Everybody knows it: the EU is a secular institution, which doesn’t have legal competence in religious matters. Moreover, its cooperation with non-state actors is based on the principle of non-discrimination, meaning that the EU should not discriminate any actor on the basis of its secular or religious nature. I was reminded of these two EU fundaments several times during interviews with EU officials last and this year.

In reality, is the separation between the EU and religion that clear? My experience is that while separation seems to be the case on paper and in many policy areas, there are also indications of emerging patterns of timid cooperation between EU institutions and religious actors, both religious leaders and grassroots representatives, in internal and external EU policies. However, this knowledge doesn’t seem to be fully acknowledged, internalised, nor reflected upon in current EU policy-making.

In a report on the cooperation between the European Commission and religious peacebuilding NGOs (2008), I found out that the Commission had cooperated with faith-based actors since at least the 1980s, particularly by providing funding to development projects related to post-conflict reconstruction. The cooperation was not limited to external policy only. In the 1990s, former Commission President Jacques Delors gave impetus to the EU’s dialogue with different religious and philosophical associations through the initiative “A Soul for Europe”. This somewhat structured dialogue was the precedent for the EU’s annual dialogue meetings with religious leaders, which have taken place since 2005. With the Lisbon Treaty ratified, the EU commits itself to “maintain an open transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations”, while respecting their status under national law.

Ambiguous or ambitious? At its best, the EU’s relationship with religious actors is fumbling, with policy focus mainly on the internal aspect of intercultural/-religious dialogue. But what about extending, in more systematic fashion, the EU’s cooperation with religious actors to its external policies, to the prevention and reconciliation of violent conflicts? What would such a religious sensitive approach resemble?

First of all, it needs to be emphasised that religious sensitivity does not mean the fact of discriminating or neglecting other (f)actors. It is obvious that the EU should promote inclusive peacebuilding policies, involving women, youth, civil society, minority groups, etc. However, what this concept does mean is that constructive results could be achieved, if there were knowledge about the vast religious sources of values, symbols, and beliefs that may influence people’s perceptions and behaviour – otherwise, how could one understand the potential religious dimension in violent conflicts and peacebuilding efforts alike?

In practice, a religious sensitive approach would mean that the EU supported and undertook research, policy-making and practise in the emerging field of religious peacebuilding and identified best practices, e.g. guidelines, for policy action in Brussels and in delegations/embassies in third countries. With the establishment of the new European External Action Service, there would be a window opportunity for creating an adviser position in charge of the religious dimensions of conflict and peacebuilding.

The EU has shown gender sensitivity by mainstreaming gender into CFSP- and ESDP- structures, and by developing relevant guidelines in this regard. Is this perhaps a discriminatory policy then? The simple answer is: no. The EU is ready to develop sensitive approaches when it is sexy and publicly well-received. Perhaps developing a religious sensitive approach is not that sexy, but it certainly is innovative, and more importantly, timely and necessary in today’s complex societies. By neglecting an important factor like religion or value systems in policy analysis, the EU will not be able to formulate relevant policy responses to contemporary challenges. Therefore, developing a religious sensitive approach is not an impossible equation – it is rather inevitable.