Religion is largely ignored from foreign policy and from literature about how foreign policy should be determined. Religious freedom is likewise for the most part ignored and sidelined. Most countries where religion is a factor in foreign policy are promoting a particular religion rather than religious freedom. Those counties that don’t promote a particular religion lump religious freedom in with all other kinds of human rights and religious freedom even within human rights is often considered behind issues such as freedom from repression and freedom of speech. It is bolted on to speeches and initiatives, the White House has mentioned freedom of religion several hundred times over the last decade, about freedom generally but never considered important in its own right.

Religion and religious freedom have however been moving up the international affairs agenda in large part as a result of the attacks on 9/11. Even before the attack on the world trade center religion was becoming a factor in conflicts around the world. In his well-known book ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ Samuel Huntingdon divided the world into nine civilizations that are in large part defined by their religion, particularly notable in his use of Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic to name four of the civilizations. Equally however Latin American might be defined by Catholicism, Japanese by its Shinto/Buddhist hybrid and Sinic by Confucianism.

When Huntingdon was writing conflict over religion was already a major factor in numerous conflicts, most notably in the former Yugoslavia. So the question is whether states should move religion, and particularly religious freedom, to the centre of their foreign policies from the margins.

William Inboden defines religious freedom violations as “coercive restrictions on the liberty of individuals and communities to believe and practice their chosen faith.” And highlights that we are not just looking at states but “In practice, a vast range of entities and regime types restrict religious freedom, including national and local governments, majority religious groups, and nonstate actors such as terrorist organizations.” This in itself provides problems as foreign relations are often considered to be simply state to state and any attempt to influence groups within a state is a violation of sovereignty.