Gina Edwards

Essay #2

10-14-2008

“What might be the difference between a foreign policy driven by God and one devoid of such
reference?”

During the infant years of my social studies education, basic ideas about democracy,

government, and voting were ingrained in me. As I learned more in middle and high school I

gradually began to realize that such apparent simplicities were far more complex and often

contradictory of my past lessons.

As I became cognizant of the murky line that separates church and state, I began to

ponder the actual bias of our government. The War on Terror has been classified as a quest for

justice, with God on our side. In fact, “Bush initially described the U.S. response to the terrorist

attacks as a crusade (Marsden 221).” God clearly has an influence upon American foreign

policy, yet the rest of the world does not necessarily follow this method. Thus, it is imperative

that we analyze a couple of the differences between the U.S.’s God-driven foreign policy, and

other nations who espouse a more secular approach.

What is the primary difference between these countries? The first of these disparities lies

in a basic attitude toward other global cultures. America’s viewpoint supports the notion of a

superior Christian faith, and tends to draw from the proselytizing Protestant doctrine. The U.S.

seeks to educate and convert the rest of the world. Fareed Zakaria comments upon this in his

book The Post American World, noting that “historically, countries influenced by Christianity

and Islam have developed an impulse to spread their views and convert people to their faith… In
the case of Britain and the United States, perhaps because they have been so powerful, the

Protestant sense of purpose at the core of their foreign policies has made a deep mark on global

affairs (Zakaria 112).”

Citing Iraq as an example, it is evident that spreading democracy remains the goal of

United States international policy. Although the U.S. does not necessarily impress religion upon

the Iraqis, it still creates a governmental infrastructure there that mirrors its own. Furthermore,

Bush’s speeches have been filled with “dichotomous rhetoric that contrasted goodness and evil,

darkness and light, a sense of higher calling (Marsden 222).” Even though the president’s faith

does not resonate within the entire nation, his God-inspired ideas are still used as justification for

such actions as the invasion of Iraq.

The American method of conquer and convert can be contrasted against other countries

without this purpose, such as China. Zakaria shares his views concerning Chinese foreign policy,

as he claims that “simply being China, and becoming a world power, in a sense fulfills its

historical purpose. It doesn’t need to spread anything to anyone to vindicate itself (Zakaria 112).”

Obviously, China has a different set of goals in mind as it rises to the top of the global scale.

Unlike the U.S., it does not feel a need to change another culture’s school of thought in order to

conquer them.

With a godless outlook, countries like China would not necessarily feel the moral

obligation of setting up a working bureaucracy in Iraq like the U.S. does. The U.S. has not

withdrawn from Iraq because it has not completely constructed a fully functional democracy.

Even though it has accomplished such goals as investigating the presence of WMD’s and

eliminating a harsh dictator, Saddam Hussein, the United States does not feel that its mission is

complete.
 Another notable difference between God-based countries like the United States and

secular countries like China is simply the manner in which they choose to envision and interpret

foreign affairs with the rest of the globe and the potential for success. It has been noted that

“Bush signaled a change in foreign policy emphasis from pragmatic realism to idealism

(Marsden 223).” Countries that think idealistically tend to have higher expectations and loftier

goals concerning possible outcomes in foreign diplomacy. Once again referencing the Iraq war,

one may notice that the steadfast and stubborn nature of U.S. presence may reflect this idealistic

premise. A long held viewpoint of George W. Bush and other conservatives has been to “stay the

course” and not back down until a thriving democracy is handled by the Iraqis and continued

without U.S. assistance.

On the other hand, China’s stance is based from principles that encourage reasoning and

logic over deistic standards. For example, Chinese policy is often derived from Confucianism,

which is not a religion but instead a way of thinking and behaving that promotes “ethics,

morality and justice (Zakaria 111).” China’s mind-set deviates from America’s in that it is far

more realistic and does not hold grandiose expectations.

This pragmatism is reflected in the Chinese stance on human rights. It does not hold them

as a top priority when it comes to issues within its own country, and international affairs. In fact,

“when asked about issues like human rights, some younger Chinese officials will admit that

these are simply not their concerns- as if they see these as luxuries they cannot afford (Zakaria

109).” Admissions like these from high ranking Chinese officials would alarm the average

American, who most often holds the rights of the individual as a necessary consideration when

dealing with any circumstance. Therefore, the absence of an all-powerful deity in the realm of

Chinese thinking leaves a tremendous gap in comparison to the United States.

 The differences between a God-based foreign policy and a secular one are potentially

endless. Two distinct representative examples of these standpoints are the U.S. and China, and

after analyzing some of the actions and beliefs of these two countries, it is easy to see how they

deviate from one another. Interestingly enough, both countries hold the first and second spot

when it comes to success globally, and their differences in foreign policy may or may not play a

role in this fact. Ultimately, the policy of these two countries may be vastly different, but both

must find a way to continue thriving in this evolving, globalizing world.

Works Cited

Marsden, Lee. For God’s Sake. New York: Zed Books, 2008.

Zakaria, Fareed. The Post American World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2008.