The Church in the community of nations

This is the reason why the Holy See is present within the diplomatic framework of the community of nations  –the only religious, not political, institution therein. «Reawake and inspire consciences», this is the task of the Church’s international agenda, according to Mamberti. The Social Doctrine of the Church, in fact, is rooted in the heart of man. As is the Charter of the United Nations. In the preamble of the Charter, the founders of the United Nations reaffirmed «faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small». The choice of the word «faith» is revealing. Faith makes reference to  deeply held beliefs. So, the United Nations is based on this faith in man’s rights that all peoples can relate to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

Mamberti explains that «the Holy See has always worked to uphold the centrality of the human person. This vision comes from the human person’s true nature. No one should lose sight of the basic principle that man is at the center of the concerns of the international community».

The Church’s struggles

Mamberti presents an example. He remembers the Church’s struggles for life, he underlines that «even if the right to life is affirmed, it is also ever increasingly questioned. It suffices to think about the debate on abortion, on human embryo experimentations, on euthanasia. Countries speak about “reproductive health” euphemistically. And “to die with dignity” is just a slogan to support euthanasia. It is very important to be alert to defend the right to life».

The Holy See diplomatic work is never ending, and it is always more sophisticated. Diplomacy must «fight» a change of vocabulary that Silvano Maria Tomasi, permanent observer of the Holy See to the UN office in Geneva, described as the change of a way of thinking: «The change of the vocabulary –Tomasi wrote –  began with the sexual revolution of 1968 and asserted itself after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989». It was then that the two blocks of the Cold War were replaced by a plurality of actors in the international scenario. «In this new situation – Tomasi explained in a debate on February 17, 2011– the United Nations felt freer.  Moreover: they felt charged with the specific mission to promote practical priorities that – according to the advisors involved – would have led to a more rightful and free world.»

From 1989 on, the new language to sustain this mission has been built up on a series of «key words»: human globalization, sustainable development, good governance, world ethic, cultural diversity, dialogue among civilizations, quality of life, gender, equal opportunities, homophobia, sexual orientation, safe abortion, future generation rights, non-governmental organization, partnerships, civil society, participative democracy, transnational networks, consensus building, inclusive approach, agent-actor of social transformation, best practices, sexual and reproductive rights, right to choose, equal commerce, diverse forms of family.

On the other hand, the words that belong to the Christian-Judaic tradition are excluded, or even tend to disappear: truth, morality, conscience, reason, earth, will, parents, spouse, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, chastity, complementariness, service, authority, hierarchies, law, commandment, dogma, sin, nature, marriage.

The Church’s new (and old) challenges

This new vocabulary is – Tomasi explained – «a mix of words of authentic human aspirations and values with words that represent an individualistic ideology taken to the limit. The latter inspires and guides the managers of world governance. This is how we get to a systematic and lasting transition of words in the documents of the United Nations: from government to governance, from authority to autonomy and rights of the individuals, from spouse to partner, from happiness to quality of life, from given to built, from family to family in all of its forms, from dignity sufferance to the right to die, from majority decision to consensus, from dogma to freedom of interpretation.»

The language of specialized fields also evolved: the Holy See path to financial transparency forced Holy See officials to come to terms with the terminology of international financial law. How to be a «secure» country in the community of nations was the most important topic during the talks with MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the financial adherence of the member States.

Nevertheless, the diplomatic contributions of the Holy See, disseminated like gems inserted in several international documents, gave its fruits. For example, the right to assistance for victims of cluster bombs was a struggle fought by the Holy See in the drafting of the International Convention in Dublin in 2008. The Cluster Munition Convention was signed in Oslo at the end of 2008.

Mamberti reminded the students of Studium Aquinatis that «the Holy See has always been active in the diplomatic front of disarmament. The Holy See was among the founding members of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in 1957, which goal is to limit, reduce and eliminate nuclear armaments and to facilitate the shared use of atomic energy for pacific purposes. The Holy See has been and is among the countries that negotiated the treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as other related international conventions and treaties. With regards to cluster bombs, the Holy See was one of the most active States: I personally signed on behalf of the Holy See the adhesion to the Convention and I deposited the ratification documents on the first day it was possible in Oslo on December 2008. The Holy See wanted to send a signal to the international community».

A piece of the history of the negotiations of the Cluster Munitions Convention shows the struggles the Holy See is facing in the international arena. After gaining acknowledgement for the right of victims to be assisted, a delegation wanted to amend the paragraph concerning this right, asking that the assistance needed to be «gender sensitive». The Holy See was very aware of  this: from this addition, each country could be forced to be «gender sensitive» and to develop legislation for a new kind of «health care system» – this process is called “soft law”. This is why the Holy See  worked in order to make clear that everything was applied according to the legislation of each State. It is the same reason why the Holy See did not want to sign the document for the UN declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, thus becoming the target of international complaints. It was not because the Holy See is against «LGBT rights». The Holy See maintains that, already, the Universal Human Rights Declaration covers all human beings. The so-called «gender sensitivity», or the declaration on decriminalization of homosexuality, would in some ways assess that there are men that are more equal than other men. The question is: why to state the need to decriminalize the homosexuality, why to have anti-homophobic law, when Universal Righet already protect all the human beings from every discrimination?

The Church’s struggle for human rights

The Holy See cares deeply about human rights. The concern for religious freedom has always been one of the core commitments of the Holy See. «Christians or other believers – Mamberti says – are persecuted and discriminated in subtle ways, and this happens when religious freedom is reduced to freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. Religious freedom does not only deal with a personal religious component, it also deals with community». Mamberti recalled that «John Paul II said that religious freedom is the litmus test of human rights. Where religious freedom is under threat, all human rights are under threat. I can assure you that defending religious freedom is the main task of the Holy See, and this brings benefits not only to Christians and Catholic believers, but to all believers.»

The human person is at the core of the Holy See International agenda. That is why the Holy See is committed to the common good. «Human rights – Mamberti says – are a common patrimony to defend, without any alteration. Fundamental rights are not the fruit of a consensus or of majorities, they do not come from the State or from any other human institution. Human rights are part of the human being: they are  a gift  that God gave to humanity».

Recently, the Church has been accused of being a champion of a New World Order, because of the recent reflections of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace about an «authority with universal competences», a super partes international organization to regulate international finance and also the relations among States in order to get to the Common Good – as John XXIII put it in Pacem in Terris. Is this authority a sort of great Leviathan? Or is international finance the Leviathan, as msgr. Mario Toso, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, maintained? The United Nations seems to aim to a New World Order, and this is the reason why it is creating – in its documents – a sort of new anthropology.

A book has been published in Italy that brings to light for the first time in a direct and detailed way the anti-Catholic aversion of the UN and the EU: «Contro il cristianesimo. L’ONU e l’Unione Europea come nuova ideologia  [Against Christianity: The UN and the European Union as a New Ideology] », by Eugenia Roccella and Lucetta Scaraffia.  In the introduction to the volume, Roccella and Scaraffia identify the roots of the new ideology as the «separation between sexuality and procreation». «More –they write– than a different model of sexual behavior, but conceptually analogous to those that have preceded it in history, this is a question of a real and true utopia, because it is based upon the idea that human beings can find happiness in the realization of their sexual desires, without the moral, biological, social, and relational limitations linked to procreation. This utopia has its roots in the sexual revolution in the West during the 1960′s, and it has not yet been disputed, even though it seems not to have kept its promises. It is a utopia that echoes another, one that brings painful memories: that the selection of new human beings can create a better, more healthy, more beautiful humanity».

It is not just a matter of words. It is a matter of ideology. The conceptual scenario has its own dynamics, and this leads to concrete transformations in several branches of social and political life. Religious freedom and the way it has been handled is an example. An approach to religious freedom linked to intolerance was first included in the Declaration on the principles of Tolerance of UNESCO in 1995 and was then promoted in the Resolution 2004/36, adopted in the 60th session of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 2004. A new chapter was then opened with resolution 61/164 (Combating the defamations of religions), adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations December, 19th, 2006. In that resolution, religion is used to limit other basic freedoms (the right to freedom of expression) and to oppress religious minorities when some impose with force and terrorism their religious ideologies, and deny a place in the public sphere to others’ faith and beliefs.

As always, one should look back in time. It was in 1981 – when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief – that the concept of tolerance  was placed side by side to religion or belief. «But tolerance – Tomasi explained – is a tool, not a right. In fact, while with religious freedom we mean the guarantee of Government that individuals have freedom of belief and the guarantee of freedom of worship for individuals and groups – including the freedom not to believe in any god– religious tolerance is about accepting or permitting beliefs or religious practices that are different from one’s own.»

These are just some of the hurdles the Holy See faces in its commitment to the Common Good. A commitment that comes out from believing in the inherent dignity of human beings. The same belief that the founders of the United Nations identified in reaffirming «faith» in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

Vatican sidelined

Churches commitment for the ATT was strong. The last week WCC joint appeal reminded all that saving human lives is the most visible and concrete aim of the ATT.  And saving human lives is the reason why the Holy See – which has always been committed to policies and negotiations for disarmament – decided to take part in the drafting of the ATT.  In the end, the Treaty is the «least bad» solution, a hurdle on the path to integral disarmament, which is the great utopian ideal of the Church. A «utopian ideal» that is not an unreachable goal: on the basis of the Social Doctrine of the Church and comprehensive human development, step by step, the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement has been able to achieve important milestones.  It is a path toward the «disarmament of the heart», the necessary pre-condition to reach full disarmament. In fact, Holy See did not have such a considerable weight in the U.N. conference, because of a tense debate over the seating of a Palestinian representative, which was fiercely opposed by Israel and the US. The Palestinian Liberation Organization has observer status at the UN, as does the Holy See. The dispute was eventually resolved when both Palestinian and Vatican delegates agreed to accept lesser status, making them able to participate in the discussions, but not as recognized members.

ATT, a least bad solution

That the ATT is for the Catholic Church the lesser evil solution is clear in the speeches that Francis Chullikat, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, addressed to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, last February 13^th.  One of the reasons why the Holy See is a permanent observer – and not a full member – of the United Nations lies on decisions taken on sessions like this.  As a full member, the Holy See would be obliged to vote, and its vote could be politically manipulated.  As a permanent observer, the Holy See maintains its super partes prerogatives, and at the same time has a considerable diplomatic impact.  The Holy See’s main objective is not to have arms considered an «economic good» like any other.

ATT, five Vatican points

Chullikat’s intervention at the committee comprised five points.  First, the scope of the ATT, which should be broad, «comprising not solely the 7 categories of arms which the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms considers, but also small arms and light weapons, together with their relevant munitions, which enter the illicit market often with greater ease and give rise to a series of humanitarian problems».   Second, the request that the Treaty refer to human rights, humanitarian law and development.  At the same time, Chullikat affirms that it is «necessary to find terminology which limits subjective possibilities open to political abuse, and which will facilitate the ascertainment of modalities for application of such criteria».

Chullikat admonished that «the success of the Treaty will depend also on its ability to promote and reinforce international co-operation and assistance between States»; underlined that «provisions relating to assistance for victims must be maintained, and if possible, strengthened, giving attention also to the prevention of illicit arms proliferation, by reducing the demand for arms which often feeds the illicit market». And: «It seems opportune, from this perspective, then, to introduce references in the Treaty to educative processes and public awareness programmes – involving all sectors of society, including religious organizations – that are aimed at promoting a culture of peace.» Finally – Chullikat said – «mechanisms for treaty review and updating need to be strong and credible, capable of quickly incorporating new developments in the subject matter of the ATT, which must remain open to future technological developments. »

On his last interventions to the negotiations in New York, Chullikat re-underlined these five points, remembering that «the ATT debate gave us the opportunity to point out once again the pernicious impact of the illicit arms trade on development, peace, humanitarian law and human rights. Arms cannot simply be compared with other goods exchanged in global or domestic markets. They need a specialised regulation, one capable of preventing, combating and eradicating the irresponsible and illicit trade of conventional arms and related items». Chullikat also said that «this effort calls for the involvement of all members of the international community: States and international organizations, NGOs and the private sector. All of them are responsible for promoting an interrelated action aimed at the “establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” (cfr. Art. 26 of the UN Charter) ».

Arms are not a conventional economic good

The Chullikat’s five points are part of a well defined program.  On the one hand, the five points underline the need to diminish the demand for an arms market, favoring peace and education processes instead. In this sense, the Holy See supports the proposal not to allow the issuance of patents to inventions that can be dangerous to human beings.  This would make arms production unprofitable, and thus a strong deterrent to the invention and manufacturing of new arms and a good means to get to full disarmament.

On the other hand, it is obvious that favoring peace and education processes means that the Holy See wants more attention paid to people’s development («The new name of peace is development», Paul VI wrote in the encyclical Populorum Progressio in 1967) and to favor the greatest degree possible of multilateral diplomacy, in order to take into account the needs of all countries – even the smallest ones (several times the Holy See has criticized the G-meetings – G8, G20 – and advocated for a reform of the United Nations).  It is to protect the poorest countries that the Holy See requested that the Arms Trade Treaty include all arms – and not just the types included in the United Nations Register –in illicit traffic prevention efforts.

Until now, the Holy See was alone in the fight to broaden the Treaty.  Only recently the United Kingdom – at the end of the visit of the delegation sent by Prime Minister Cameron to celebrate 30 years of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Holy See – joined the Holy See in this effort. And then also Mexico – during the Papal trip – backed the Holy See positions at the ATT negotiations.

An “intellectual” and economical struggle

The Holy See’s position on disarmament impinges upon, in a very particular way, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. TRIP is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets minimum standards for mutual recognition of many forms of intellectual property among member states.  It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Article 27.2 of TRIP allows States to withhold patents on inventions which application could threaten public order or human life or health.

Not to patent weapons inventions would make the development of arms less attractive to industries, and States may be less interested in producing and trading them.  The risk that technological and scientific progress may be used to elude international regulations on disarmament and arms control, or as a means of economic and military hegemony, remains.  Highly developed countries could claim that sophisticated – so called “intelligent” – arms are compatible with disarmament and arms control regulations, and with international human rights. This could lead to a controversial scenario: only the arms held by less developed countries – not as sophisticated – would be incompatible with regulations, i.e. illicit.   Another problematic area relates to the development of genetically modified biological weapons, or bio-technological military applications, were rich countries would also have the competitive advantage.

Economic-financial issues always press on. The «civilian» economy tends to overlap with military-driven technological advancements and spending.  Much of the concerns of the Holy See have been on dual use, i.e. on the possibility that that the same good could be used for both civil and military purposes. There is a need for clarity, since «dual use» technology can bring confusion to trade regimes unable or unwilling to properly distinguish between the civilian and military applications of a product.

These are some of the key points of the Holy See’s diplomatic engagement on disarmament.  The Holy See acknowledges there have been positive developments on disarmament and arms control, and closely monitored the negotiations at the United Nations.  The Holy See is also aware that UN negotiations can always get «stuck» because of the resistance of particularly influential States – as happened in the last U.N. conference. But there are also some encouraging developments, like the adoption of the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention and the Cluster Munitions Convention – conventions adopted out of the context of the Conferences on disarmament.

A new diplomacy reveals that not only States are interested in disarmament

This model for new diplomatic activity shows the application of the Social Doctrine of the Church and the merits of the principle of subsidiariaty. It reveals that not only States, through traditional diplomatic channels, are interested in disarmament. This new diplomacy can also be very appealing to Non Governmental Organizations. Diplomacy inspired by religious belief – it is worth noting – should not be undervalued.  In the past, documents like the Pastoral Letter on War and Peace. The Challenge of Peace: God’s promise and our response, released by US bishops in 1983, contributed significantly to the debate on arms control, despite Cold War proliferation dynamics. More recently, bishops’ conferences of Scotland, England and Wales campaigned against the renewal of Great Britain’s Trident nuclear system.

More broadly, the fruits of the Holy See’s diplomatic work are like gems shining in many international documents. For example, the right to assistance for cluster munitions victims was included in the Cluster Munitions Convention thanks to the Holy See’s relentless efforts during the Convention’s drafting in Dublin in 2008 (the Convention was signed in Oslo that same year).

Building upon this history of engagement, the Holy See worked on the ATT in New York, and will keep on working on the new talks on this issue.  Reaffirming the perspective of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the Holy See upholds the centrality of the human person. This approach perhaps makes disarmament an even greater challenge.  It is, however, an approach that is about the healing of the heart and thus sets a path more conducive to full disarmament and the common good.