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.

The final goal is the integral disarmament. The path to reach it is the human integral development. And the diplomatic impact is a necessary tool in order to let all the countries be conscious of the need to gain the integral human development, as well as they need to gain an international multilateral policy brought to the common good.

This underlined Francis Assisi Chullikat, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, in his address to the Fourth Session of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, the last February, 13^th. One of the reasons why the Holy See is Permanent Observer – and not Full Member – to the United Nations Assembly resides in its participations to these sessions. As a Full Member, the Holy See would be obliged to vote, and its vote could be politically used. As a Permanent Observer, the Holy See maintain its super partes prerogatives, and at the same time it can have a considerable diplomatic impact.

In his speech, Chullikat underlined five aspects. First, the scope of the ATT, that – according to the Holy See – 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 criteria for application of the treaty maintain reference 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». And then, Chullikat admonished that «the capacity for 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». More: «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 organisations – 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».

These five aspects are part of a well defined program. On one side, the need to diminish the demand for the arms market, favoring the peace and education processes. In this sense, Holy See internationally sustained the proposal not to patent inventions that can be dangerous for human being. This lack of patenting would make the arm production unprofitable, and could be a strong deterrent in the fabrication and invention of new arms and a good tool to get to the integral disarmament.

On the other side, it is obvious that favoring peace and education processes means that Holy See is to pay more attention to the people’s development («The new name of peace is development», Paul VI wrote in the encyclical letter Populorum Progressio in 1967) and to develop the most possible multilateral diplomacy, in order to take into consideration the need of all the countries – even the smallest ones (several times Holy See criticized the G-meetings – G8, G20 – and auspicated a reform of the United Nations). It is to defend the poorest countries that Holy See requested to frame the Arms Trade Treat in order to protect all the arms – and not the restricted group considered in the United Nations Register – from the illicit traffic. An illicit traffic that – in case of war – would favor the richest countries and would disadvantage the poorest countries.

The final draft of the document will be in July. But, until now, Holy See brought on an almost solitary fight to broad the Treaty, even if recently United Kingdom – at the end of the visit of the Delegation sent by Cameron administration to celebrate the 30 years of diplomatic relations between United Kingdom and Holy See – backed Holy See in its effort.

And also Mexico is now officially backing Holy See effort. Organized crime  also cherishes from the  black marketeering  of the small weapons. And the fight to the organized crime – that cause about 60 thousand victims a year -  i.e. the narcoguerra launched a couple of years ago by president Calderon, is topical in Mexico. So, in July Holy See will be able to count on the backing of United Kingdom and Mexico for the ATT. Hopefully, other countries will back Holy See’s effort, and another brick will be put in the wall of peace.

The Ratzinger-Schülerkreis, that is the ‘Ratzinger Students’ Circle’, brings together once a year the old theology professor, now pope Benedict XVI, and his former students to discuss a new topic every year.

The first such meeting was held when Joseph Ratzinger was still a professor in Regensburg. Once he became archbishop of Munich, his students asked him to continue and he accepted. When he moved to Rome to take up the post of prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the annual event continued. Typically, meetings were held at a monastery over a weekend. Now, the location is Castel Gandolfo, where the Pope is during the summer vacations.

New Evangelization is the main topic of Benedict XVI’s pontificate. The 31st of May Benedict XVI  addressed to the participants in the first plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for promoting the new evangelization, asking them to «intensify the missionary action» and to be «genuinely credible». It was Benedict XVI line even in 2000, when he held a catechesis on new evangelization.

The new evangelization deals with the whole world, but it is particularly addressed to the post western Christianity. From its Jewish origins, Christianity, conquered the Pagan world and spread East to Iraq, India and China. Now, it is turning to its origins, being dominated by the people, cultures and countries of the South.

Western society, on the other hand, is on the path of an unprecedented secularization. The idea of God is excluded by the history, but this leads to the refusal that some people can believe in God, so bringing his belief in his everyday life.  It is a matter of religious freedom, still confused as a civil rights problem.

Just take a look at the Malta scenario. Benedict XVI went to Malta the last year. In Malta, Christianity had such an important role that – until now – the little island was the last country in the world where nor abortion, nor divorce were legal. Malta was, in this sense, the last catholic bastion in a highly secularized Europe. This bastion is now weaker, since a referendum promoted a law that allows divorce. The 54 per cent of population voted in favor of the divorce, nevertheless an aggressive campaign brought on by anti-divorce leagues. How long will the forbid to make an abortion now? Portugal – one of the last countries where abortion was not legalized –  approved a very few years ago the termination of pregnancy law.

What will be of Europe in the next 50 years? One should look at  Czech Republic – many say – to see the Europe of the future. The Prague Spring, and then the opposition to Communism, was lead by Catholic movements. But now – according to the last data – the 73 per cent of the Czech population proclaim itself as atheist.

But there are several signals that there is a a space for the resurgence of religious identity, or – at least – that something different, more religious oriented than before, is going on. David Cameron, British prime minister, began to criticize the multicultural model that characterized Great Britain. The 7^th of July 2005 London terrorist attack  is still in the memory of British people. What impressed more was that the attack had been thought and brought on by second-generation sons of immigrated. «Under a State multiculturalism – Cameron said – we encouraged different cultures to live different lives, detached the one from the other and from the mai none. We had not been able to give a vision of society they aimed to belong to».

The new phenomenon of Spain (now also spread in Ireland, Greece and France) is the indignados march. An «ingenuous» movement – some observer said – born against the government’s hated Internet piracy legislation, furiously opposed by Spanish youth, who consider free downloads a cultural right, and become a general movement against the corrupt politicians. But there was something more behind the almost 20 thousand people that marched to Puerta del Sol in Madrid tweeting that the Square was «on the Cañada Real grazing paths; we have the right to sleep there»,  claiming protection under a thirteenth-century royal decree—still defended passionately by environmental groups—that protects the rights of shepherds to camp out with their flocks for three consecutive nights on the hundreds of ancient grazing routes that crisscross the country, even traversing major cities like Madrid. Nobody knows who were the indignados, since  most of them  appeared from nowhere: university-educated, intensely networked 20- to 30-year-olds, many still living with their parents, all acutely aware that post-bubble Spain has little or nothing to offer them as unemployment soars and precarious part-time employment becomes the norm. Even during the boom years, Spanish youth generally worked on short-term contracts with no benefits. The labels mileurista (1,000 euros a month) or ni-ni (neither work nor studies) summarized their humiliation. On Puerta del Sol, the political parties, even the communist-green Left Unity, whose program echoes theindignados’ demands, were absent. So were the big labor unions.

This general uneasiness played its role in the last elections held in Spain. The commitment of Zapatero to legalize gay marriages, in vitro fertilization and assisted hatching, common law marriage, and on the other hand the «war of chapels» brought on under its government – Zapatero was obviously not directly responsible for it, even if the war of chapels is seen as a direct consequence of his ideas – were damaging for Zapatero administration, accused from the people not to be able to take care of the economy. Zapatero administration, indeed, did not pass in vain, since many are now indifferent toward religion.

In Hungary, Christianity took its role back. The preamble of the new Constitution of Hungary refers to God and Christianity as “unifiyng elements” of the country. The political nation of Hungary is identified with the ethnic nation, so discrimating non magyar minorities that live in the country. The Constitution gives the right to vote to the Hungarians that live in the near countries, and this would create friction with Slovakia and Romania, where great Magyar minorities live.

The Costitution would eventually lead to the prohibition of abortion by law, by stating that «the life of the foetus may be protected since the moment it is conceived». More, the competences of Constitutional Court are restricted, since the Court cannot occupy of economics and social issues; the influence of the executive power on judiciary power is extended, so judiciary power is less independent than before.

The Constitution was outlined by the center-oriented Hungarian party Fidesz. Fidesz won the election in 2010 getting two third of the Parliament seats. Thanks to this overwhelming majority, Fidesz bypassed the opposition boycott to the Constitutional reform, as well as some little riots.This new charta, said Fidesz spokesman, will «complete the democratization power begun in 1989, when Communist regime in Hungary collapsed». The great majority of the Parliament voted for the new Constitution, but Jobbik, the extreme right party, and this is a signal that this is not a merely Christian-conservative constitution.

It is to notice that, while Hungarian Parliament turned to a Christian-oriented new Constitution, the Hungarian Episcopal Conference changed the name of the Commission Justice and Peace to Commission Caritas in veritate. By re-naming the commission, bishops say they wanted to homage the Papal encyclical. But the encyclical – written by several hands, and often mystified from the liberal-conservative wing (e.g. Michael Novak and all the branch of studies brought on by Acton Institute) that give a capitalistic oriented reading of the encyclical – is just a part of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and this renaming has been seen as a sort of weakening of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Caritas in veritate is also the name of a commission of European Episcopal Conference, and it is the name of a research area of Università Lateranense in Rome – the university of the Pope – sponsored by Acton Institute. Was the Hungarian Episcopal Conference choice a counter position to the new Constitutional chart? Vatican insiders just do not want to deny this kind of scenario.

What about Italy? Cardinal Camillo Ruini prophecy – the cardinal, former president of Italian Episcopal Conference, make this prophecy to a few friends – is that Italy itself is going to a sort of Zapatero-era, even if softer. There are several signals: Milan and Naples new mayors are respectively  an ex communist (but very grateful to the founder of Communion and Liberation don Luigi Giussani) and an ex magistrate that became an idol of anti-politics. The political indifference feed the religious indifference, while the parties that can count on a solid tradition do not have the strength to be in the public debate. In the mean time, religious indifference is taking all Europe as a disease.

That’s why there is the need for a new evangelization. The Pope itself wanted the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization . Benedict XVI encouraged the members of the Pontifical Council to give a special contribution for the 13^th synod of bishops, scheduled for October 2012 and dedicated to “New Evangelization and transmission of Christian Faith”. The question one can make is if there is a new evangelization without the Social Doctrine of the Church. Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga considers the Social Doctrine of the Church the «best kept secret in the world». So well kept that there is no trace of it in the motu proprio Ubicumque et semper that promulgates the new pontifical council for the New Evangelization.

«The current crisis – Benedict XVI said – brings with it traces of the exclusion of God from people’s lives, from a generalized indifference towards the Christian faith to an attempt to marginalize it from public life. In the past decades, it was still possible to find a general Christian sensibility which unified the common experience of entire generations raised in the shadow of the faith which had shaped culture. Today, unfortunately, we are witnessing a drama of fragmentation which no longer acknowledges a unifying reference point; moreover, it often occurs that people wish to belong to the Church, but they are strongly shaped by a vision of life which is in contrast with the faith».

This vision now can fail. Is now the time for a new true Christianity to come?