The credibility that the diplomatic corps of the Holy See has built over centuries can be jeopardised by a possible mishandling of relations with China.
One of the most eminent contemporary political scientists, Joseph Nye, makes a distinction between ‘soft’ power and ‘hard’ power.
Hard power involves influence through military coercion or economic power. Economic benefits, or the threat of economic sanctions, are used as carrot sticks to make weaker nations alter their behaviour. Military might browbeats other states into submission.
Soft power is equally concerned with influence. This approach opts for persuasion over force. Diplomacy, cultural exchanges, historic links, multilateral agreements and general goodwill play an important part in attempting to influence the behaviour of states.
The foreign policy of most nations inevitably includes a mixture of both hard and soft power. The Holy See remains one of the few powers in the world to depend entirely on soft power. This is where its strength lies.
It is one of the most remarkable diplomatic entities in existence. The first papal envoys were sent to the court in Constantinople as far back as 453AD; a more formalised structure emerged in the Middle Ages, and the first apostolic nunciature opened in Venice in 1500.
In the 1960s, some saw this structure as an outdated relic from a time when the Pope had temporal, as well as spiritual, powers. By the mid-1970s, the possibility of scrapping the diplomatic arm was mooted. Fortunately, this never took place.
During the formidable papacy of John Paul II, the diplomatic arm of the Holy See grew exponentially. In 1978, the Holy See had ties with 85 countries. Now, 40 years later, 183 countries established full ties with the Holy See. The Holy See also acts as an observer in several multilateral organisations. Its worldwide reach is unparalleled.
With no economic interests to speak of, and with no military to back it, the Holy See often plays the role of the credible mediator. It has performed this role with distinction.
In 2007, 15 Royal Navy personnel were seized at gunpoint by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards after the latter claimed that the sailors trespassed into Iran’s territorial waters. Britain’s relations with Tehran were thorny and its options were limited. Tony Blair, asked Benedict XVI whether he would mediate with the Iranian government. The Pope wrote to the Iranian government requesting that they release the sailors as a humanitarian gesture. President Ahmadinejad agreed. Only skilful diplomacy, built on centuries of experience could achieve this result.
To date, the Holy See remains one of a handful of nations to recognise China, based in Taipei, as the legitimate government of China. Although officially motivated by the Church’s opposition to communism, there are still legitimate reasons – moral and historical – to oppose a change in this policy.
Nonetheless, some developments are quite worrying. Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, was quoted as saying that “those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese”. This is a deceptive and dangerous statement.
The Chinese government, while asserting the right to draft a list of suitable regime-approved bishops, is striving to assure the Vatican that Rome will always have the final say
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church makes it manifestly clear that unity “is not to be built on the force of arms, terror or abuse of power”. Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, China reformed much of its economic structures. To the outside world, China looks like a modern success story which gradually modified the free market to suit its needs and its political system.
However, it is this capacity to adapt which makes the regime dangerous. The communist regime frequently makes use of technology to suppress fundamental freedoms. Indeed, its economic prosperity depends on a labour force modelled on a mass sweatshop.
While China may have economic and financial stability, its regime is morally and ethically bankrupt. The former Nobel Prize laureate, the late Liu Xiaobo once observed that, in China “criminal elements have become officialised as officials have become criminalised”. He believed that democracies were China’s last hope.
When democratic governments choose to appease the Chinese government – when they refuse to address the numerous human rights abuses perpetrated by the regime – they become complicit in the crimes of the same regime.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church makes another important observation which China routinely breaks. The Church seeks “freedom of expression, teaching and evangelisation; freedom of public worship; freedom of organisation and of her own internal government; freedom of selecting, educating, naming and transferring her ministers.”
These freedoms cannot be guaranteed by China. Joseph Cardinal Zen, the 86-year-old former bishop of Hong Kong, has been at the forefront of opposing any deal with the present regime. He rightfully argues that no agreement should be reached over the appointment of bishops in China.
The Chinese government, while asserting the right to draft a list of suitable regime-approved bishops, is striving to assure the Vatican that Rome will always have the final say. However, Cardinal Zen argued that the choices presented by the Chinese regime will invariably be inadequate and that an agreement with the totalitarian regime will be a “total sellout”.
The cardinal is correct. In a keynote speech, President Xi Jinping emphasised that the Communist Party must guide religion in China and this must be “Chinese in orientation”.
While expressing a desire to reach an agreement with the Holy See, the regime he presides over is responsible for the systematic destruction of places of worship across the country.
China’s lack of religious freedom extends to other faiths. The Communist Party has always had a tricky relationship with the Uighur Muslim minority. In 2014, Muslim civil servants in the western region of Xinjiang were banned from fasting for Ramadan.
Moreover, China has the dubious distinction of imprisoning the youngest prisoner of conscience in the world.
Upon being recognised as the 11th Panchen Lama of Tibetan Buddhism, six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was kidnapped by the State. Twenty-three years have elapsed and his whereabouts are still unknown.
On matters of religion and human dignity, China is opposed to what the Holy See stands for.
Freed from all economic concerns, the Holy See should stand firm. If it does not do so, it may inadvertently give the regime the degree of moral legitimacy it so desperately craves while letting go of the credibility it has to be the leading international soft power.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.
andre.deb@gmail.com