An Italian Foreign Policy of Religious Engagement: Challenges and Prospects

Abstract

A new awareness on the role of religion in international relations has started to inform concrete policy discussions in several Western Ministries of Foreign Affairs under the heading of 'religious engagement' in foreign policy. Italy is no exception but as the country which hosts the Holy See represents a special case. As the approach to religion found in the historical record of the Italian foreign policy shows, Italy has a comparative advantage and could well develop a unique model of religious engagement by strengthening the central structures involved in religious matters and foreign policy as well as by using the vast network of Rome-based religious non-state actors as a forum of consultation and policy advice.Against the prediction of the secularisation thesis, it has gradually become clear in the last quarter of century that religion is back at the centre stage of international politics. As Toft, Philpott and Shah remind us in their recent book, God's Century, politicians and diplomats in the 21 st century must "learn to live with the fact that the issue is not whether, but when and how, religious actors will enter public life and shape political outcomes".1 It is only in the last five years, however, that governments have been looking at the global resurgence of religion in international affairs as a specific policy challenge which requires strategic thinking and appropriate policy responses: this new, small, but fast growing, policy area is now often referred to as 'religious engagement' in foreign policy.2 Ministries of Foreign Affairs of European countries such as France and the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway and Hungary have started to strengthen their capacity to engage with the unexpected global resurgence of religion in world politics in order to "make better policy and to make a bigger difference", as the title of a recent conference sponsored by the Foreign Office suggests.3 The US, the EU and Canada have moved in a similar direction by creating new offices and advisors' roles.This policy challenge represents, for the country hosting the Holy See, an interesting casestudy and opportunity to reformulate the traditional approach to religion found in the 1 Toft, Philpott and Shah, God's Century, 211. 2 See Mandaville and Silvestri, "Integrating Religious Engagement and Diplomacy". 3 "Religion, foreign policy and development: making better policy to make a bigger difference",

From Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) advocacy to interreligious engagement in foreign policy

“…Often unaware, religious non-state actors, through encounter, dialogue and the daily experiences of lived religion, access the poor, the marginalized, the ignored and the forgotten on the periphery of societies: they are de facto constructing a new, radical form of knowledge from below on how the international system works (Petito & Thomas, 2015). In any case, the new policy strategy of religious engagement requires a new set of skills and mindset for both governments and religious actors as preconditions for building new capacity aimed at delivering innovative government-religious partnerships (Ferrara and Petito, 2016;Birdsall et al, 2015). Ultimately, religious engagement is a call for a new dialogue and mutual learning between secular and religious institutions in the acknowledgement and respect of their different domains, responsibilities and missions, recognizing that collaboration may be crucial when facing some of the new global challenges and to strengthen the common good.…”

Hybrid transnational social protection: The role of religious institutions and networks

“…Again, the state relied strongly on church organisations to provide welfare services (Choate, 2007: 736; Smith, 2003). For example, the government actively supported the expansion of post-war Catholic missions in Argentina and Brazil on the basis that Italian diplomatic networks there were working with large Italian communities (Ferrara and Petito, 2016: 35). Thus, an established transnational infrastructure of NGO and church service providers was already in place during the second major outflow of emigrants between 1946 and 1974.…”