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.

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?