For a long time, the United States positioned itself as the leader of religious freedom. Considering that the right of every individual to choose their own religion automatically derived from human rights, they made it a hallmark of their identity, which they perfectly tied to their own interests. This sometimes backfired and harmed their international image. However, faced with the authoritarianism surrounding religious practices in certain countries, the tools they have equipped themselves with now allow them to once again position themselves as the leader in religious diplomacy.

The history of the United States cannot be separated from its religious dimension. The very construction of the nation occurred following religious persecutions. However, in its early years, it was difficult to speak of religious freedom, as Puritan immigration consisted of legendary intolerance. American immigration was initially the result of the existence of a religious sanctuary before becoming an economic ideal. Added to this dimension is the deep-seated conviction that the American population is blessed by God. An exceptionalism enshrined in the founding texts of the young nation, foremost among which is the Constitution. America, long a promised land for Protestants, becomes one for all believers. The need for labor and the westward rush then reinforce this notion of exceptionalism, characteristic of American identity and experience. The superiority of the American model will henceforth be defined in opposition to that of the old European nations, whose nationalisms persist and still mistreat certain faiths.

THE COLD WAR PUTS RELIGIOUS DIPLOMACY AT THE FOREFRONT

The Cold War will materialize the American nation's desire to position itself as a global leader in defending religious freedom. The ideological confrontation of the two blocs is played out on all fronts, including the religious one. The Federal Government takes up the defense of religious persecution worldwide, ideologically, but mostly out of interest.

The significant geopolitical events of the Cold War possess a religious dimension that the United States integrates into its fight against communism. Thus, the Communist takeover in China will highlight the persecution of Christians in the country, which will contribute, among other things, to significantly slowing down the recognition of the People's Republic by the United Nations, and therefore its place as a permanent member of the Security Council. In the same vein, the Korean War contributes to the implantation of Christianity in the South, even favoring the establishment and emancipation of cults, including the most famous, the Unification Church, which exports to Japan in the early 1960s. In Afghanistan, during the Soviet military intervention of 1979, the military and financial support of the United States to various mujahideen factions is estimated, over the ten years of the war, at about 2.44 billion dollars, a considerable aid that consolidated a significant number of groups fighting against Soviet influence but also against other Afghan groups. This dollar support, considered indispensable by Washington, leads to the strengthening of jihadism and the terrorist threat, notably the one that struck the United States on September 11, 2001.

Religious freedom as a human right was largely a moral argument tool used both to expand American influence and to reduce that of its Soviet adversary.

The American desire to support and promote religious freedom in the world stems from the strong link between this defense and that of human rights. The institutionalization of international relations marked the twentieth century with a common desire to move towards peace, particularly after the horrors of World War II. From its origins to the creation (under its influence) of a true architecture of international cooperation, the American nation has sought to establish diplomacy that also focused on religious freedom as a human right, although this, sometimes dubbed "spiritual diplomacy," was largely a moral argument tool used both to expand its influence and to reduce that of its Soviet adversary.

Additionally, the country has sometimes made the mistake of diminishing the significance of the religious context in the conduct of aggressive foreign policy. For example, when the revolution erupted in Iran, the United States underestimated the power of a deeply rooted religious tradition in society. In Vietnam too, the American Congress and Government have shown a certain "indifference" towards religious matters, in a society where Vietnamese Buddhism is considered a national religion. When the Saigon government, supported by the Americans, oppresses monks and engages in fierce repression against them, it goes without saying that this fuels the resentment and hatred already prevalent towards their allies. Finally, the considerable aid provided to Israel since the 1970s-80s under the impetus of evangelical groups, to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian population, continues to tarnish the image of the United States today.

AFTER "SECULAR MYOPIA," THE RENEWAL OF RELIGIOUS DIPLOMACY

In 1998, prompted by Christian groups outraged by religious persecution in Sudan, Congress unanimously passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), initiated by the Clinton administration, which annually establishes a report on the state of religious freedom in the world. A means of bringing religious issues back to the diplomatic table, as, since the fall of the USSR, diplomats have been urged not to engage in them.

After September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush understood the challenges of public diplomacy directed towards the Middle East. His diplomacy then consists of communicating the values that make the United States an attractive country for all. It is defined by the contribution of powerful soft power, symbolized by culture, sports, art but in the specific case of the Middle East, by highlighting the freedom of worship enjoyed by American Muslims.

In his approach to defending national interests and national security, in a new conception of leadership born of its manifest destiny, and faced with the immeasurable religious force that weighs on domestic issues, it seems that no federal administration, whatever it may be, can free itself from the religious issues that punctuate the international scene. While American diplomats have long been concerned about this, the issue of the First Amendment to the Constitution does not seem to be an insurmountable obstacle, as the judiciary has provided few concrete answers to the question.

Beyond its contribution to the defense of human rights, the IRFA has thus strengthened the soft power of the United States by demonstrating their commitment to universal values and by fortifying a moral credibility undermined by military operations, notably in the Middle East. Through this law, they position themselves as defenders of religious freedom, gain influence with populations and religious organizations worldwide, and redefine religious dialogue, through an approach substantially different from promoting American values with millions of dollars.

The International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998 is therefore widely hailed as an important initiative to promote religious freedom within American diplomacy. However, this legislation also raises questions about its effectiveness, selective application, and impact on the international scene. Accusations of interference are also numerous.

A MEANS TO COMBAT AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES?

The strong division between Democrats and Republicans on many internal and external issues does not seem, for the moment at least, to divide the question of religious freedom.

The defense of US interests and religious freedom constitute a remarkable foundation for Congress, the herald of American foreign policy. Its two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives, have since the beginning of the 21st century been the marker of what some have called the "Disunited States of America." The strong division between Democrats and Republicans on many internal and external issues does not seem, for the moment at least, to divide the question of religious freedom. Because it is predominant in the lives of citizens, because it is linked to the very foundation of the nation, it represents a significant power for the conduct of a new diplomacy in the face of US adversaries, with China and Russia leading the way.

In the occupied territories of Donbass and Zaporizhia, there are no longer any Catholic priests, and the Greek Catholic Church is now banned.

In Russia, the map of religious persecution is to be linked to the invasion of Ukraine launched in February 2022. The Orthodox Church serves as a relay for the state to unify the nation around power, and while officially, other faiths are respected, their missionaries are regularly harassed, notably by an anti-terrorism law presented to the Duma in 2016. In the occupied territories of Donbass and Zaporizhia, there are no longer any Catholic priests, and the Greek Catholic Church is now banned. In China, persecutions against Uighurs or Catholics mark the "atheist" authoritarianism of the People's Republic Government.

In the complex sphere of American diplomacy, the religious aspect has gained importance in recent decades and represents both an axis of American exceptionalism, a soft power tool, and a possible common ground between the two major political parties. In this context, non-governmental religious organizations play a significant role in its consolidation within American diplomacy, by exploiting the links between religious actors to promote peace and stability. As independent actors, they have the ability to transcend political and cultural boundaries through a global religious network. But it is especially their involvement in humanitarian, development, and conflict resolution projects that allows the United States to project positive soft power by highlighting universal values.

WHAT PLACE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WITHIN THE DIPLOMATIC APPARATUS?

The US government has a substantial and unmatched arsenal allowing it to incorporate the religious domain into its diplomacy. This arsenal, significantly strengthened for a few years now, comes into consideration in the objective of US foreign policy. Under President Joe Biden, light has been shed on the desire to lead the democratic world, regardless of economic differences. Because, faced with the rise of China, the primary obsession of various American administrations, the 46th president expressed his desire to confront by grouping behind him countries that share American aspirations and values. He does not want a demarcation of "West versus the rest" but rather "axis of democracies versus autocracies." Defending human rights and thus the right to freedom of worship could prove to be a decisive aid in this approach.

American diplomacy must necessarily present itself as a "whole" that cannot ignore certain elements that could compose it, at the risk of derailing it.

This restructuring of alliances desired by Joe Biden is a kind of response to the denial of democracy in certain countries. If this has not waited for the 21st century to falter, the novelty lies in the fact of a narrative version that "officializes" its decline. Thus, if China and Russia have decided to modify the world order, meaning the end of American hegemony, it is not by directing their policies towards more democracy, but rather by broadening control over populations, strengthening security tools, and putting an end to the dominance of the dollar in the global economy. In this sense, American diplomacy must necessarily present itself as a "whole" that cannot ignore certain elements that could compose it, at the risk of derailing it.

The religious dimension of international issues fits perfectly into globalization. For a long time, specialists believed that it would fade in favor of stronger interdependence, social mix, and cultural blending. This has not been the case. Globalization has largely facilitated a more mixed religious landscape, which has been reinforced by international play. September 11, 2001 brutally marked the end of the "unipolar illusion," in which the United States would dominate the path to democracy. A democracy that they sometimes tried to import in the harshest way possible. However, this approach only served to fuel an already strong and perfectly misunderstood anti-Americanism in Washington.