philpott and Shah 2006; Warner and Wenner 2006; Warner 2000; Kalyvas 2000; Rakel 2007). In line with this view, scholars of foreign economic policy argue that ‘‘political institutions determine how power over decision-making is allocated among national actors’’ (Milner 1997:99; Naoi 2009; see also Elman 1995; McGowan and Walker 1981). Others have examined whether some interest groups have had more influence than others (Jacobs and Page 2005; Zunes 2005; Mearshei- mer and Walt 2006a, 2007). Thus, foreign policy is constituted through an insti- tutionally constrained struggle between different groups. Policymakers can exploit the positions of their domestic constituency to achieve their aims (Mora- vcsik 1993:24–7; Putnam 1988; Stinnett 2007), although the extent to which they can, depends on what kind of political system they are leading (Lai and Slater 2006) and whether domestic events are undermining their authority (Fravel 2005). Scholars who have studied public opinion and foreign policy tend to agree that in order for public opinion to have an impact on foreign policy, it needs an institutional channel or outlet. Therefore, we need to analyze how institutions affect whether religion has an impact on foreign policy. Indeed, informed by the religion and politics literature on religious beliefs, institutions and their effect on domestic politics, we would expect that political institutions, as well as the organizational structure and mobilizational capacities of religious institutions, affect whether and how religion influences foreign policy formation (Jelen 1991; Jelen and Wilcox 2002; Yavuz 2003; Wald, Silverman, and Fridy 2005; Warner and Wen- ner 2006; Freedman 2009). There are a number of possible institutional effects. One approach emphasizes the role of institutional differentiation between religion and state power in understanding the role of religion in politics. This approach focuses on the legal arrangements governing ‘‘how religion and political authority are related’’ (Philpott 2007:505) and would be familiar to scholars who study ‘‘church-state’’ arrangements and their effects on issues ranging from the boundaries between sacred and secular, the place of religion in public life (Casanova 1994), to accommodation of minority religions (Fetzer and Soper 2005; Fox 2008; Kuru 2008). All other things being equal, the overt influence of a religion in a state’s foreign policy may be lower in a state in which there is high differentiation through a formal, legal separation of religious and state authority as in France or Turkey. This claim is not a statement of fact, but rather a proposition generated from insights in the religion and politics literature. Another institutional aspect is the structure of the political system. Extrapolat- ing to foreign policy, one would surmise that democratic political systems would give religion the opportunity to be influential in foreign policy. Even though states operate in the international system of states, they have to deal with the specificities of their domestic populations, and the domestic factor is amplified in democratic systems (Evans et al. 1993; Milner 1997; Jacobs and Page 2005). Political structures would mediate such factors as the relation of religion to the legitimacy of the state, the nature of the religious heritage, the religiosity of the population, religiously informed public opinion, and the presence of mobilized religious groups. For instance, in a democracy if the electoral system is propor- tional, small, single-issue parties may be able to win seats in the legislature. If they become critical to the formation of coalition governments and they have strong preferences, they may steer foreign policy in their direction (Elman and Warner 2008; Elman 2008; see Sprecher and DeRouen 2005; Kaarbo and Beasley 2008). If such a party has a religious base and ideology, the preferences of organized religious minorities may be taken into consideration as a state formulates its foreign policy in a particular issue area. If the political system is structured such that organized interests have a formal role in foreign policy (Haynes 2008), or are part of the ‘‘selectorate’’ of the Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 125 regime (those groups and ⁄ or individuals who choose the state’s leadership; Bueno de Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, and Morrow 2003), one might expect to find religious interests expressed in foreign policy.6 To the extent that such interests must be catered to by the regime, it may be possible to appease them with patronage or domestic policies (Elman and Warner 2008). Authoritarian regimes are also constrained, to a lesser extent, by their constituencies (Lai and Slater 2006). Countries may have organized religious interests present in repre- sentative institutions, which by their power as voters or active societal groups attempt to influence foreign policy. They are more likely to succeed where the states are relatively unstable and very dependent on societal forces such as organized religions (Gill and Keshavarzian 1999; Gill 2008). Thus, for instance, an institutional perspective would expect the impact of organized religious groups to be attenuated by a strong, secular military, by the powers and interests of the head of government ⁄ state, and by the economic and political-military (geopolitical) vulnerabilities of the country. This institutional approach directs attention to the fact that religious beliefs are typically carried and promoted by organized religions and that these religious organizations have seemingly secular interests, namely in organizational maintenance and possibly expansion, which affect their strategies vis-a`-vis state institutions. Organized religions often have interests, which force them to negoti- ate, pressure, or compete with political authorities to further their organizational survival and advance their moral project. These interests may compromise or seem to contradict the organization’s espoused religious beliefs or even lead to changes in doctrine (Kalyvas 1996; Gill 1998; Lu 2008:137-53; Trejo 2009). In short, religion needs structural mechanisms to influence foreign policy. Vague cultural identities must be organized and galvanized by societal and political institutions and leaders. As Jelen and Wilcox (2002:315) remind us, ‘‘There is no necessary connection between a nation’s religious composition and the relationship of church and state.’’ Protestant United States, Catholic France, and Muslim Turkey have legal and institutional separation of religion and state; Prot- estant Britain, Catholic Ireland and Muslim Pakistan do not. This is not to deny the emphasis Scott M. Thomas and others give to the way that ‘‘religion con- stitutes the very identity of politically influential social movements’’ (Philpott 2009:196; Thomas 2005). It is to note that while religion can constitute the very being of a social movement or interest group, its political influence on foreign policy may be constrained or facilitated by institutional structures, material needs, and institutional relationships.

Agent-Based Theory: Personalities and Beliefs in the International System Political psychologist Margaret Hermann moves the institutional argument inside the state apparatus, arguing that the various international and domestic factors which affect foreign policy ‘‘are necessarily channeled through the political apparatus of a government that identifies, decides, and implements foreign policy’’ (Hermann 2001:47; see also Keohane and Martin 2003). Foreign policy is ultimately configured by a set of decision units within government itself. Focus- ing on the decision-making process within the state brings attention to the various ways religion might be present within a state’s foreign policy decision- making apparatus, as well as its influence within the belief systems of the people who actually make the decisions. However, now is not the time to enter into or attempt to settle the debate about the relative explanatory power of structure

6 See, for instance, the debate about the role of the ‘‘Israel lobby’’ in US policy toward Israel and the Middle East (Mearsheimer and Walt 2006a,b, 2009; Lieberman 2009a,b). An analysis of this debate and specific pathways of the influence of certain interests groups on US foreign policy is beyond the scope of this essay. 126 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy versus agency, that is, the structure of the international or domestic system versus the individual, but rather to show how a foreign policy analysis assessing the role of religion might consider its influence on leaders and policies (Greenstein 1987; Wendt 1987; Carlsnaes 1992). It is sufficient for our purposes to note that foreign policy decisions are ultimately made by individuals in leadership positions, suggesting that obvious and important avenues of research in the role of religion in foreign policy are the beliefs of leaders. Leadership decisions have been rigorously analyzed in the operational code literature, which suggests that the philosophical and instrumental beliefs of leaders do systematically affect foreign policy decisions (Kaarbo 1997; Schafer and Walker 2006). Thus, one would expect that if religious beliefs are embedded in a leader’s operational code, then religion would influence foreign policy. While the influence of the religious beliefs of leaders is constrained by state structures, considerations of geopolitical forces and domestic political interests, the religious beliefs of leaders can be influential in shaping leadership style (how dogmatic or pragmatic a policy might be) and in directing leadership attention (how salient or irrelevant a particular historical relationship or event may become). It is also plausible that leaders could activate some elements of religion or be forced to incorporate them (Mead 2006). A leader’s beliefs may influence foreign policy to the extent that they include a religiously informed answer to questions such as, ‘‘Is the political future predictable?’’ What is the best approach for selecting goals for political action?’’ (Malici 2006:42). The related literature regarding the strategic culture of states focuses on leaders’ beliefs as cultural (or here, religious) constructs (Johnston 1995a,b; Feng 2007). Perhaps the beliefs of the foreign policy elite (the decision makers) inhere in ‘‘a vision of the nation’s role in world affairs that corresponds to deep, cultural beliefs about the nation’’ (Hudson 1999:769). The strong version of this cultural argument holds that foreign policy elites become leaders only because they do reflect the deep-seated beliefs of the nation. While it would be an injustice to the strategic culture literature to argue that it is merely a cross between leaders’ operational codes and cultural-ideationist approaches, this literature does look at the systematic belief systems of policymakers and whether there exists a particular culture of beliefs about state strategy (Johnston 1995a,b, 1999; Gray 1999; Poore 2003; Feng 2007). To extend such an approach to the role of religion in foreign policy requires a research design that can assess whether or to what extent the state’s strategic culture is informed by religion and whether that culture ‘‘limits the behavioral choices regarding the efficacy of military force or any form of political action in inter- state political affairs’’ (Malici 2006:40; see also Johnston 1995a). A state’s strategic culture becomes the subset of role identities in the culture of a society that defines power relations between self and other in the domain of world politics. If the origins of these identities can be traced back to religious roots, then it is possible to say that religion affects foreign policy by incubating and transmitting role identities that govern the foreign policy decisions of elites in the society’s institutions. Existing leaders may either learn or teach these identities via communication with the public or spread them to others. New leaders may bring them along into social or political institutions in a transfer of power and leadership through elections, coups, revolutions, or foreign occupation. Their interpretations and calculations in the exercise of power may be affected by the nature and extent of their reliance upon organized religious groups.

Conclusion What have we learned from this tour of the research horizons in Foreign Policy Analysis, International Relations, and Comparative Politics, which can inform a Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 127 coherent research agenda focused on religion and foreign policy? To address this question and bring our investigation full circle, we revisit Figure 1 and the optics metaphor that informs it. We offer a mesoscopic view of our framework as a potentially optimum strategy for the study of religion and foreign policy in the form of different research triangles formed by the various nodes (boxes) in Fig- ure 1. The mesoscopic level of analysis, called ‘‘the middle way’’ by natural scien- tists, focuses and works at an intermediate level of analysis between the microscopic levels of local individuals or atoms and the macroscopic levels of global physical or social systems (Laughlin, Pines, Schmalian, Stojkovic, and Woly- nes 2000; Lozano, Arenas, and Sańchez 2008). It is an approach compatible with complex adaptive systems analysis, which identifies potential subsystems within a larger global system that is ‘‘nearly decomposable,’’ that is, its elements are all related but some much more strongly than others (Simon 1973; Miller and Page 2007). A mesoscopic approach attempts to identify such clusters of strongly related elements for more intensive analysis and to search for emergent properties or ‘‘system effects’’ associated with the kinds of local causal processes within each subsystem (Jervis 1997; Axelrod and Cohen 1999; Mitchell 2009). We suggest that a mesoscopic approach, which reconceptualizes the map more specifically in Figure 1 as the map for a complex system or network, will allow teams of scholars to collaborate more easily for two reasons. One reason is that a mesoscopic view of the highly complex relations in Figure 1 decomposes them into simpler and more manageable sets of relations, which is consistent with what is known about the logic of turning ‘‘ill-structured’’ problems into ‘‘well- structured’’ problems for representation and solution (Newell and Simon 1972; Voss 1998). The other reason is that a mesoscopic, subsystemic approach may limit the range of likely causal mechanisms in the solution of problems to ones with isomorphic logical assumptions and commensurable empirical characteristics that permit relatively straightforward constructions of theoretical explanations with a common language and set of assumptions (Hanrieder 1967; Lakatos 1970; Cummins 1983; Ball 1987; Elman and Elman 2003). What are the potential mesoscopic systems for investigation in Figure 1 and which ones are likely to share common logical and empirical methodological assumptions about how to conceptualize religion, foreign policy, and their causal connections? Religion’s influence on foreign policy can be conceptualized as elements of our map that form two large research triangles: an internal (domestic) triangle of Ideas, Interests, and Institutions and another external (foreign) triangle of Power, Interests, and Institutions. In the language of network theory for complex systems, the ‘‘hub’’ of each triangle is the pair of ‘‘high degree’’ nodes formed by Foreign Policy (VI) as decisions made by Agents (V) as leaders. Hubs are nodes in a network that have a high degree (greater number) of direct (immediate) links with other nodes (elements) in a system of interactions (Mitchell 2009:235). As Melanie Mitchell (2009:234) states, ‘‘In simplest terms, a network is a collection of nodes connected by links. Nodes correspond to the individuals in a network (for example, neurons, Web sites, people) and links to the connections between them (for example, synapses, Web hyperlinks, social relationships).’’ The two domestic and foreign triangles divide into several smaller triangles (subsystems or networks) with Agents as one of the points on each triangle. In this conceptualization, the agents of a state become the hub of a social and geopolitical network of complex adaptive subsystems within a larger social system, which is embedded in a regional system of states undifferentiated in Figure 1 and represented by the Power node (I) in this figure. The various research triangles in Figure 1 function as mesoscopic heuristics for identifying basic questions about Religion and Foreign Policy. We have explored several of these basic questions and suggested some hypo- thetical answers during the preceding discussion in this essay. The timescale 128 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy and space-scale of observations for the interaction of variables in these mesoscopic research triangles can be disaggregated spatially and temporally either into microscopic research triangles formed by Agents (V), Foreign Policy (VI), and any one of the other nodes in Figure 1 or aggregated spatially and temporally into macroscopic research triangles potentially connected as larger quad- rangles and other higher-order configurations. It is possible to focus more minutely on episodic stimulus-response chains of behavior that represent steering and learning processes between individuals inside or between these various nodes. It is feasible as well to look for broader and gradual secular trends in the interactions inside states, between states, or among other large social systems within a region, such as alliances, transnational organizations, or regional institutions. More generally, a focus on the exercise of religious power is a theme that con- nects these possible relationships. Depending on the particular triangular system of interest in Figure 1 and the spatial-temporal scales of aggregation or disaggre- gation, religious power has a different conceptualization as a causal mechanism. One general conceptualization is that religion is structure-oriented, a systemic cause that limits, selects, reproduces, or mediates the range of foreign policy decisions by agents. This type of cause may be either material or ideational, respectively such as power in the realist school, interests in the liberal school, rules in the institutionalist school, or ideas in the constructivist school of IR theory. The other general conceptualization is agent-centered, that is, religion is manifested in the belief systems and actions of individuals who form the mass public or who lead interest groups and institutions. These agents act as an efficient cause that transforms, specifies, or motivates particular foreign policy decisions (McGowan and Walker 1981; Goldstein and Keohane 1993a; Yee 1996). These causal distinctions are compatible with religion as both the base of social power and its exercise, conceptualized in the first instance as a background condition that constrains choices by agents within a system and in the second instance as a force that directs choices in which agents exercise control over others in social contexts (French and Raven 1959; Bachrach and Baratz 1962; McClelland 1966; Wright 1978; Baldwin 1989). These possibilities can take several forms, morphing into different shapes depending on the location in Figure 1. Ideas (IV) in a religion have the ‘‘power to name,’’ that is, to cast individuals, groups, or organizations into identities as friends, collaborators, rivals, or enemies and attribute scripts to self or others that create expectations about their behavior (Walker 2004; see also Doty 1993; Wendt 1999; Cady 2008). Interests (II) are often associated with identities so that ideas translate into interests associated with identities (Wendt 1999). Ideas become institutionalized when the occupants of existing Institutions (III) politi- cize the roles defined by religious ideas by taking them on as political identities. This process of role-taking transmits simultaneously the corresponding interests associated with the identities. Collectively, these processes have a ‘‘framing effect’’ that either passively constrains or actively directs the conduct of Foreign Policy (VI), depending on the capacities of Agents (V) to exercise leadership at the microscopic level of analysis in different historical situations within a particular research triangle in Figure 1 (Stoessinger 1979; Greenstein 1987). In turn, the dyads formed by self and other in regional politics are affected by the roles assigned to them by religious Ideas (IV) in their discursive space. This pattern of symbolic interaction between them constrains and directs their behavior toward one another and the pattern of strategic interaction between them, conditioned as well by the distribution of Power (I) between them (Wendt 1999; Walker 2004, 2007; Malici 2008a). If their behavior is conceptualized as the exercise of positive and negative sanctions toward one another, then this dynamic is a representation of foreign policy behavior literally as ‘‘power politics,’’ that is, Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 129 the exercise of power between states conditioned by the distribution of power between them (McClelland 1966; Baldwin 1989). As this survey of theoretical approaches to the study of foreign policy has shown, there is a vast toolkit to be applied fruitfully to the systematic study of foreign policy. Insights from these theories may enable us to do what most criti- cally needs to be performed, namely, building empirically relevant theories of foreign policy and linking them to theories of religion, to understand the role of religion in the foreign policies of states (Walker 2003; see also Laudan 1977). Our essay advances these efforts by proposing a framework for creating and pro- ducing theoretically grounded and methodologically sophisticated research designs, which can generate empirically testable research and causal inferences and can foster future intellectual aspirations to be exploited in at least three ways. First, our map of research networks aspires to link the research of scholars from a variety of disciplines to open a new domain of inquiry and enable us to assess the conditions under which religion affects foreign policy, through what mechanisms, and with what range and types of effects. Second, its triangular heuristics undertake to hone theories of the sources of foreign policy and to inte- grate methodologies for assessing foreign policy and studying the role of religion in foreign policy and international relations. Third, the synergistic intersection of these internal and external triangles as research networks pushes us more broadly to develop better theories of religion and politics.

References Albright, Madeleine. (2006) The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs. New York: HarperCollins. Aldrich, John H., Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, and Kristin Thompson Sharp. (2006) Foreign Policy and the Electoral Consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 9: 477–502. Alker Jr, Hayward R., and Thomas J. Biersteker. (1984) The Dialectics of World Order. International Studies Quarterly 28: 121–142. Ammerman, Nancy T (2003) Religious Identities and Religious Institutions. In Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by Michele Dillon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ansari, Ali M (2006) Civilizational Identity and Foreign Policy: The Case of Iran. In The Limits of Culture. Islam and Foreign Policy, edited by Brenda Shaffer, Cambridge: The MIT Press. Ashley, Richard. (1984) The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization 38: 225–286. Axelrod, Robert, and Michael Cohen. (1999) Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Free Press. Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. (1962) The Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56: 947–952. Baldwin, David. (1989) Paradoxes of Power. New York: Basil Blackwell. Ball, Terence. (1987) Deadly Hermeneutics. In Idioms of Inquiry, edited by Terence Ball. New York: State University of New York Press. Barker, David C., Jon Hurwitz, and Traci L. Nelson. (2008) Of Crusades and Culture Wars: ‘Messianic’ Militarism and Political Conflict in the United States. Journal of Politics 70 ⁄ 2: 307–322. Baum, Matthew A., and Philip B.K. Potter. (2008) The Relationship Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 39–65. Baumgartner, Jody C., Peter L. Francis, and Jonathan S. Morris (2008) A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly 61 ⁄ 2: 171–179. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. (1998) Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bellin, Eva (2008) Faith in Politics: New Trends in the Study of Religion and Politics. World Politics 60 ⁄ 2: 315–347. 130 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy

Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae (2006) Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36 ⁄ 4: 606–632. Brady, Henry E.(2008) Causation and Explanation in Social Science. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow. (2003) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Cady, Linell E. (2008) Religious Resonances in Bush’s ‘War on Terrorism.’ American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 29 ⁄ 2: 184–204. Carlsnaes, Walter. (1992) The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis. International Studies Quarterly 36: 245–270. Carlson, John D., and Erik C. Owens. (2003) Reconsidering Westphalia’s Legacy for Religion and International Politics. In The Sacred and the Sovereign: Religion and International Politics, edited by John D. Carlson, and Erik C. Owens. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Carr, Edward H.(1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939. New York: Harper & Row. Casanova, Jose. (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chiozza, Giacomo. (2002) Is There a Clash of Civilizations? Evidence from Patterns of International Conflict Involvement, 1946–97. Journal of Peace Research 39 ⁄ 6: 711–734. Collier, David, Henry E. Brady, and Jason Seawright. (2004) Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Collier, David, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, and Philip B. Stark. (2010) Statistical Models and Causal Inference: A Dialogue with the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, Kathleen. (2007) Ideas, Networks, and Islamist Movements: Evidence from Central Asia and the Caucasus. World Politics 60: 64–96. Cummins, Robert. (1983) The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Daalder, Ivo H., and James M. Lindsay. (2003) American Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Doty, Roxanne. (1993) Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines. International Studies Quarterly 37: 297–320. Doyle, Michael. (1986) Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review 80: 1151–1169. Dunn, Charles W.(1984) The Theological Dimensions of Presidential Leadership: A Classification Model. Presidential Studies Quarterly 14 ⁄ 1: 61–72. Elman, Miriam Fendius. (1995) The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard. British Journal of Political Science 25: 171–217. Elman, Miriam Fendius. (2008) Does Democracy Tame the Radicals? Lessons from Israel’s Jewish Religious Political Parties. Asian Security 4 ⁄ 1: 79–99. Elman, Colin, and Miriam Fendius Elman. (eds)(2003) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Elman, Miriam Fendius, and Carolyn M. Warner. (2008) Democracy, Security and Religious Political Parties. Asian Security 4 ⁄ 1: 1–22. Elster, Jon. (1998) A Plea for Mechanisms. In Social Mechanisms, edited by Peter Hedstrom, and Richard Swedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, Peter B., Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam, Eds. (1993) Double-edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Feng, Huiyun. (2007) Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making. New York: Routledge. Fetzer, Joel S., and J. Christopher Soper. (2005) Muslims and the State in Britain, France, and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finnemore, Martha. (1996) Norms, Culture, and World Politics. International Organization 50 ⁄ 2 (Spring): 325–347. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. (2001) Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4: 391–416. Fox, Jonathan. (2001) Religion as an Overlooked Element of International Relations. International Studies Review 3 ⁄ 3: 53–73. Fox, Jonathan. (2008) A World Survey of Religion and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, Jonathan, and Shmuel Sandler. (2004) Bringing Religion Into International Relations. New York: Palgrave. Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 131

Fravel, M. Taylor. (2005) Regime Insecurity and International Cooperation: Explaining China’s Compromises in Territorial Disputes. International Security 30 ⁄ 2: 46–83. Freedman, Amy L.(2009) Political Viability, Contestation and Power: Islam and Politics in Indonesia and Malaysia. Politics and Religion 2 ⁄ 1: 100–127. French, John, and Bertram Raven. (1959) Bases of Social Power. In Studies in Social Power, edited by Dorwin Cartwright. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Friedman, Thomas L.(2010) Letter from Istanbul. New York Times, 15 June. Froese, Paul, and F. Carson Mencken. (2009) A U.S. Holy War? The Effects of Religion on Iraq War Policy Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 90 ⁄ 1: 103–116. Furia, Peter A., and Russell E. Lucas. (2006) Determinants of Arab Public Opinion on Foreign Relations. International Studies Quarterly 50: 585–605. Gehler, Michael, and Wolfram Kaiser. (2003) Toward a ‘Core Europe’ in a Christian Western Bloc: Transnational Cooperation in European Christian Democracy, 1925–1965. In European Christian Democracy. Historical Legacies and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Thomas Kselman, and Joseph A. Buttigieg. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Gill, Anthony. (1998) Rendering Unto Caesar. Church and State in Latin America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gill, Anthony. (2008) The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gill, Anthony, and Arang Keshavarzian. (1999) State Building and Religious Resources: An Institutional Theory of Church-State Relations in Iran and Mexico. Politics & Society 27 ⁄ 3: 431–465. Goldstein, Judith. (1988) Ideas, Institutions and American Trade Policy. International Organization 42 ⁄ 1: 179–217. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane. (1993a) Ideas and Foreign Policy: an Analytical Framework. In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Judith Goldstein, and Robert O. Keohane. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane, (eds)(1993b) Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gourevitch, Peter A.(1986) Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Gourevitch, Peter A., and James Shinn. (2005) Political Power & Corporate Control. The New Global Politics of Corporate Governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gray, Colin S.(1999) Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation Strikes Back. Review of International Studies 25 ⁄ 1: 49–69. Greenstein, Fred. (1987) Personality and Politics (2nd edn).Princeton: Princeton University Press. Grim, Brian J., and Roger Finke. (2007) Religious Persecution in Cross-National Context: Clashing Civilizations or Regulated Religious Economies? American Sociological Review 72: 633–658. Guth, James L.(2004) George W. Bush and Religious Politics. In High Risk and Big Ambition: The Presidency of George W. Bush, edited by Steven E. Schier. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hall, Peter A.(1986) Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanrieder, Wolfram. (1967) Compatibility and Consensus. American Political Science Review 61: 971–982. Hanson, Eric O.(1987) The Catholic Church in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Haynes, Jeffrey. (2008) Religion and Foreign Policy Making in the USA, India and Iran. Third World Quarterly 29 ⁄ 1: 143–165. Hedstrom, Peter, and Richard Swedberg. (1998) Social Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Hehir, J. Bryan. (2006) The Old Church and the New Europe: Charting the Changes. In Religion in an Expanding Europe, edited by Timothy A. Byrnes, and Peter J. Katzenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henderson, Errol A.(1998) The Democratic Peace Through the Lens of Culture, 1820–1989. International Studies Quarterly 42: 461–484. Henderson, Errol A., and Richard Tucker. (2001) Clear and Present Strangers: The Clash of Civilizations and International Conﬂict. International Studies Quarterly 45: 317–338. Hermann, Margaret. (2001) How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy. In Leaders, Groups, and Coali- tions: Understanding the People and Processes in Foreign Policymaking, edited by Margaret Hermann. Oxford: Blackwell. Hopf, Ted. (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security 23 ⁄ 1: 171–200. 132 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy

Houghton, David Patrick. (2007) Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach. Foreign Policy Analysis 3 ⁄ 1: 24–45. Hudson, Valerie. (1999) Cultural Expectations of One’s Own and Other Nation’s Foreign Policy Action Templates. Political Psychology 20: 767–801. Huntington, Samuel P.(1993) The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72 (Summer): 22–49. Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. (2004) The Political Authority of Secularism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 10 ⁄ 2: 235–262. Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. (2006) Negotiating Europe: The Politics of Religion and the Prospects for Turkish Accession. Review of International Studies 32: 401–418. Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. (2008) The Politics of Secularism in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Immergut, Ellen M.(1998) The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism. Politics & Society 26 ⁄ 1: 5–34. Inboden, William Charles. (2008) Religion and American Foreign Policy, 1945–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, Patrick. (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. New York: Routledge. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Benjamin I. Page. (2005) Who Inﬂuences U.S. Foreign Policy? American Political Science Review 99: 107–123. Jelen, Ted G.(1991) The Political Mobilization of Religious Beliefs. New York: Praeger. Jelen, Ted G.(1994) Religion and Foreign Policy Attitudes. American Politics Research 22 ⁄ 3: 382–400. Jelen, Ted G., and Clyde Wilcox, (eds)(2002) Religion and Politics in Comparative Perspective: The One, the Few, and the Many. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jervis, Robert. (1978) Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics 30 ⁄ 2: 167–214. Jervis, Robert. (1997) System Effects. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jervis, Robert. (1999) Realism, Neoliberalism and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate. Interna- tional Security 24 ⁄ 1: 42–63. Johnston, Alastair Iain. (1995a) Thinking about Strategic Culture. International Security 19 ⁄ 4: 32–64. Johnston, Alastair Iain. (1995b) Cultural Realism. Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese His- tory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Johnston, Alastair Iain. (1999). Strategic Cultures Revisited: A Reply to Colin Gray. Review of Inter- national Studies 25 ⁄ 3: 519–523. Kaarbo, Juliet. (1997) Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Political Psychology 18: 553–581. Kaarbo, Juliet, and Ryan K. Beasley. (2008) Taking it to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 4 ⁄ 1: 67–81. Kalyvas, Stathis. (1996) The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kalyvas, Stathis. (2000) Commitment Problems in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Religious Parties. Comparative Politics,32⁄ 4: 379–398. Kant, Immanuel. (1939) Perpetual Peace. Original trans. 1st edn (1796). New York: Columbia University Press. Katzenstein, Peter J.(eds)(1978). Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Katzenstein, Peter J.(1996) Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin. (2003) Institutional Theory as a Research Program. In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman, and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Kniss, Fred, and Paul D. Numrich. (2007) Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engagement. How Religion Matters for America’s Newest Immigrants. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Krasner, Stephen. (1993a) Power, Polarity, and the Challenge of Disintegration. In America and Europe in an Era of Change, edited by Helga Haftendorn, and Christian Tuschoff. Boulder: Westview Press. Krasner, Stephen. (1993b) Westphalia and All That. In Ideas and Foreign Policy, edited by Judith Goldstein, and Robert O. Keohane. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Krasner, Stephen. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kuru, Ahmet T.(2008) Secularism, State Policies, and Muslims in Europe: Analyzing French Exceptionalism. Comparative Politics 41 ⁄ 1: 1–20. Lai, Brian, and Dan Slater. (2006) Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950-1992. American Journal of Political Science 50 ⁄ 1: 113–126. Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 133

Laitin, David. (1986) Hegemony and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakatos, Imre. (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos, and Alan Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lake, David. (1996) Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations. International Organization 50 ⁄ 1: 1–33. Laudan, Larry. (1977) Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press. Laughlin, Robert, David Pines, Joerg Schmalian, Branko Stojkovic, and Peter Wolynes. (2000) The Middle Way. PNAS 97: 32–37. Legro, Jeffrey W.(2005) Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lieberman, Robert C.(2009a) The ‘Israel Lobby’ and American Politics. Perspectives on Politics 7 ⁄ 2: 235–257. Lieberman, Robert C.(2009b) Rejoinder to Mearsheimer and Walt. Perspectives on Politics 7 ⁄ 2: 275–281. Lincoln, Bruce. (2003) Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion after 9 ⁄ 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Little, Daniel. (1991) Varieties of Social Explanation. Boulder: Westview Press. Little, Daniel. (1998) Microfoundations, Method, and Causation. New Brunswick: Transaction. Lozano, Sergi, Alex Arenas, and Angel Sańchez. (2008) Mesoscopic Structure Conditions: the Emergence of Cooperation on Social Networks. PLoS ONE 3 ⁄ 4: e1982. Lu, Yunfeng. (2008) The Transformation of Yiguan Dao in Taiwan. Adapting to a Changing Religious Economy. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield. Mahoney, James. (2008) Towards a Unified Theory of Causality. Comparative Political Studies 41 ⁄ 4–5: 412–436. Malici, Akan. (2006) Germans as Venutians: The Culture of German Foreign Policy Behavior. Foreign Policy Analysis 2: 37–62. Malici, A. (2008a) When Leaders Learn and When They Don’t. Albany: State University of New York Press. Malici, A. (2008b) The Search for a Common European Foreign and Security Policy: Leaders, Cognitions, and Questions of Institutional Viability. New York: Palgrave. Manza, Jeff, and Nathan Wright. (2003) Religion and Political Behavior. In Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by Michele Dillon. New York: Cambridge University Press. McClelland, Charles A.(1966) Theory and the International System. New York: Macmillan. McGowan, Pat, and Stephen G. Walker. (1981) Radical and Conventional Models of U.S. Foreign Economic Policymaking. World Politics 33: 347–382. Mead, Walter Russell. (2006) God’s Country? Foreign Affairs 85 ⁄ 5: 24–43. Mearsheimer, John J.(2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. (2006a) The Israel Lobby. London Review of Books 28 ⁄ 6: 3–12. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. (2006b) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Middle East Policy 13 ⁄ 3: 29–87. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. (2009) The Blind Man and the Elephant in the Room: Robert Lieberman and the Israel Lobby. Perspectives on Politics 7 ⁄ 2: 259–273. Miller, John H., and Scott E. Page. (2007) Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Milner, Helen V.(1997) Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mitchell, Melanie. (2009) Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press. Moravcsik, Andrew. (1993) Introduction: Integrating International and Domestic Theories of International Bargaining. In Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, edited by Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moravcsik, Andrew. (2003) Liberal International Relations Theory: A Scientific Assessment. In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman, and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Morgenthau, Hans J.(1985) Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. 134 Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy

Naoi, Megumi. (2009) Shopping for Protection: The Politics of Choosing Trade Instruments in a Partially Legalized World. International Studies Quarterly 53 ⁄ 2: 421–444. Nelsen, Brent F., James L. Guth, and Cleveland R. Fraser. (2001) Does Religion Matter? Christianity and Public Support for the European Union. European Union Politics 2 ⁄ 2: 191–217. Newell, Allen, and Herbert Simon. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. (2004) Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, Douglass. (1999) Economic Performance Through Time. In The New Institutionalism in Sociology, edited by Marcy C. Brinton, and Victor Nee. New York: Russell Sage. Oren, Ido. (2009) The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism. Perspectives on Politics 7 ⁄ 2: 283–301. Philpott, Daniel. (2000) The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations. World Politics 52: 206–245. Philpott, Daniel. (2001) Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Philpott, Daniel. (2007) Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion. American Political Science Review 101 ⁄ 3: 505–527. Philpott, Daniel. (2009) Has the Study of Global Politics Found Religion? Annual Review of Political Science 12: 183–202. Philpott, Daniel, and Timothy Samuel Shah. (2006) Faith, Freedom and Federation: The Role of Religious Ideas and Institutions in European Political Convergence. In Religion in an Expanding Europe, edited by Timothy A. Byrnes, and Peter J. Katzenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poore, Stuart. (2003) What is the Context? A Reply to the Gray-Johnston Debate on Strategic Culture Review of International Studies 29: 279–284. Putnam, Robert D.(1988) Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42: 427–460. Rakel, Eva Patricia. (2007) Iranian Foreign Policy since the Iranian Islamic Revolution: 1979–2006. Perspective on Global Development and Technology 6: 159–187. Roeder, Philip G.(2003) Clash of Civilizations and Escalation of Domestic Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Comparative Political Studies 36 ⁄ 5: 509–540. Rosenau, James. (1966) Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, edited by R. Barry Farrell. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Rosenson, Beth A., Elizabeth A. Oldmixon, and Kenneth D. Wald. (2009) U.S. Senators’ Support for Israel Examined Through Sponsorship ⁄ Cosponsorship Decisions, 1993–2002: The Influence of Elite and Constituent Factors. Foreign Policy Analysis 5: 73–91. Ruggie, John. (1983) Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity. World Politics 35: 261–285. Russett, Bruce M.(1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Russett, Bruce, John R. Oneal, and Michaelene Cox. (2000) Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism De´ja` Vu? Some Evidence Journal of Peace Research 37 (5): 583–608. Schafer, Mark, and Stephen G. Walker. (2006) Democratic Leaders and the Democratic Peace: The Operational Codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. International Studies Quarterly 50 ⁄ 3: 561–583. Schmidt, Vivien A.(2008) Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326. Shaffer, Brenda, (ed.) (2006) The Limits of Culture. Islam and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: the MIT Press. Sikkink, Kathryn. (1991) Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Simon, Herbert. (1973) The Organization of Complex Systems. In Hierarchy Theory, edited by Howard Pattee. New York: Braziller. Smith, M. Brewster. (1968) A Map for the Analysis of Personality and Politics. Journal of Social Issues 24 ⁄ 3: 15–28. Snyder, Richard C., H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin. (1954) Decision-making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sprecher, Christopher, and Karl DeRouen Jr. (2005) The Domestic Determinants of Foreign Policy Behavior in Middle Eastern Enduring Rivals, 1948–1998. Foreign Policy Analysis 1 ⁄ 1: 121–141. Stinnett, Douglas M.(2007) International Uncertainty, Foreign Policy Flexibility, and Surplus Majority Coalitions in Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution 51 ⁄ 3: 470–495. Stoessinger, John. (1979) Crusaders and Pragmatists. New York: Norton. Thomas, Scott M.(2005) The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations: The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker 135

Trejo, Guillermo. (2009) Religious Competition and Ethnic Mobilization in Latin America: Why the Catholic Church Promotes Indigenous Movements in Mexico. American Political Science Review 103 ⁄ 3: 323–342. Voss, James. (1998) On the Representation of Problems. In Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Deci- sion Making, edited by Donald Sylvan, and James Voss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wald, Kenneth D., Adam L. Silverman, and Kevin S. Fridy. (2005) Making Sense of Religion in Political Life. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 121–143. Walker, Stephen G.(2003) Operational Code Analysis as a Scientiﬁc Research Program: A Caution- ary Tale. In Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, edited by Colin Elman, and Miriam Fendius Elman. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Walker, Stephen G (2004) Role Identities and the Operational Codes of Political Leaders. In Advances in Political Psychology. edited by Margaret Hermann. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Walker, Stephen G.(2007) Generalizing about Security Strategies in the Baltic Sea Region. In Security Strategies, Power Disparity, and Identity, edited by Olaf Knudsen. Burlington: Ashgate. Walt, Stephen M.(2001 ⁄ 02) Beyond Bin Laden. Reshaping U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security 25 ⁄ 3: 56–78. Waltz, Kenneth. (1959) Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, Kenneth N.(1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Warner, Carolyn M.(2000) Confessions of an Interest Group. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Warner, Carolyn M., and Manfred W. Wenner. (2006) Religion and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe. Perspectives on Politics 4 ⁄ 3: 457–479. Wendt, Alexander. (1987) The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization 41: 335–370. Wendt, Alexander. (1992) Anarchy is What States Make of It. International Organization 46 ⁄ 3: 391–425. Wendt, Alexander. (1993) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, Erik. (1978) Class, Crisis, and the State. London: New Left Books. Yavuz, M. Hakan. (2003) Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. New York: Oxford University Press. Yee, Albert S.(1996) The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies. International Organization 50 ⁄ 1: 69–108. Zunes, Stephen. (2005) The Inﬂuence of the Christian Right in U.S. Middle East Policy. Middle East Policy 12 ⁄ 2: 73–78.