بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Divine Diplomacy By Minhas Majeed Khan Marwat

Divine Diplomacy: Post-9/11 Evangelicals’ Impact on Pakistan–United States Relations By Minhas Majeed Khan Marwat

In Divine Diplomacy, I examine the role of religion—particularly American Evangelical Christianity—in shaping United States foreign policy toward Pakistan in the post-9/11 period. I challenge the dominant assumption in International Relations that state behavior is driven primarily by material interests, security calculations, and strategic necessity. Instead, I argue that religious beliefs, faith-based networks, and ideological narratives became significant variables in diplomatic engagement after the attacks of September 11, 2001. In the context of the War on Terror, I show that the United States did not approach Pakistan solely as a geopolitical ally, but also through a moral and religious lens influenced by Evangelical political theology, missionary traditions, and faith-based activism.

I situate this argument within broader debates in International Relations theory, particularly the limitations of classical realism in explaining post-Cold War foreign policy behavior. While realism emphasizes power, security, and national interest, I demonstrate that the post-9/11 environment revealed the growing importance of identity, values, and belief systems in shaping policy choices. I discuss how the rise of religion in global politics, especially in the United States, created space for non-state actors, religious advocacy groups, and faith-based organizations to influence policy discourse. I identify Evangelical communities in the United States—already politically visible in domestic politics—as increasingly active in foreign policy debates concerning democracy promotion, human rights, religious freedom, and engagement with Muslim-majority countries. I use Pakistan as a central case because it was simultaneously a frontline state in the War on Terror, a nuclear-armed Muslim country, and a site where strategic interests intersected with ideological and religious considerations.

A key concept I develop in this study is “divine diplomacy,” by which I refer to diplomatic practice shaped not only by rational calculations but also by moral convictions and religious worldviews. I show how Evangelical actors, faith-based NGOs, congressional advocacy groups, and policymakers influenced by religious beliefs contributed to shaping the language and priorities of U.S. engagement with Pakistan. In my analysis, these influences are visible in humanitarian assistance, development programs, interfaith dialogue initiatives, minority rights advocacy, and debates over religious freedom. I argue that while faith-based actors did not always determine policy outcomes, they affected how issues were framed and what normative expectations were placed upon Pakistan as a partner of the United States.

I further examine how this faith-infused diplomacy interacted with broader structures of American global influence. Drawing on critical International Relations theory, I argue that U.S. power often operates through consensual hegemony, where influence is exercised not only through coercion but also through the promotion of norms, values, and moral narratives that encourage cooperation. I show that Pakistan’s alliance with the United States after 9/11 was shaped by a combination of strategic necessity, economic incentives, diplomatic pressure, and ideological persuasion. In my analysis, American discourse on democracy, moderation, and religious pluralism formed part of a wider effort to align Pakistan with a particular vision of global order. I also demonstrate that this process generated both cooperation and resistance within Pakistan, reflecting tensions between sovereignty, security needs, and domestic political realities.

Another important focus of my work is the impact of U.S. faith-based engagement on internal debates within Pakistan. I analyze how American emphasis on religious freedom, minority protection, and counter-extremism intersected with sensitive questions of national identity, the role of Islam in the state, and civil-military relations. I argue that U.S.–Pakistan relations after 9/11 cannot be understood only as a strategic partnership; they also involved ideological contestation, public diplomacy, and competing narratives about modernity, religion, and global order. In my view, the interaction between Evangelical-influenced U.S. policy and Pakistan’s domestic discourse created a complex relationship in which cooperation coexisted with mistrust and suspicion.

Through this study, I seek to contribute to the growing scholarship that calls for integrating religion into the study of international relations. I show that faith-based actors can function as sources of soft power, shaping perceptions, legitimizing policies, and influencing diplomatic priorities. I also demonstrate that the post-9/11 international environment blurred the boundaries between secular statecraft and religious motivation, particularly in the United States, where domestic religious movements have long played a role in political life. By focusing on Pakistan as a case study, I highlight how these dynamics become especially visible in relations between Western powers and Muslim-majority states.

Overall, I argue that contemporary diplomacy cannot be fully explained without considering the interaction of power, belief, identity, and narrative. In my analysis, U.S.–Pakistan relations after 9/11 were not only the product of strategic calculations, but also of moral language, religious activism, and ideological influence. By bringing religion into the analytical framework of International Relations, I aim to offer a more nuanced understanding of post-Cold War foreign policy and to demonstrate that belief systems remain a consequential force in global politics.

The Pakistan's Bureaucracy including the "Diplomatic Corps" handling "Foreign Affairs" have been inherited from the British Raj and is widely supported by historical analysis (Many books written by Retired Babus narrate facts reflect the same). Upon independence in 1947, Pakistan adopted the British Indian administrative structure, rules, regulations, and trained human resources to establish its civil service.

Pakistan inherited the cadre-based system of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). The elite Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP), which dominated the initial decades of administration, was a direct descendant of the ICS. The colonial bureaucracy was designed as a "Babu Culture" and "Authority" for control and stability rather than "service delivery" (for service of nation or common man), a legacy that continued post-independence. This resulted in an overdeveloped bureaucratic state that held more power than newly formed democratic political institutions.

Foreign Service and Diplomatic Corps in early Pakistan was composed of officials with extensive experience in the British Indian system. The Foreign Office (initially known as the Ministry of External Affairs) started functioning in Karachi in August 1947 using this legacy personnel and structure.

The early foreign policy apparatus was heavily influenced by colonial-era ties, which facilitated close ties with the UK, including security and intelligence links (like the creation of the ISI) and the adoption of a pro-Western policy during the Cold War. Later on, after the murder of PM Khan Liaquat Ali Khan, the Foreign Service and Diplomatic Corps continued the love affair with UK but gradually shifted its direction towards USA (Read Ayub Khan and ZA Bhutto) and landed securely in Uncle Sam's Lap under Gen Zia Martial Law.

While these systems were inherited, Pakistan’s bureaucracy evolved to become highly centralized compared to its Indian counterpart, reflecting the need to manage a new state, though it often operated with the same "colonial-style" distance from public affairs. while Indians became Hindu Babus (RSS Controlled) Pakistanis Babus (All Kinds and Types) remained firmly detached away from religion (After Gen Zia, some told proudly that they offered prayers without Wazoo). They preferred to be called "liberals or enlightened moderates" (Recall Gen PM Era). In short, religion was never a strong reference for Pakistan's bureaucracy including diplomatic corps.

Despite Pakistan being created in the name of Islam, religion was not a foundational, everyday operational reference for its bureaucracy and diplomatic corps, often acting more as a symbolic, political tool or foreign policy instrument rather than a source of administrative law. While the state was formed on Islamic identity, the bureaucracy retained largely colonial-era, secular structures for decades. Key points regarding the role of religion in Pakistan's bureaucracy:-

Initial Secular Structure: Early state leadership, heavily influenced by the bureaucracy and military, did not initially make religion a cornerstone of administrative functioning.

Minimal Practical Impact: Studies on public administration in Pakistan indicate that religion has historically had minimal impact on daily operations, with bureaucrats often operating under professional, not religious, frameworks.

Political Instrumentality: Religion has been used more as an instrument for policy, such as navigating relations with the Islamic world, rather than influencing the core functioning of the diplomatic service.

Shift Over Time: Increased reliance on religious narrative in state affairs, including foreign policy, was a gradual, politically driven process that increased significantly under the Zia regime rather than being foundational in the early, civil-service led era.

While Islam has been used by political elites to legitimize authority and has played a growing role in the country's ideology over time, it did not dictate the day-to-day work of the administrative machinery; including diplomatic corps. (Here, we must remember and remind all and sundry that Pakistan was established on the basis of "Islamic Ideology" and country is supposed to be an Ideal Islamic State based on Quran and Sunnah). However, the whole process of induction, application, performance and promotion of Pakistan's bureaucracy including diplomatic corps lack religious meaning and significance. Therefore, one may see complete confusion and disaster in foreign policies, if USA and West adopt and formant religion in its decision making.