Home > Archives > 01/02 - 2006 > Fears and hopes in the Holy Land
MIDDLE EAST
from issue no. 01/02 - 2006

THE MIDDLE EASTERN POLICY OF THE HOLY SEE

Fears and hopes in the Holy Land


The Middle East, at the crossroads of three continents, is the cradle of the three monotheistic religions. It is the most important source of oil supplies, but it is also victim of the situation created by the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is the region of the world that spends more on armaments, despite the vast numbers living in poverty. The thoughts of the French Cardinal who has worked for thirty years in Vatican diplomacy


by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran


A Palestinian observing the wall built by the Israelis inside the West Bank

A Palestinian observing the wall built by the Israelis inside the West Bank

While I was preparing for the conference of this afternoon, I thought that I would be happy, once finished, if my listeners had been able to perceive the freedom with which the Popes and their collaborators face, from a purely ethical perspective, situations as complex as that of the Middle East. At bottom the words of the Popes or the discreet action of pontifical diplomats is the voice of the conscience that says to a region where every situation can change overnight: we cannot accept the banalization of the small and large wars that perpetuate injustice and torment whole peoples who don’t know whether they will have a future. The Holy See never ceases to encourage a return to international legality: that is, the refusal to recognize the acquisition of territory by force, the right of peoples to self-determination, respect for the UN Charter and Resolutions, to condense it considerably. Freedom, truth and dialogue: pontifical diplomacy could be summed up as that!
But before entering on the topic assigned to me, I would like to make some brief qualifications: what is meant by “Middle East”, what does the expression “Holy See” indicate?

The Middle East
The modern notion of Middle East occurs for the first time in 1902, in an article by Alfred Mahan, that appeared in the National Review of London. It is an area that stretches from the east of the Mediterranean as far as Pakistan and that embraces Arab and non-Arab peoples. Since 1948 it embraces the State of Israel also. The political crises that shake it and the wars that rend it, as well as its energy resourc­es, give it an ever renewed economic and strategic centrality, something I shall enlarge on later.

The Holy See
It is not the equivalent of the Catholic Church. It is not the same thing as the Vatican City State. It is this unique center of universal community represented by the Pope and his Curia in the service of the Catholic Church, which is by nature a universal reality. At least since the early Middles Ages countries have acknowledged a subjectivity and freedom to this center that has enabled it to be a real partner of the agents of the international community, as legal person in international public law that pursues religious and moral ends, from which all peoples may benefit. In a word, the Holy See is no other than the papacy. A moral power.
The topic chosen for our meeting is particularly suited to throwing light on how the Holy See, moral power, careful to remain super partes, contributes to a certain “moralization” of international life by making its voice heard in defense of the rights of the human person and of nations, of respect for international law and for the promotion of co-operation and peace.
Every people has the right to its own land in sovereignty and freedom. This the Popes have always said and have said it to all and for all. One cannot defend one’s own legitimate rights by trampling on those of others. That is why the Popes have spoken out in favor of the existence of two states – Israeli and Palestinian – that enjoy the same freedom, sovereignty, dignity and security

What does the Middle East look like today?
Obviously what I offer are personal opinions, the outcome of a certain familiarity with that part of the world. Let me explain. I was Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciature to Beirut from 1979 to 1983, at the height of the civil war. Then, from 1990, when Pope John Paul II appointed me Secretary for Relations with States, I dealt with the normalization of relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel (diplomatic relations opened in 1994). In addition, from the first Gulf War up to the Iraq crisis, Middle East affairs were among those that took up most of my energy, until the month of October 2003, when I joined the College of Cardinals. Numerous missions to the Middle East have given me a certain knowledge of the men and problems of the region. All this to say that this lecture will also be, in a certain sense, a testimony.
The Middle East today is frightening. And for good reason. It stands at the crossroads of three continents. It is the cradle of the three monotheistic religions. It has become the most important source of oil supplies. But it is also victim of the situation created by the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The consequences of the American operation in Iraq have still not all been identified. To this must be added the nuclear threat and the terrorism that finds all the ingredients for expansion in such a context.
The Middle East is the region of the world that spends most money on armaments. Islamic extremist currents are present everywhere. The absence of political alternation in government, the poverty of the humbler social classes, uncontrolled urbanization, unemployment as well as demographic pressure favor a privileged minority and the practice of corruption.
It is true that there are some rays of hope: it has been possible to organize elections in the Palestinian territories; the withdrawal (at least as far as one can see) of Syrian troops from Lebanon; municipal elections have been organized in Saudi Arabia; Iraq has taken on a Constitution; in many countries the need for a real share in the political life is being felt.
But one might also ask: might not democracy plunge the region into anarchy? Might it not bring movements or parties of an Islamist stamp to power? Is not the prolonged American presence in Iraq going to exacerbate the xenophobia or the hatred of the West of the local populations? We can glimpse the complexity of the situation in that part of the world among fears and hopes. From it emerges a feeling of insecurity that the success of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories and the state of health of Ariel Sharon are contributing to increase. It is probable then that, for many years to come, the Middle East will be an area of turbulence: the influence of the Islamic movements will last, anti-American and anti-Western feeling will remain high; the terrorist risk inside and outside the region will weigh on security; the evolution of the oil market will very much depend on that instability. «L’expérience prouve qu’au Moyen Orient seul l’imprévu est prévisible et le pire n’est jamais sûr!».
An armed Palestinian in the Ain Al Hilhew refugee camp in Lebanon

An armed Palestinian in the Ain Al Hilhew refugee camp in Lebanon

What has been the line followed by the Holy See faced with this situation?

I would say that it has developed around five convictions:
1. the Popes have been careful to remain “super partes”, as final appeal for all parties;
2. the Holy See, as subject of international law with religious character, has not proposed technical solutions, but has tried facilitate them, in the light particularly of what is stipulated by international law;
3. it has never forgotten the presence of Christian communities and has defended their specific rights, in particular the right to freedom of conscience and of religion;
4. it has encouraged Judaism-Christianity-Islam inter-religious dialogue;
5. it has advocated a special statute, internationally guaranteed, for the Holy Places of the three religions.
I would now like to illustrate these five convictions that underlie the action of pontifical diplomacy in the Middle East.
1. For the Holy See, freedom, security and justice are the principal factors on which a just peace rests. A peace that was not perceived by the interested parts as impartial would not last; indeed, it would foster feelings of frustration always apt to worsen. For the Catholic Church, every person has the same dignity and the same fundamental rights.
In consequence, every people has the right to its own land in sovereignty and freedom. This the Popes have always said and have said it to all and for all. One cannot defend one’s own legitimate rights by trampling on those of others. That is why the Popes have spoken out in favor of the existence of two States – Israeli and Palestinian – that enjoy the same freedom, sovereignty, dignity and security, according to the dictates of international law.
I wouldn’t like it thought that the Holy See conceives of protecting the Middle Eastern Christians by gathering them in a ghetto or in small religiously pure “enclaves”! For Christians – especially for Catholics – bridges are preferable to walls. The Church is Catholic, universal in its essence. The survival of the Christians in that part of the world cannot be conceived except in symbiosis with Judaism and Islam
2. The Holy See has reminded everyone of the principles of international law that must be applied in univocal manner to avoid the logic of “two weights and two measures”. Dialogue, negotiation, the mediation of the international community if necessary, are the only means worthy of mankind for achieving the peaceful resolution of the inevitable quarrels among States.
Peace is also the outcome of respect for the technical instruments proper to international collaboration. International law guarantees the freedom of the person and of peoples. Respect for commitments made, according to the ancient proverb “pacta sunt servanda”, keeping to the arrangements agreed, often at the cost of great sacrifice, the priority given to dialogue, are the means capable of preventing the weaker being the victims of the force of the stronger and of reminding the more powerful that they will have to account for their actions before the community of nations. That is why, for example, in the case of the Iraq crisis, the Holy See has repeated that everything should have been undertaken and decided in the context of the UN, in particular of chapter VII of the Charter, that states that only the Security Council can, because of particular circumstances, decide whether a member country represents a threat to peace. But that doesn’t mean that the recourse to force is, for the Security Council itself, the only fitting response. International law has banned war, in particular thanks to the UN Charter: I refer to clause 2 § 4, that affirms that member countries shall renounce war in resolving their conflicts.
3. Its purely religious dimension has led the Holy See into seeking to safeguard freedom of conscience and of religion in a region with a Muslim majority. During the two last centuries, the lot of Christians has been linked to the interests of the European powers. The Christians of the Middle East, during the process of 20th century decolonization, have often felt themselves abandoned to an Islam majority, to a new State created as home for the Jews, to Palestinians in search of a land. Three times they have felt themselves in a minority!
That having been said, I wouldn’t like it thought that the Holy See conceives of protecting the Middle Eastern Christians by gathering them in a ghetto or in small religiously pure “enclaves”! For Christians – especially for Catholics – bridges are preferable to walls. The Church is Catholic, universal in its essence. The survival of the Christians in that part of the world cannot be conceived except in symbiosis with Judaism and Islam. That is why the Holy See signed a fundamental Agreement with the State of Israel (30 December 1993) and a basic Agreement with the Palestinian Authority (15 February 2000): to safeguard the rights of Catholics, sheltering them from the crises and changes in the political life of the two societies.
4. As for that, Christian communities that feel respected will be more led to collaborate in the life of the society where they live and hence to the building of peace. And one of the more effective means for succeeding in the task is inter-religious dialogue. We all remember the visit of John Paul II to the synagogue in Rome, his pause at the Wailing Wall and his meeting with the rabbis in Jerusalem, his visit to Bethlehem, the meeting with the rector of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, his visit to Lebanon or again the pause in the historic mosque of Damascus. For the Holy See, dialogue among believers is the best antidote to the poison of the Islamic terrorism that is a perversion of Islam. In his message for the Day of Prayer for Peace, on 1 January 2002, John Paul II stated that killing in the name of God is nothing less than a perversion of religion: «Terrorist violence is contrary to the faith in God Creator of mankind, in God, who takes care of mankind and loves it».
This explains the Holy See’s concern for Lebanon where religions and cultures have been mutually fertile and have shaped the most tolerant and democratic country in the Middle East. A country where all the communities live on a par. A country that constitutes a message for the whole region.
Religions should not be sources of divisions or cause fear. They should on the contrary constitute a powerful factor for humanizing and unifying human society. Louis Massignon, an outstanding scholar of the East, dared one day say that, according to him, each of the three monotheistic religions exemplified one of the theological virtues: Israel, hope; Islam, faith; Christianity, charity!
5. Those who have some familiarity with the texts of the Popes and of the Holy See on the Middle East will observe that they rarely use the expression Middle East, preferring to speak of the “Holy Land”. The reason is obvious: it is a region that has a special relation with faith. It is “holy”: for the Jews, since it is the land of their ancestors, the land of the Book; for the Christians, because it is the land where Jesus lived, where the great events of the Redemption took place and where the Christian communities have their origin; for the Muslims, because it is the land where their religion was born and where they have been present for more than a thousand years.
In addition, at the center, as font and synthesis of the sacredness of this land, stands Jerusalem, conceptual home of all the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Jerusalem, today divided, but whose vocation is to be symbol of union and peace for all the human family. This explains the insistence and the intensity with which the Popes, since 1947, have made themselves defenders of the unique and sacred character of that city. Yes, on 29 November 1947, Resolution 181 of the UN proposed a special regime, under the aegis of the international community: a “corpus separatum”. After Israel’s annexation by force of the “east” zone of the city, the international community advocated the adoption of “an internationally guaranteed statute” for the most sacred parts of the city, dear to the three monotheistic religions. The Holy See has always backed this view, taking care, however, to distinguish the territorial aspect of Jerusalem (capital of two States?) – that must be the object of bilateral negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians – from the multilateral aspect, the consequence of the religious and universal dimension of the Holy Places of the three religions, whose believers are scattered throughout the world. It would be a matter, in short, of the international community becoming guarantor of the unique and sacred character of the “intra muros” part of Jerusalem that houses the Holy Places, surrounded by human communities with their languages, cultural traditions, schools, hospitals, shops… The Holy See is of the view that a special statute, guaranteed by the international community, is the only effective way to ensure that, in the future, under the pressure of political events or changes, one of the two sides does not usurp control of the sanctuaries and of the human communities that surround them.
Two Palestinian girls going back after school into the Ain Al Hilhew refugee camp in Lebanon

Two Palestinian girls going back after school into the Ain Al Hilhew refugee camp in Lebanon

These reflections of mine are essentially inspired by the teaching and actions of Pope John Paul II, also in consideration of the fact that out of my twenty-eight years service in pontifical diplomacy, a good twenty-five years belong to the pontificate of that great Pontiff.
But I would like to observe that his successor has taken on his mantle in the international field also and, in particular, as regards the Middle East.
It’s sufficient to read the first message for the Day of Prayer for Peace on 1 January 2006 or Benedict XVI’s speech at the presentation of good wishes by the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See to be convinced. Like John Paul II, Benedict XVI bases international activity on justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. He trusts in the force of law. In this regard the message of 1 January last contains high praise of human rights. In front of the diplomats, the present Pope also insisted on the dialogue among religions and cultures, praising the fruitfulness of the intercourse between «Judaism and Hellenism, between the Roman world, the Germanic world and the Slav world … the Arab world and the European world». One of the first gestures of the new Pope was a visit to a synagogue in Cologne, in the month of August last. With the same vigor as his predecessor he condemned terrorism, describing it as «criminal activity that covers those who perpetrate it with infamy, makes them all the more blameworthy in that they take refuge behind the shield of a religion, so debasing to the level of their own blindness and moral perversion the pure truth of God». And thinking of the Middle East, Benedict XVI reiterated the right of the State of Israel to exist in the Holy Land, «according to the rules of international law» and also the right «of the Palestinian people to be able to develop in peace their own democratic institutions for a free and prosperous future ».
In conclusion, allow me to evoke what peace for the Middle East would mean:
- it would release human energies and economic resources for the economic, social and cultural development of whole peoples;
- it would consolidate civic society and democratization;
- it would take away all reason for violent action from the extremists, who feed off the frustration of the disinherited;
- it would encourage constructive dialogue between religions and cultures, so avoiding religious extremism and the emigration of Christians.
Just in these days, when new situations are once again threatening the precarious balance reached in a part of the world where, among other things, most financial investment is in the purchase of weapons, it is the duty of all men of goodwill to remind everybody that war will always be the worst means for assuring peace. Christians at least believe in the possibility of a different logic that can be summed up in a few words: every man is my brother. Yes, we Christians think that if we were all convinced that we are called upon to live together, that it is good to know, respect and help each other, well the world would be a totally different place.
Nobody, aside from a few fanatics, gains from seeing the Middle East bleeding yet again. That is why the Holy See will continue, with conviction and perseverance, to help all the people of the region, constrained by geography, by history – I would also say by religion – to live together and also to treat fundamental human rights and international law with respect. And this will happen only if the force of law manages to prevail finally over the law of force!


Italiano Español Français Deutsch Português