For much of the modern history of international relations, religion remained largely outside the centre of strategic debate. The famous settlement of Westphalia in 1648 is associated with setting theology aside from institutional diplomacy and matters of statecraft. This approach was eventually adopted by both realists and liberals.
This significant shift in international affairs was based on the rationale that religion was a private matter. It was treated as a residual variable for anthropologists to discuss, rather than a factor for strategists and policymakers to consider.
In 1994, Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson published Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft. Their work urged policymakers to reconsider religion as an integral variable that had been stripped away from the conduct of statecraft.
Following Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis, Scott Thomas wrote about a “global resurgence of religion”. The debate then began to shift. Religion was no longer viewed simply as a private matter or a distinct secular paradigm.
This clearly showed that the debate had moved on. Religion clearly mattered. But the central question became: who would shape its influence first?
Would it be the peacemakers who want to build bridges, or the extremists who want to burn them?
The answer to this question has come neither from hegemonic states nor from great powers. It has not even come from the traditional centres of peace in Europe. Instead, a middle power, Astana, has raised the issue through the Secretariat of the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions.
It is not wrong to say that Astana is doing something different from what others have done. The main distinction between interfaith conferences around the world and the Astana process is that it has built an institution around the event.
This institutional structure adds greater validity to its core agenda. It is also one reason why the process has survived while many similar initiatives have not.
Another important reason for its success is the establishment of a permanent Secretariat. Participants created the Secretariat after the first conference to sustain the work between successive gatherings.
The origins of this conference also have a special context. The 9/11 terrorist attacks created discord among religions and civilizations. Kazakhstan took the initiative by presenting itself as neutral ground. It offered a balance between being a Muslim-majority country and having a large Orthodox Christian population.
At first, it was not wrong to label this as nation branding and an effort to polish Kazakhstan’s international image. However, it is important to understand that, somewhere along the way, this branding turned into something more substantive over two decades of changing politics.
So, the main question is: what has the Secretariat actually done?
Critically evaluating its work, the Secretariat not only conceived a Council of Religious Leaders but also established the International Center for Interfaith and Interreligious Dialogue. Its objective is to prevent the work from being impeded between congresses.
What is most impressive about its functioning is its long-term approach. It develops ideas with decades in mind rather than news cycles. Its working framework revolves around nine core principles of cooperation.
That is how strategic bodies operate, rather than ceremonial gatherings.
Moreover, the conference is headed by Ashimbayev, the Speaker of Kazakhstan’s Senate. This demonstrates the significance of the project as part of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy.
Similarly, the conference’s ability to bring people together cannot be brushed aside. At the eighth congress, 100 delegations from 60 different countries and faiths were brought together under one roof.
These included Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Daoism, Zoroastrianism and Shintoism.
President Tokayev discussed matters of faith and politics with the patriarchs of Russia, as well as Israel’s two Chief Rabbis, Kalman Ber and David Yosef. He also engaged with delegations from Jerusalem during the same week.
The question is worth asking: in all these years, how many places in the world have been able to host all these people together at once without the entire process falling apart in mutual accusations?
Critical analysis raises the objection that such conferences and declarations are unable to halt wars. Such an objection is valid. However, that is not the right criterion for judging the success of an institution of this nature.
The right way to evaluate Track Two diplomacy is to examine how it keeps channels open when states close official ones. Another measure is how norms between states are shaped through such processes.
Considering these two important points, Astana has been able to deliver more than many others.
We need to understand that religion can act as a glue. The words of religious leaders can also carry greater meaning in distant places where statements from foreign ministries may hold little significance.
The Secretariat is developing norms gradually through regular meetings rather than trying to enforce policies in a single setting. Under the constructivist lens, this is how norms and policies can gradually become integrated into societies.
If we track the 2025 agenda, the conference was not only about tolerance among religions. It covered varied themes, including the ethics of the digital age, the impact of artificial intelligence on societies, and ways to counter extremism, radicalism and intolerance.
That is a true picture of a forum that balances rapidly changing global dynamics without simply repeating the same old slogans.
It is not wrong to say that the Astana Secretariat has been quite successful in closing the institutional gap. The proposal for the ninth Congress in Astana is already in process.
Moreover, it has called on the UN General Assembly to acknowledge its 20-year contribution to dialogue and harmony among religions.
Nowadays, the world is facing enormous challenges to its survival. The future of coming generations depends on our ability to live in harmony.
This remains the basic motive behind the Secretariat’s work and Kazakhstan’s leadership in the process.
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance journalist and Executive Director of Think Tank YFK.
