In his speech to European institutions, Pope Francis spoke about poverty and immigration; he underscored the value of family; he condemned the opulence of the world and the culture of the throwaway; and shed light in social plagues like abortion. Two smarting speeches – to the European Parliament and to the Council of Europe – that criticized European institutions, underscoring theyneed to be more human. Above all, the speeches focused on human rights the way they had been originally conceived.

All of the things Pope Francis spoke about in his two speeches to European institutions may be understood as dealing with human rights. Human rights that are always more at risk, in the highly civilized Europe. A continent where new borns who survive failed late-abortion procedures are left to die, and with the European Court for Human Rights refusing to take a position about it; where religions are instrumentalized, and religious freedom must be reclaimed, since it seems that it is only individual freedom that is considered to be worth preserving; where religious communities are not – as it they should be – considered spaces of freedom, but misconstrued as places of coercion of personal freedom.

In these issues lie the connection between Pope Francis’ trips to Europe and Turkey. Turkey has experienced a strong secularization. But it is also a country where the majority of the population is Muslim. The confessional party has gained power, step by step. The country has in the meantime become more and more Islamic. After the exchange of citizens with Greece in 1923 – Greek Orthodox of Greek nationality went to Greece, while Turks in Greece returned to Turkey – the country has moved toward a progressive Islamization. The Ataturk secularizing revolution has been overturned in the course of the years, and the country has become more and more Islamic, to the point of bestowingpower on the ultra-religious leader Tayip Recep Erdogan for more than 12 years.

In the end, Erdogan is nothing more than the heir of that coalition between the Socialist Party and the confessional party that gained power in Turkey in 1974. A complex and difficult binomial, that between socialism and religion. South America has experiencedthis contradiction with Liberation Theology.  Turkey is experiencing its own version of this story.

It is true that religious feelings speak to large segments of the population. It is also true that religion is used as a political weapon, more than to illuminate the path of politicians. In the Turkey getting ready to receive the Pope, how religion is used as a means of power was noticeable. A use that even led to the Papal trip to the country being relegated to a secondary realm of attention.

After the meeting with the authorities in Ankara, the remaining of the Pope’s trip was considered a private visit. And a private visit does not enjoy widespread media coverage. A reductionist perspective with parallels in the situation of Christians in Turkey: they are not considered one of the religious minorities, they are simply conceived a foreign religion.

The Pope, thus, was treated just like any other Head of State. No large public gatherings in open spaces for people to meet him. The Christian community (which represents 0.2% of the Turkish population) is so resigned to this state of affairs that it did not even tried asking for permission to celebrate a Mass in a space that could hold at least 20 per cent of the faithful who wanted to see the Pope. For many Catholic Turkish, There was no chance to see the Pope.

And even fewer were able to attend the meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew, an exemplary ecumenical meeting, during which the two have renewed once more their shared dream of unity among Christian confessions.

In fact, a political unity among European institutions would be needed first. “Ecumenismis not enough, Christian politicians should standbehind the same political flag, and work together for the sakeof the human being and defending natural law,” says GregorPuppinck, director of the European Center for Law and Justice of Strasbourg.

There are many complaints for violations of religious freedom, filed by many Christian confessions. This situation brings together Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. More than being a mere issue of dialogue among Christian confessions, ecumenism should become something concrete, a field to raiseissues on common grounds.

True, Pope Francis and Bartholomew hold each other in great esteem.They both approach issues in unconventional ways, and it is said that they will draft together common texts – first, one on ecology, a sort of encyclical that may become the first of its kind, with the twofold signature of the Pope and the Patriarch. Obviously, they also have a common commitment against religious persecution, especially the persecution ofChristiansin Middle East.

But the common ground of human rights is something to be further developed. While Christians are persecuted, in the heart of Europe the issue of the human being has become always more and more important. Pope Francis entrusted the Council of the European Conferences of Bishops (Consilium Conferentiarum Episcoporum Europae, CCEE) the task of fostering a dialogue with the Council of Europe, especially on human rights. And Cardinal Petr Erdo, Archbishop of Budapest and president of the CCEE, has underscored that “there is a need to clarify the basis of human rights, in the face ofthe so-called third and fourth generation rights that are not shared by everybody.”

The third and fourth generation rights are the environmental and self-determination rights, and in these latter lie many of the attempts of the gender ideology to run counter to human nature. Not by chance, “Humanum” was the title of the wonderful conference on the complementarity between man and woman held at the Vatican the day before the Papal trip to Strasbourg.

This ecumenism of human rights is perhaps the real common challenge for every Christian confession, a challenge that includes all the other challenges. The other task is to prevent religion from becoming a political instrument.

As the Pope in Turkey had been treated by Turkish authorities just like any other head of state, so it was the case for his visit to European Institutions, where he delivered two speeches and abstained from holding any pastoral event. His visit had been instrumentalized by socialists, who highlighted the part of the Papal speech focusing on immigration and poverty, and completely ignored the passages on human rights and family. It is revealing that in the EU official press release, there is no mention of God, the Social Teaching of the Church, or any of the criticism the Pope levied against the European institutions.

All of this to the convenience of Martin Schulz, a socialist and current president of the European Parliament, who had welcomed for the occasion of the Papal visit the socialist French leader Segolene Royale, who will, it seems, once again be a candidateinthe Presidential elections in France.

There is, in the end, the struggle of the socialist world, generally atheistic, to pull Pope Francis under their position. Something similar – but from a reverse point of view – is happening in Turkey, where religion has become a political instrument that has permitted Erdogan’s party to gain and consolidate power. In the end, there is nothing more secular in a party than to use religion as a political tool. And nothing more materialistic and socialist than the idea that religion is a tool through which to guide the masses.

The news of the law modifications have not been officially announced by the Vatican. This is not unusual, though. The changes are ultimately not going to make substantial modifications to Vatican City State law — they are merely adjustments that improve the law and make it more compliant with international standards. All countries make these sorts of adjustments periodically.

On the other hand, the news that the Bank of Italy (Italy’s central bank) has blocked all electronic payments through cash machines and by credit cards in Vatican City State has provoked a small media storm. The blocking – according to Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office – was due to a “technical problem”: the supplier, i.e. Deutsche Bank Italia, did not ask for the «required authorization» to operate. Deutsche Bank Italia manages since 1997 the electronic payments circuit in Vatican City State. Back in 1997, Italian regulations against money laundering were different (based on law 197, promulgated in 1991, and updated through the decree 153/1997) and Deutsche Bank Italia likely thought that it had to guide itself by Vatican legislation, not Italian.

The inspection that lead to the blocking took place in 2010 – right when the Holy See path to gain full financial transparency began. The Bank of Italy wanted to make it clear that Deutsche Bank Italia is under Italian jurisdiction, and thus under Bank of Italy oversight. When Deutsche Bank Italia applied for the required authorization, it was denied. The reason: Italy considers Vatican City State a «not equivalent extra-communitarian country» with regards to financial and anti-money laundering oversight – as underlined by several «anonymous» and «financial circles» sources that have spoken to journalists about this issue recently.

There is still no information about when this «technical problem» will be resolved. Some sources say that everything should be ok within a week, while others maintain that more time is needed because Vatican City State is not in the Italian white list.  Italy may want to wait for the MONEYVAL fifth-round evaluation report – that will take place within the next four years – before including Vatican City State in its white list.

Anyway, all of this would hardly amount to a new Vatican financial controversy. On the contrary, the most recent changes to the anti-money laundering law (contained in the law n. CLXXXV of 2012) are another Holy See step toward full financial transparency, in view of the inclusion of the Vatican Authority for Financial Information (AIF) to the Egmont Group, the global network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU). That the Vatican initiated the membership procedure to join the Egmont Groups is significant: it places the Holy See among reputable countries on financial transparency.

The network of FIUs is named after the «Egmont Hotel» in Brussels, where Units from all over the world gathered in 1995. The aim of the group is to have a common framework  to cooperate in combatting money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and to improve each country’s program. The AIF initiated long time ago the process to join the Egmont Group, and communicated this decision to MONEYVAL evaluators (MONEYVAL is the body of the Council of Europe that assesses if its member states are meeting international standards against money laundering and the financing of terrorism) while the MONEYVAL peer evaluation on Holy See/Vatican City State was taking place. Already in the MONEYVAL report released in July, it is clearly stated that the Holy See was considering to join the Egmont Group. «The FIA – it is written in point 30 of the report – is seriously considering joining the Egmont Group and has already taken steps to initiate the membership procedure which would enable it to cooperate directly with other FIUs in the Egmont Group in accordance with Egmont principles.»

MONEYVAL evaluators rendered a positive assessment of the Holy See’s economic/financial structure, but they also identified some areas for improvement. One such area noted that the Authority for Financial Information only had limited powers to exchange information and sign Memorandums of Understanding with other Financial Intelligence Units.

Everything changed with the law modification that the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State – i.e. the Vatican legislator – approved on December, 14. Small changes, with a big impact. Clause 7 of article 2 of the Vatican anti-money laundering law (Vatican law n. 127) previously stated that «the Authority for Financial Information, if the State Secretariat will grant the nihil obstat, can enter into Memorandums of Understanding with comparable authorities of other countries in order to exchange information about financial transfers suspected of money laundering or of financing terrorism.» The law modification eliminated the need for a Secretariat of State’s nihil obstat. The Secretariat of State is already the body in charge of the foreign policy and the coordination of internal policy, including anti-money laundering policies.

Article 41 of the law n. 127 also changes. In its new version, it widens the range of the international exchange of information, no longer limiting it to suspect transactions only.  Instead, it is now generally oriented towards preventing and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

These two changes can be considered in the end another step of the Holy See toward the building of an economical/financial structure projected for the long term. As such, it should be welcome both by MONEYVAL and by individual States – for example, Italy – that pay a lot of attention to the Vatican path to financial transparency.

One area for improvement concerned the functions of the AIF, which operates both as a Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and an oversight mechanism.  MONEYVAL judged AIF «not compliant» in its oversight function (Intergovernmental Financial Action Group (GAFI) recommendation 23) and «largely compliant» as a FIU (GAFI recommendation 26).  MONEYVAL recommended a clear separation of the two functions, without addressing if they can remain under a common AIF umbrella.

After the publication of the MONEYVAL report, the Holy See resumed its initiatives for greater transparency.  The goal now was to address the «not compliant» or «partially compliant» assessment with respect to specific recommendations for transparency,  and to harmonize further reforms with the GAFI’s own realignment of recommendations.  GAFI had a list of 40+9 recommendations, which the MONEYVAL evaluators used as their guide.  Recently, GAFI realigned its set of recommendations: there are now 40 recommendations, including several that are completely new – for example, recommendations that deal with financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which also meets the Holy See commitment.  The Holy See has always been engaged in raising awareness about non proliferation issues, and is thus particularly attentive to these new recommendations.

The Holy See needed to thrust a new impetus to the AIF.  Francesco De Pasquale had been AIF’s director since its establishment.  De Pasquale is an appeals lawyer, and had 20 years of experience dealing with anti-money laundering legislation.  He is also a former Bank of Italy official.  Marcello Condemi, who drafted the first Vatican City State anti-money laundering law (law n. 127, later reformed), had also been a Bank of Italy official.  But even if there were plenty former Bank of Italy officials at the Vatican, the Bank of Italy showed some hostility towards the Vatican.  Jeffrey Lena, the Holy See lawyer and international law expert, plainly stated in an interview that the Holy See maintains cordial financial relations with all the countries, except Italy, the only country that «considers the Vatican non equivalent for what concerns anti-moneylaudering»

(Ultimately, the way in which financial relations are managed is a matter in which the very sovereignty of the Holy See is at stake.  All too often, Italy falls into treating the Holy See as if the Vatican were a multinational company on Italian territory –which is not.  History reminds us how the Holy See preferred to sign a Concordat with the dictator Mussolini rather than with the previous Italian liberal administrations, as only Mussolini was disposed to recognize the Vatican City State’s sovereignty, «that piece of land that allows us to carry out our mission,» as Pope Pius X used to say).

How was the Authority for Financial Information improved? At first, by hiring René Bruelhart as a Secretariat of State ad hoc consultant for anti-money laundering issues. Young (he is just 40) and hailing from Freiburg, Bruelhart had ran for 8 years the Lichtenstein Financial Intelligence Unit.  In 2010 he was named vice president of the Egmont Group, the FIUs global network.  Bruelhart’s experience makes him one of the most eminent international experts in the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.  His recruitment also made the anti-money laundering team at the Vatican more international.

Now, the Holy See felt it was time for a further step.  Card. Attilio Nicora, president of the AIF Board of Directors, supported the notion that it was time for a change.  This was significant, because Nicora himself was one of the most strenuous defenders of the first Vatican anti-money laundering law.  The law had been later reformed, following the first on site visit of MONEYVAL evaluators (who felt very strongly about the need for this reform).  Nicora, however, referred to the reform as «a step backwards».  But Nicora held a position subject to «conflict of interests», as the MONEYVAL report points out, even if Nicora was never explicitly mentioned.  Paragraph 797 of the Report mentions a «serious conflict of interests» for a cardinal that is a member of the IOR Cardinals’ Commission and, at the same time, president of the AIF Board of Directors.  The report did not question Nicora’s personal performance.  Rather, it merely underscored incompatibility among these two responsibilities.

In fact, Nicora’s remaining on board is not at stake, even though he has reached retirement age.  Because Nicora understood that a change was needed, he named René Bruelhart director of the AIF, to make the authority increasingly more independent and international (even inside the Vatican, the board of the AIF was considered disproportionately Italian, compared with the relatively international Holy See personnel).  Francesco De Pasquale was promoted to member of the AIF Board of Directors (AIF Board of Directors members are named by the Pope).  This choice would indicate that De Pasquale had never lost the confidence of  the Secretariat State or the AIF.  Notwithstanding lively internal debates –De Pasquale was also a strong supporter of the first anti-money laundering law– the contribution of the now ex AIF Director was crucial during the first year of the AIF and during these past recent months. When the MONEYVAL report was then published, the Holy See vigorously undertook the commitment to achieve full financial transparency.

What will be De Pasquale’s new responsibilities? The AIF statutes note that AIF Board members must «program, manage and control the Authority’s activity.»  Thus, De Pasquale will be able to contribute his experience to the Vatican’s path to full financial transparency.

At the same time, the appointment of Bruelhart as new director of the AIF may be considered a first step toward the reforms in the Authority recommended by MONEYVAL, and certainly the first of the steps needed to strengthen the AIF’s internal structure.

The most relevant, positive ratings are two: the one concerning the IOR (the Vatican’s Religious Works Institute), which security standards surpass those required by Vatican law (paragraph 39 of the Executive Summary of the Report); and the one on the Vatican legislation on secrecy, that is considered largely compliant with international standards (paragraph 50).  It is also important to note the positive rating regarding the level of international cooperation. Unmistakably, the report dismisses a vision of the IOR as a place of opacity and illicit dealings, and of an uncooperative Vatican closed to scrutiny and full of financial mysteries.

The Holy See’s path to financial transparency dates back to 2009, when it signed the Monetary Agreement with Europe.  The agreement requested the Holy See to develop anti-money laundering legislation within one year. The year after, a Benedict XVI’s motu proprio promulgates anti-money laundering Vatican law n. 127 , and establishes the Authority for Financial Information (AIF). Cardinal Attilio Nicora is appointed president of the AIF, while Marcello Condemi – the “architect” of law 127 – and Francesco De Pasquale are respectively appointed member and general director of the AIF. Both Condemi and De Pasquale come from the Bank of Italy, where they were mid-ranking  bank officials.

Condemi drafted a law based on Italian legislation to combat money laundering.  In February, the Holy See asked MONEYVAL to submit to a peer evaluation process.  The process allows States to ensure financial transfers within and among them are legitimate.  MONEYVAL starts the procedure in April and – in November 2011 – the evaluators come for an on-site visit to the Vatican.  They seek to understand how the law worked, and above all to have it adhere to international standards. The evaluators found several vulnerabilities – in many cases these weaknesses are the same than Italy’s, described in that country’s GAFI peer evaluation in 2005 – and asked the Holy See to meet international standards. The Holy See complied:  Law 127 is revised and substantially amended.  In January, through decree 159, the changes go into effect.  In April, the revised provisions are more permanently enacted in a new law.The old world is turned upside down at the Vatican.  The MONEYVAL evaluation promotes positive change, and the evaluators themselves commend the new law, which separates roles and responsibilities, incorporates international recommendations and engages the Secretariat of State. The dynamics between the then president of the IOR, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the AIF members and the Vatican Secretariat of State change. It is an internal cold and hot war, that explodes in the media with the publication of several leaks.  In the meantime, the MONEYVAL evaluators return to the Vatican for a follow up visit, and overall  give the new law a thumbs up.

The MONEYVAL report is released on July, 18, and presented to the press by msgr. Ettore Ballestrero under-secretary for the relations with the States of the Vatican Secretariat of State.  The report is substantially positive.  It takes into consideration HOLY SEE peculiarities – like being an economic monopolistic State where the market does not exist.  The most serious flaw the report identifies has to do with the AIF: it underlines that the double role of Cardinal Nicora as President of the Authority and member of the Cardinal Commission –  n. 797 of the report – of the IOR constitutes a “serious conflict of interests”, and recommends to separate the Authority’s function of intelligence gathering from the everyday supervision of Vatican finances. The next step will probably be further reforms of the Authority for Financial Information.

So, Strasbourg locuta, causa finita? Apparently not, considering what followed the assessment of the Holy See’s financial transparency at the plenary assembly of MONEYVAL in the French city.  Right after the Holy See’s official press release, rumors spread that the Italian delegation to the plenary had been «gagged» and prevented – by the Italian government itself – from complaining about some (presumed) outstanding international requests and about some operations by the IOR, the Institute for Religious Works. The Italian Minister of Economy did not deny it, and offered further information about the Italian intervention at the MONEYVAL plenary assembly. A sharing of information that probably will not please European Institutions. Discussions at the MONEYVAL assembly are, in fact, confidential. Yet an observer country, Italy, through an official statement, discloses details about the Italian delegation’s intervention and makes public observations about the report on the Holy See. What will the reaction of Europe be?

It is just one episode.  But it shows the perils on the Holy See’s path to financial transparency. A path that began with the Monetary Agreement with Europe in 2009, continued with the promulgation of the Vatican anti-money laundering law in 2010 and the Holy See’s request to be evaluated by MONEYVAL in 2011, and was followed by the reform of the anti-money laundering law at the beginning of 2012, at MONEYVAL’s request.

MONEYVAL is the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the adherence of its member states to international standards to counter money-laundering and the financing of terrorism. The standards are informed by the body’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations. There used to be «40+9» recommendations, but the most recent FATF plenary reduced them to 40, with significant revisions. MONEYVAL makes peer evaluations, and does not maintain a minimum threshold «white list». It engages, instead, on an ongoing and recurring process to constantly adjust recommendations in response to technological or other changes that criminals could try to take advantage of.

By submitting to a «technical» – non political – evaluation of its anti money laundering  protocols,  the Holy See showed that it is not interested in a fig leaf, but in materializing its commitment to implement a broad transparency policy. It opened its doors to European evaluators, who conducted two on site visits to the Vatican, delineating – together with Holy See officials – a path to transparency akin to that of any other state. No state has ever been found to be in compliance with all the recommendations.  Instead, each  state is on its own path to ever greater compliance.  Italy, for example, was found «not compliant» with 5 crucial recommendations, the so called «core and key» recommendations – and the FAFT document worriedly reported that Italy «has one of the highest cash payment ratios in Europe, and tax evasion that exists in sectors such as real estate provide a favorable environment to money laundering» (see p. 7).  According to the press, the Holy See was assessed «not compliant» or only «partially compliant» with 7 recommendations.

It is a  landmark achievement for the Holy See.  MONEYVAL, on its part, is focusing not on the past, but on the future of relations with the Vatican institutions. Paradoxically, the Vatican has better relations with Europe than with Italy.  As Europe praises the Holy See’s commitment to transparency and for having achieved overall compliance in a very short time, some foreign journalists who attended the recent «open door» meeting with the press at the IOR concluded that «relations with Italy are the issue for the Holy See».

In fact, the anti-money laundering law of Vatican City State was written in a hurry, under the pressure from the Italian authorities’ impounding of 23 million euro transferred by the IOR. After the promulgation of the law, Italian magistrates restored the money.  But the money has not been released yet, because the closure of the investigation is still pending.  The negotiations for the Monetary Agreement with Europe were also held under duress from an investigation – that lead to nothing – about an IOR account in a Unicredit Bank branch in Via della Conciliazione.  Finally, the second on site visit of MONEYVAL evaluators was followed by the news of the closing of an IOR account in a Milan branch of the JP Morgan Bank.

Now, just as Strasbourg has given its evaluation and the transparency process is moving on, rumors are spread about the presumed «gagging» of the Italian delegation at the MONEYVAL assembly. A MONEYVAL assembly where Italy is actually just an observer State, without a vote or any influence over the assembly’s decisions.

After the no confidence vote. The words of Gotti Tedeschi

After receiving a no confidence vote by the IOR Board of Superintendence, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi became part of the investigation on the Italian defense company Finmeccanica. He is not charged with any crime, but he is suspected to have stored documents of Finmeccanica CEO Fernando Orsi. As Gotti Tedeschi, Orsi hails from Piacenza. They are long-time friends. That is why Gotti Tedeschi’s house in Piacenza and his office in Milan were searched. The police took 47 folders, that are said to contain Gotti Tedeschi’s private documents – and not IOR correspondence. These folders are now in the hands of the Public Prosecutor of Naples investigating Finmenccanica. The Public Prosecutor of Naples sent to the Public Prosecutor of Rome some of the documents. The Public Prosecutor of Rome is still investigating 23 million euro transferred by the IOR in September 2010 (20 million were transferred from a IOR account to a branch of Credito Artigiano and 3 million from a IOR account to Banco del Fucino toward a IOR account to a JpMorgan branch in Frankfurt). Gotti Tedeschi has been questioned by both Public Prosecutors. On the one hand – according to the press – he said he wanted to be discreet and not to speak about the IOR in order not to cause pain to the Pope (he insistently has asked for a private audience with Benedict XVI); on the other hand, he reportedly said that there had been opposition to him for his commitment to transparency, his desire not to have any more cipher accounts in the IOR, and his work to add the IOR to the list of virtuous banks compiled and monitored by the Bank of Italy.  On this, he would have had the collaboration of Anna Maria Tarantola, then number two of the vigilance in the Bank of Italy and now general manager-elect of Italy’s public broadcaster, RAI Television.

IOR transparency

These allegations  are a strong blow to the IOR image. But they are not true. One telling conversation – that is in some ways confirmed from what Paolo Cipriani, IOR general manager, recently told in an interview – even if no one will ever officially confirm it, offers insights.  When Ettore Gotti Tedeschi was still the president of the Institute, Paolo Cipriani, the IOR general manager, asked Gotti Tedeschi to show him where the cipher accounts were, since Tedeschi had been repeatedly calling for their closing. Gotti Tedeschi, angry, did not want to identify which accounts he was talking about and said: «There are such accounts, the Bank of Italy told me about them». Cipriani explained the IOR security and transparency procedures in an interview to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. The policy of the Institute changed in 2002, when the KYC procedures was first and scrupulously applied. KYC stands for «know your customer», and involves a thorough screening of customers.

The IOR has always maintained informal but close cooperation with the Guardia di Finanza, i.e. the Italian financial police. The cooperation is so strong that it is told that Paolo Cipriani once got a letter from the Guardia di Finanza, thanking him for the expediency and the precision of his information in response whenever Guardia de Finanza asked for anything. This was a relationship based on trust.  But the handling of the IOR. account at the JP Morgan branch in Milan did not follow this pattern.

The news of the closing of the account was made public the day after the press release of the second on-site visit to the Vatican of the MONEYVAL advisors. The press release acknowledged the steps forward taken by the Holy See.

Il Sole24Ore – the Italian newspaper that spread the news – claimed that the account was closed because the IOR was «unable to answer» requests for further information regarding some payments of the account to the branch of Milan – a peculiar account, which balance was brought to zero at the end of every day. JPMorgan also recalled that the bank activities of the branch are subject «both to the law of the Italian State and to internal regulations». That is why – after looking atthe IOR needs and the requirements imposed by Italian law and bank regulations – JPMorgan reportedly did not think it had enough information to offer pay and cash services to the 1365 account. However, in fact, it was the IOR that closed the account. The decision to close it was in part also a response to the way in which Italian magistrates had asked for information about the account.

FIUs’ – Financial Intelligence Units –purpose is the exchange of internal information. When there is suspicion of money laundering, the bank alerts the vigilance of the Central Bank, which then alerts its financial intelligence unit. The alerts are kept anonymous, to protect the way that the systemprevents money laundering. These parameters are designed by the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, a «working group» of FIUs to improve cooperation in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and to help develop each State’s programs against money laundering.

The confidentiality of information is a key element in efforts to combat money laundering, as is also stated in Italy in the law 231/2007, that deals with the competences of the Bank of Italy. Art. 6 of the law says that «the FIU carries its functions with full autonomy and independence. To implement these principles, the Bank of Italy regulates the organization and the functioning of the FIU, including the confidentiality of the information collected. The Bank of Italy provides the FIU with financial means and other adequate resources to insure the efficient pursuit of its institutional goals».

In the case of the closing of the JPMorgan account, none of the standard procedures were followed: the Rome’s Public Prosecutor directly alerted the FIU of the Bank of Italy; the FIU then alerted the vigilance of the Bank of Italy; and the vigilance asked the JPMorgan branch information on the account. But, if the public prosecutors want to investigate an account, they must do it through the Guardia di Finaza. Yet, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi maintained that there were valid reasons why  JPMorgan closed the IOR account of its Milan branch. Gotti Tedeschi’s lack of initiative to defend the Institute was noticed by the IOR Board of Superintendence in the now famous meeting of May, 24, when the board passed the no confidence resolution on its president.

The 24 May board of Superintendence

Usually, the meeting of the Council of Superintendence – called on trimestral basis – are divided in two parts: during the first part – that lasts about half an hour – the members of the Board meet; only after – and this is the second part – Paolo Cipriani, general manager of the Institute, enters, and reports on technical aspects and bank operations of the previous semester.

On May 24, Cipriani had to wait two and a half hours. When he was called by the board, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi had already left the meeting, and the no confidence vote had already taken place. The memorandum was already drafted by Carl A. Anderson, who was the secretary of the Board.

Gotti Tedeschi – as written in the memorandum – began the meeting, and spoke for about 70 minutes. After his speech, the members of the board raised some issues. They remarked to the president his unjustified absence to the last two scheduled meetings of the board (on February, 24 and April, 17). The absence to the last meeting was very disappointing: it was the meeting when the board approved the balances and the earnings to be allocated to the Pope. The IOR, in fact, is not a bank, and its fund are at the Papal disposal. Rumors says that Gotti Tedeschi was in Rome, and he was invited to join the meeting. He did not go.

The board also raised with Gotti Tedeschi news leaks. Among the several documents of the institute leaked to the press in the previous months, there was an e-mail sent by Francesco De Pasquale (general manager of the Authority for Financial Information, so formally a controller) to Ettore Gotti Tedeschi (formally, one of the ones controlled) that complained about the ramifications of the Vatican anti-money laundering law – the law n. 127.  The law had been amended as per MONEYVAL recommendations, and this had sparked a lively debate inside the Vatican.   The e-mail – the members of the board noticed – could have only been leaked by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi’s office.

Last key issue, the closing of the JPMorgan account: why did the president not defend the Institute from the attacks and the inaccuracies of the press? It was then that Gotti Tedeschi, angry, abandoned the meeting. It was – for the members of the board – the climax of a tense and overdue situation. In order to manage thecontroversy,it was decided to publicly release the memorandum of the meeting.

On May, 25 – the day after the no confidence motion– the IOR Commission of Cardinals was convoked to decide how to manage the new situation. Only Card. Odilo Scherer could not be part of the meeting, while Card. Telesphore Toppo arrived right in time from India. In that meeting, the cardinals decided how would Gotti Tedeschi be let go from the institute.

What will follow

While awaiting how the investigation would proceed, and as soon as the news of the «memorandum» of Gotti Tedeschi spread, the Holy See released a press communiqué in which it maintained that it trusted that «the prerogatives acknowledged to the Holy See by the international legal order are being adequately considered and respected by the Italian judicial authorities». It is a clear statement: the Holy See reminds all that those are documents from a sovereign country, seized from an ex president of a «body of State».

To think that this would be of detriment to the evaluation of the Holy See Transparency by the Council of Europe would be wrong. It seems MONEYVAL evaluated the IOR «largely compliant» with international standards.  It was just part of the evaluation. The evaluation is not just about the IOR.  It includes the 120 Vatican bodies that deals with budgets and financial transfers.

Holy See financial transparency. Risks and procedures.

It is worth to clarify some assertions made in the last few days. These assertions had partially come out from the same environment that defended Ettore Gotti Tedeschi. They claim that the Holy See risks not to be added to the white list of the virtuous States in terms of prevention of money laundering; the Holy See has been selected to undergo MONEYVAL inspections; and that the Holy See does not want to cooperate with Italian authorities. But these statements are false or grossly inaccurate. It is thus worthwhile to be  very thorough, and explain everything step by step.

White list

Let us begin with the so-called «white list» issue. MONEYVAL – the body of the Council of Europe that evaluates the adherence to the anti-money laundering norms of Council of Europe State members – does not have a white list. MONEYVAL is a body where peer-to-peer evaluations of member States takes place. There are no inspections. There are processes of mutual evaluation. And these evaluations are part of an on-going process. After the plenary assembly of MONEYVAL – 2-6 of July – the report about the Holy See will be public. The draft of this report was first discussed in Strasbourg, during the meeting between Holy See officials and MONEYVAL evaluators in May. Some weaknesseshave been noted. But these weaknesses often deal with the fact that the Holy See is a peculiar State. MONEYVAL reports are divided in three parts: legal, financial and law enforcement. The evaluators rate the adherence to each GAFI recommendation (40+9 until February, now 40, with several novelties). Rating can be: non-compliant, partially compliant, largely compliant or compliant. Of the GAFI recommendations, 16 are «key and core». Of these 16 key and core recommendations, the Holy See – according to the press – would be partially compliant or non-compliant in 8. Obviously, this could change after discussionsat the plenary assembly. If it got 10 negative ratings, the evaluation of the Holy See adherence to international standards would be then assigned to the GAFI International Cooperation Review Group, and so it would take more time to be evaluated largely compliant. There are also infringement procedures on particular ratings. In 2005, Italy was evaluated generally largely compliant. At the same time, there were – in the Mutual Evaluation Report – several non compliant or partially compliant ratings. After two years, the GAFI closed the infringement procedure.

The meetings with the evaluators.

In fact, there is no intention to vote out a State. And the fact that there are 8 points to discuss does not necessarily lead to a general negative rating. The meetings with the MONEYVAL evaluators are characterized by an open discussion. The Holy See could eventually challenge the rating, and explain to the evaluators the reason for some of its peculiarities. The procedure is very well defined in several steps. During the plenary assembly of MONEYVAL, at least one whole day will be dedicated to discuss the draft report about the Holy See/Vatican City State. Three countries must canvass each of the three parts of the report. Then, the assembly as a whole will hold an open discussion. At the end of this discussion, the draft report could be amended. The final decision will be taken by all the delegates that will take part in the plenary assembly in July.

This will not lead directly to the Holy See being added to the white list. There is not a white list that is directly linked to the MONEYVAL evaluation. The white list generally refers to the Common Understanding – i.e. the criteria (defined by the EU. regulation 2005/60/EC) used by EU members about efforts against money laundering. A country is added to this white list only if sponsored by a member State, and only after getting a positive evaluation on its AML/FT (Anti Money Laundering/Financing of Terrorism) policies by an independent and authoritative international body. This white list is not perfect or definitive. For example, the list of virtuous countries published every year by the American Secretary of State follows a different approach. Another aspect of this white list is that States can acknowledge the European white list, and still consider a particular country not trustworthy. For example, Italy has excluded Switzerland from Italy’s white list.

Financial transparency is never ending

Even if MONEYVAL will positively rate the Holy See/Vatican City State, the path to transparency will not stop there. MONEYVAL has already done three evaluation rounds, and at this time some countries are being evaluated for a «follow up round», i.e. a fourth round that – beyond the implementation of specific GAFI recommendations – takes into consideration statistics and effectiveness of the legislation adopted by the member States. The first evaluation round took place in 1998-2000, the second in 2001-2004 and the third in 2005-2009. The Holy See became a MONEYVAL member on April 6^th 2011, and it was promptly admitted to the third evaluation round, that looks at the legislation of a country and the international  standards – for example, if the countries evaluated signed and ratified the Palermo and Wien conventions.

MONEYVAL on site visits to the Vatican

MONEYVAL evaluators went for the first time for an on site visit to the Vatican on November, 21-26. The evaluators assess the legislative situation of the countries incombating money laundering. The result of the visit is reserved to the counterpart: it is a report that shows the key findings of the evaluators and that rates the adherence of the country evaluated to each GAFI recommendation. After the completion of the report, the evaluated country has two months to implement the MONEYVAL recommendations.

On January, 25 2012, with the decree n. 59, the Holy See amended its anti-money laundering law n. 127, following MONEYVAL recommendations, and making it more compliant with international standards. That same day, the Holy See signed and ratified the conventions of New York, Wien and Palermo: this was proof of a long-term commitment to financial transparency. The new law was substantially different from the old one, and outlined a better power distribution. The control of Vatican finances was not exclusively entrusted to the one and only Authority for Financial Information. The amendment of the law was the focus of a strong internal debate, and some – in primis Card. Attilio Nicora, president of the Authority for Financial Information – defined the new law «a step back». In fact, the Holy See followed the MONEYVAL recommendations. Jeffrey Owens, head of tax issues at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, praised the Holy See’s reforms. «The Vatican is heading in the right direction with the revised norms», he said to the Associated Press.

This amendment profoundly changed the Vatican legislative scenario. That is why there was the need for a second on site visit of MONEYVAL evaluators, that took place March 14 to 16 . This visit was not an inspection: it was an assessment of progress. After this second evaluation, the draft report was completed and sent out to the Holy See in April. In May – from the 14th to 16th – a delegation of the Holy See went to Strasbourg to comment on the report and get it ready to be presented to the next plenary assembly. Now, a pre-meeting will probably be held before the plenary assembly of July. And finally, the plenary assembly in July, where a decision will be taken: will the Vatican be subjected to an infringement process? Or will its efforts be awarded? « I have not seen any State – a MONEYVAL evaluator said informally to a Vatican official – going so quickly toward the financial transparency, and making so many changements». These words confirms the Strasbourg appreciation for the Holy See job. Neverthless the difficulties, one could also preview a positive MONEYVAL evaluation. And this would be gained in a very short time.

There was not just law “n. 127 question”. In the last meeting with heads of Vatican departments (Prefectures and Pontifical Councils), Bertone asked more coordination among the several branches of the Vatican curia. He also pointed at the encroach of the «passion for the little news of ecclesiastical gossip, that undermine the Holy See prestige and sometimes crab the climate of confidence and trust among the Holy See’s bodies». The Pope presided the meeting, and he agreed with each word of his Secretary of State. In 2009 – in his letter to the bishops of Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefevbre – the Pope quoted this paragraph from Galatians 5:13-15: «Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another».

There has been some «bite and devour» against Bertone, too. Since he has been appointed as Secretary of State, the attacks against him had been continuous. Before Bertone turned 75, several influential cardinals had asked Pope Benedict to make a change in Secretariat of State, because of problems with curial government and the lack of coordination that had taken place. Now that he turned 77, many observers spread the voice that there should be a change of leadership in the control room of the Roman Curia.

Benedict XVI and Bertone are following the same footsteps. Step by step, they are changing the Vatican approach. Not casually, Benedict XVI wanted an expert of Canon Law as Secretary of State, and not a diplomat. This choice was not well taken by diplomats and his protégés, that increased their influence under the former Secretary of State, cardinal Angelo Sodano. But it is part of a long-sighted project of Benedict XVI. The Secretary of State must not necessarily come from the diplomatic service. His function is to «provide close assistance to the Supreme Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme office», and  this close assistance does not deal just with diplomatic relationships. For example – according to Pastor Bonus pastoral constitution – the Secretariat of State must «draw up and dispatch apostolic constitutions, decretal letters, apostolic letters, epistles, and other documents entrusted to it by the Supreme Pontiff».

An expert of Canon law –  and Bertone is – could better coordinate the drawing of documents. The Pope himself – in the 2010 letter to the Catholics of Ireland – wrote that  «the program of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations». Turning back to the solidity of law, to remember Christian roots and to turn back to God. This seems to be the Benedict XVI’s plan for the universal Church, as the next Consistory would show.

So, attacking Bertone means attacking Benedict XVI. Was that a case, some insider questions, that the strongest attacks against Bertone leadership – the Viganò’s scandal and the consistory itself – came right when the Holy See was strengthening is international impact?  Who wants to undermine Holy See international impact? In fact, in those days Holy See rewrote its 2010 anti-money laundering law, the Vatican law n. 127. It is important to see what the new law really is about, going beyond the possible «bite and devour strategy». It was maybe to prevent that strategy that Holy See made no major announcement of the revision, while the Vatican’s foreign minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, referred obliquely to it in an article Friday in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. This is probably also the reason why the law come into effect with an urgent decree, to be ratified by the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State within 90 days.

The first point of the new Vatican law n. 127 is about financial transparency; the law acknowledges the right to privacy, and at the same time shed the obscurantist myth of Vatican secrecy. In fact, the Vatican law n. 127 aims to protect the right to privacy acknowledged in all the civil countries – the right to privacy is even mentioned in Gaudium et Spes, one of the Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council  – and at the same time it aims to favor the international exchange of financial information.

Why did the Vatican modify the law just one year after its introduction? In fact, the law n. 127 had been written in haste because of several reasons. One of this reasons was the need to solve the «IOR case», that is the seizure – ordered by Italian magistrates – of 23 million euro transferred by the IOR from an account it owned to the Credito Artigiano toward Jp Morgan (20 million) and Banca del Fucino (3 million). Another reason was the need to bring into effect the Monetary Convention with European Union signed in 2009.

It was not downhill to the Monetary Convention. Since February 2009, Vatican and European Commission advisors (Italy was part of the table as observer) start up the job to define the new monetary agreement. European Union conditions immediately seemed too restrictive. The relationship between Holy See and European Union were fraught. Vatican had the will to keep its autonomy, and Mons. Carlo Maria Viganò, then secretary of the Governatory of the State of Vatican City, even proposed to unhook Holy See from the Euro area, in order to let the Holy See avoid to be subjected to too restrictive conditions. Someone also proposed not to close the agreement within the year 2009, and to postpone the closure of the agreement to 2010. But time is short, and hierarchies of the Holy See did not take in consideration both of the hypothesis. The monetary agreement was finally signed on December, 17th 2009. Joaquin Almunia, Europen commissioner for Economical and Monetary Affairs, and mons. André Dupuy, Apostolic Nuncio to the European Union should sign together. But Almunia refuses to sign the agreement in the same room with the pontifical representant, and so Dupuy and Almunia sign the agreement each one in their own office.

Even inside the Vatican, things went on quickly. The Vatican Law n. 127 is adopted and it is decided to extend the effects of the new regulations to the Holy See via a motu proprio by Benedict XVI. The Motu Proprio is released the 30th of December 2010, right in time not to let the agreement lapse. According to some Vatican insiders, the institution of the Authority for Financial Information would mean that the same Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the Commission of Vigilance of the I.O.R., is not given a blank cheque by the Pope, since the I.O.R. itself is subjected to monitoring. This is even truer for what concerns the new law: Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican’s U.S. attorney, noted for example that the new law allows for the IOR itself to be sanctioned up to €2 million if it violates the law — and it also allows for the IOR to have recourse to the Vatican’s court system to appeal.

Modifications of the law – promoted by the Vatican Secretariat of State and the Pontifical Commission of Vatican City State – seem to mean that the new law is not merely «a slap on the face» for some contingent problem. Holy See is going to meet the international standards, and it does not seem to be an occasional concurrency that the same day the implementation of law n. 127 came into effect with an urgent regulations, Holy See announced the ratification of three international agreements. Holy See adhered to and ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of terrorism (Onu, New York, 1999) and the United Nations Conventions against the transnational organized crime (Palermo, 2000). Holy See also announced the ratification of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances (Wien, 1998): this latter Convention had been already signed by the Holy See when it had been adopted by United Nations.

It was January, 25th. During those days, medias highlighted Vigano’s scandal, depicting it in the terms that Vatican could be considered a multinational company whose seat is in Italy. Some days later, a confidential memo on IOR-Aif (Authority for Financial Information) relationships had been leaked to the press. This memo was equivocally a blight on the Vatican transparency toward Italian authorities.

Anyway, the IOR case emphasized almost an excess of diligence by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, president of the Supervisory Commission of the IOR. Gotti Tedeschi agreed to be questioned by the Italian magistrates, even if these latters did not submit the request internationally. Many Vatican insiders considered the Gotti Tedeschi’s one a «questionable decision». It is because this decision seems to be a renounce to the immunity by Gotti Tedeschi, and this renounce to immunity could be eventually extended to the body of State he presides.

It is important to say that it is not only an Italian-Vatican matter. The improval of the Vatican law n. 127 bodes to a long-sighted choice. In fact, Jeffrey Owens, head of tax issues at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development which maintains the «white list» of the virtuous State in countering money laundering, said to Associated Press that the Vatican is heading in the right direction with the revised norms. «What I see in these developments – Owens said – is that the Vatican has recognized that in today’s financial environment there is a premium on transparency and that to achieve this, this must conform to the highest international standards, whether in the area of money laundering, tax evasion or bribery».

If the «old» law n. 127 had been written in haste, the «new» law shows that Holy See means business on contrasting money laundering. After just one year, Holy See changes his law as requested by  MONEYVAL Adivsors, come for an on-site visit in the Vatican the last November. The advisors noted inadequacies in the Vatican legislation. According to MONEYVAL official communiqué,  «at the conclusion of its mission, the MONEYVAL team  shared and discussed its initial findings with representatives of the Holy See, after which initial views were exchanged». Of these inadequacies, the Holy See was aware. The common references are the 40+9 GAFI recommendations – references that every country should follow.

There are substantial news. For example, the “old” law n. 127 gave the power to supervise and contrast the  money laundering to one only authority, the Authority for Financial Information – established via Motu Proprio by Benedict XVI in 2010. The “new” law fairly share the power among other authorities, that are the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Commission of the Governatorate of Vatican City State, the Authority for Financial Information, and also the Vatican Gendarme Corps. This technicality confirms the long-sighted Vatican policy. Jurisdictions are called – coherently to the principle of rule of law – to involve all their institutions, thus competent authorities must follow the same rigour and transparency policy in order to prevent and countering money laundering and financing terrorism.

It is interesting to see that Holy See met the challenge to adequate to International standards without denaturalizing their institutions. In Vatican City State, in fact, there is no market and there are no banks. According to the Italian Supreme Court, IOR is «a central body of the Church», that is a governmental body that does not aim to distribute assets.

One example of the effort of the Holy See is the procedures to take into consideration the list of terror organizations issued by the Security Council of United Nations. According to the law n. 127, Holy See does not mechanically transpose the United Nations Lists. This choice is aimed to preserve the Holy See and Vatican neutrality. In fact, lists are written under the «Chapter 7» of Charter of the United Nations, and that Chapter is applied in war time. Holy See could be embarrassed by a mechanical transposition of the lists, since it could be in contradiction with the Holy See orientation –  Holy See is neutral and in favor of peace. Since Holy See is Permanent Observer to the Assembly of United Nations, and not a Full Member, a settlement has been made to the autonomy of the Holy See: the Vatican Secretariat of State – according to the new article 24 of the law n. 127– will create its own list of terror organizations based on the one issued by the United Nations, so keeping its autonomy, and at the same time showing to be sensitive to the international security goals.

Some superficial observer would think that Holy See is not working seriously. It is not true. Holy See is working seriously, and not to respond to internal problems, or to answer to European or Italian claims. More probably, Holy See wants to give its contribution to achieve strategic goals as the countering to money laundering and to international terrorism financing.

Yet, it is not so sure. The balances of the Region are not insisting only on the Palestinian question, as father Jaeger put it some years ago. There is the Israeli-Iranian question – and according to rumors and reading the official declaration an Israelian attack to Iran can be considered probable, and then there are several problems in Lebanon and Syria. About what happened in this latter during the last months, the Holy See diplomacys has been accused of having acted too prudently. But the Holy See position has been prudent as well regarding the last international initiatives of the Palestinian Authority.

Holy See has always supported the «two states» solution. Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, the Vatican’s number two State Department official, called Sept. 27 for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in remarks delivered in New York. He insisted that «if we want peace, courageous decisions have to be made», and he referenced Resolution 181 of the General Assembly, also known as the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The resolution, which was adopted in 1947, recommended the creation of two states in the Palestine region. «One of the states has already been created, while the other has not been established yet, although nearly sixty-four years have passed», Mamberti said.

It was the only climax of the Holy See position, that always maintained  fairly conservative profile with respect to unilateral attempts led by the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Abu Mazen, to have the United Nations General Assembly vote on the recognition of a Palestinian state first, and  to have the Assembly of the UNESCO vote to accept Palestine as a full member. Nor Osservatore Romano seemed to want to take a clear position against an initiative like Abu Mazen’s, which is deemed right and good in principle, but seems doomed to failure and could paradoxically lead to a further strengthening of Hamas.

The mood inside the Catholic world had been largely the same, although characterized by a more marked sympathy for the gesture by Abu Mazen, considered by some observers as one of the last chances to end the current deadlock in diplomatic talks. Although, in the Arab Christian world – the consensus with the initiative of the Palestinian leader had been warmer. Still recently, with the Syrian crisis, the Greek-Catholic Patriarch Gregory III Laham was able to identify in the unresolved Palestinian issue the origin of all Middle Eastern problems. Similarly, in his recent trip to France, the Maronite Patriarch Béchara Boutros Raï insisted on the fact that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will have to go home one day.

On the eve of Abu Mazen’s trip, then, the leaders of major Christian churches in Jerusalem, regardless of religion or rituals, issued a statement of support and approval for the initiative of the President of the PNA. When the news of the Unesco’s decision broke, William Shomali, auxiliar bishop  of Jerusalem and vicar for Palestine of Latin Patriarcate of Jerusalem, affirmed that «it is a victory».

Holy See is granted in the United Nations by the peculiar status of permanent observer State. In 2004, the UN General Assembly confirmed the Vatican’s status as a Permanent Observer. Currently, the Holy See has the right to participate in the general debate of the General Assembly and to intervene in the discussion of any issue inscribed in the agenda of that assembly. It has the right to participate in all meetings open to all Member States, the right to make points of order and to exercise the right of reply, the right to circulate proposals and position papers as official documents, and the right to co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions. Commenting on that resolution, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the then Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations, said that «we have no vote because this is our choice» and added that the Holy See considers that its current status «is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it».

This kind of status is considered by many a sort of privilege. But just a few remember that the Holy See has the right of active and passive legation right since the IV century, and its international juridical status is universally acknowledge. The Holy See’s seat in the United Nations is not a privilege – as sustained by campaigns like See Change, aimed to make of the Holy See on a pair of a Non Governmental organization. The attack to the Holy See’s legation right had been several, even because the Holy See opinion is always respected and heard.

On the Palestinian question, the neutrality of the Holy See had a relevant impact, even for the diplomatic relationships with Israel. But the Holy See, on the other hand, has always had a special attention for Palestinian question. Palestinian Christians have deep roots in the land. According to Bernard Sabella,  Roman Catholic and professor of Sociology at Bethlehem University – the great majority, estimated at 400,000 worldwide or roughly 6.5 percent of all Palestinians, are of indigenous stock, whose mother tongue is Arabic and whose history takes them back, or at least some of them, to the early church. At present, the 50,000 Christians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip make up only 2.2 percent of the total population estimated in the mid-nineties at 2,238,0001. Palestinian Arab Christians in Israel were estimated, for the same year, at 125,000 or 14 percent of all Arabs in Israel. Christians in Palestine and Israel make up 175,000 or 2.3 percent of the entire Arab and Jewish population of the Holy Land. A majority of fifty-six percent of Palestinian Christians are found outside of their country. This situation of out-migration resulted from the exodus of 726,000 Palestinian refugees in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Fifty to sixty thousand Palestinian Christians, comprising 35 percent of all Christians in pre1948 mandatory Palestine, were among the refugees. In 1996, these refugees and their descendants are spread over the entire Middle East but primarily in the sixty refugee camps dotting the topography of the West Bank (19 refugee camps); Gaza Strip (8 refugee camps); Jordan (10 refugee camps); Syria (10 refugee camps) and Lebanon (13 refugee camps).

That is why the Holy See looks with much interest at the Palestinian diplomatic initiatives. For the PNA, UNESCO is another possible way to international recognition. The Palestinians are also trying to secure a bridgehead into the World Trade Organization and this week have won partnership status on the Council of Europe. All these initiatives aim to help achieve the main objective, namely, UN recognition of the Palestinian territories as a state.

With the UNESCO decision, the scenario will change, and peculiarly for two issues: Jerusalem and Israeli settlements. Let us make some examples. First of all, Palestinian sites will considered be relevant in the world. Until now, it was not possible enlist a Palestinian site in the UNESCO World heritage list, since Palestine was not a State and it was not part of the UNESCO. Now it will be possible.

Giving a short glance to the possible Palestinian World Heritage site would let under stand the peculiar interest of the Holy See in the Region. For example, the Church of Nativity in Betlehem – heart of Christianity- that UNESCO could not proclaim as part of the World Heritage Site List the last May because Palestine does not formally exist. And then Jericho, with its traces of thousand of years of history, of the byzantine era, of the Christianity; Nablus and his Old Town; and finally Hebron and Al Khalil.

The Israeli settlements issue will be raised, and not only for what it concern Hebron, but also for the villages Melina Mercouri and Battir. Around these villages – in-between Betlehem and Jerusalem – there are settlements as Har Gilo, Cremisan, Walajeh. It’s many years that the artistic value of these village risks to disappear, because of the expansion of settlements and of the continuing construction of the Separation Wall. So, what will be the consequences if the Palestine will candidate Battir as World Humanity Heritage Site?

Finally, Jerusalem. The Old City of Jerusalem is part of the UNESCO World Humanity Heritage since it had been candidated by Jordan – that still his the custodian of the Muslim Holy Places. Out of the ancient Soliman’s Wall there is much more that can be enlisted. Even the City of David, a site in the heart of Silwan controlled by radical colonies – could be enlisted among the UNESCO sites. What if Palestine would candidate in Jerusalem – the capital of Palestine – the Lazar’s Tomb, the Mount of Olives, the byzantine monasteries as part of the World Humanity Heritage? What if Palestine would candidate the White Town in Tel Aviv – the capital of Israel?

The diplomatic channels of the Holy See is now called to give a good account of itself. At the moment, Holy See is suspended between the support to the Two People-Two Nations solutions – the Pope claimed for it during his trip in Israel, and he did again during the last meeting with Abu Mazen – and the need not to diplomatically annoy Israel – there is still the issue of the Fundamental agreement discussion still on. What will be the weight of Vatican diplomacy for the Palestinian question?