Interview with Msgr. Giovanni Martinelli, Bishop of Tripoli Diocese.
The dual carriageway that leads to the center of Tripoli, coming from the international airport, signals a positive and perceptible change. Flowerbeds are very neat and clean, policemen try to take control of the traffic which remains however chaotic.
The seafront part of the city, very close to the medina, has beenchanging slowly: two new massive buildings now stand besides the old office edifices, made by the Koreans more than ten years ago. Indeed the Al-Fatah tower and the bright new hotel Korintia show how Tripoli seems to be cast to the future.
On the contrary San Francis, the only Catholic church of Tripoli, is located within the Dahra area where time seems to have stopped. Here I met Monsignor Giovanni Martinelli, bishop of the capital and main player in the re-establishment of the relations between the Holy See and Libya in 1997. Today (May the 12th 20003) the Arab world celebrates the birth of Mohammed: this fortuitousness gives us the starting point of this interview meant to investigate a side of Libya which is very less known: religious tolerance.
“Actually, the dialogue between the Vatican and Libya has never been ceased since the coming of the revolution (1969)” Monsignor Martinelli says “ We have gone through difficult periods, which however are now totally overcome. The relations between the Holy See and Libya are now proceeding in the best way possible.”
Q. – What do you mean by saying that the dialogue has never been ceased? When the revolution came to power, Italians were thrown out of the Country and all their possessions taken over….
The first years of revolution have been indeed the most difficult ones.
Even though there was an agreement between the Holy See and the revolutionary government which guaranteed us the possibility to have two churches, one in Tripoli and the other in Bengazi, the second one was taken away after few years.
Few people can possibly remember that in 1976 an Islam-Christian congress was held in Tripoli, organized by the Holy See in Libya. In that occasion, the flow of people was extraordinary and unexpected: more than 500 people attended it. The Libyan regime wanted to show that the closing down of churches within the Country was simply due to fact that Church identified itself with colonialism and fascism.
However, I must add that, although this congress represented a signal of openness, it was unfortunately ended by an appendix totally unwelcome by the Holy See. Israel was defined as sionist and racist. Libyan authority apologized for it and the note, made by the Vatican, was inserted within the memorandum.
Generally speaking, congress climate was however positive: in that occasion, we were able to have back a church in Bengazi.
Q. – Therefore, is it thanks to this unbroken line that the diplomatic relations could be reopened, while the international embargo was sharpened and confirmed?
The embargo was not a bar for the Holy See to settle diplomatic relations with Libya. On the contrary, the adoption of international sanctions has perhaps pushed the Vatican to show that the solution of conflicts is not isolation but the dialogue with countries having different social and political elements.
Q. – On the other hand, you have always held a position contrary to the adoption of such international sanctions against Libya, considered responsible for Lockerbie terrorist attack…
The embargo is deeply unjust and pointless, since the inevitable and major sufferings have been burden by the poorest and the most vulnerable.
The embargo has only caused the choke of dialogue: Libya has never opposed itself to the trial of the two suspects believed responsible for this terrorist action. It only asked for warrants of justice and fairness before releasing two Libyan citizens.
Q. – Is it possible to interpret the restoration of the diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Libya as a signal given to the International Community?
The opportunity to re-establish international relations has occurred also in the light of having back some properties. However, Libya has never shown itself conciliatory towards this topic: it expressed a positive attitude towards diplomatic relations and friendship agreements. However, all properties the Church had had in Libya were considered as properties of fascism, colonialism and therefore Italy.
Libya’s strong opposition to this request has made the Vatican to commit itself to a truthful friendship relation, based not on material concerns but on a real respect of mutual identities and awareness within this Muslim-Arab environment.
The Holy See has wished to give a friendly signal to Libya, exactly during the embargo: the Holy Father showed himself very attentive to the situation. I believe that he personally took the decision: it was necessary to restore diplomatic relations also to disprove that the Vatican was simply following the master voice, as Libyan people started to think.
Q. – Which had been, if any, the conditions set for it?
In 1997 the diplomatic relations were re-established with the Libyan commitment to guarantee complete freedom of movement to the Church, as sole condition. Following this restoration, the Libyan government has signed a protocol allowing us to meet and visit people of Christian faith all over Libya, wherever they are.
What the Church has always been looking for is simply the right and freedom to exist: particularly in this contest where it was seen as a secular power. The Libyan regime and its people have indeed understood that our goal is only to make the dialogue live and build bridges among different cultures and religions. This is an outstanding result. We have got back our dignity, since the Church meant for Libyans simply Italy up until few years ago.
Q. – However, the old Cathedral in Tripoli has not been given back to you….
We have not asked for having it back, we don’t want it. We were bereft of the church in Bengazi and we asked for having one back there. In Tripoli we had and still have the church in the Dahra area: this is enough. The Cathedral represents a kind of presence of Church that is unsuitable for the contest: it is in the full center of the city and reminds a way of behaving of the past, which today I feel unease with. We have been offered the Catholic church located within the medina: however due to logistical matters, we have refused it. It can become either a museum or be assigned to the Anglican community.
On the other hand the Cathedral is still a place of worship [it is now a mosque]. The attempt is to make it more inserted in the city life and to fade the memories linked to a period towards which the attitude of Libyan people has remained unchanged.
Q. – How has the Church identity changed in Libya?
Well, at the beginning it has an Italian identity, then socialist and now an Afro-Asiatic one.
Asia is represented by Philippines, Pakistani and Indians who all, in general, work for hospitals. Africans mainly come from the deep part of the continent. Most of them are illegal migrants, who manage to enter in Libya thanks to the political openness attitude towards Africa. As in Europe, most of these people are looking for better conditions of life. In Libya they are able to find a job and become part of the local reality.
On the other hand, Libyans, generally speaking, are tolerant and do not pay any attention if a foreigner is in order or not, mainly as far as Africans are concerned, because they come from countries with a lot of difficulties such as war and famine.
Finally, one has to add to them all Europeans who work for the diplomatic delegations and foreign companies, so that being Catholic in Libya turns up very international.
The re-establishment of the diplomatic relations between Libya and the Vatican has given a definite, official and safe structure to this diversified presence. The protocol above requires that we need to inform Libyan authorities when we move to the desert indeed to have a better security, not to ask permission.
Q. – As you have mentioned, in 1998 Colonel Gaddafi embraced a new foreign policy, opening towards Africa. However, the beginning was not very easy, was it?
Actually there has been a sort of intolerance towards this new foreign policy. Undoubtedly, at first, it has led to an indiscriminate openness of Libya to all Africans, without any form of control.
However, the strong reaction of the population has determined the adoption of more restrictive measures and major control on the entrances in the Country by Libyan authorities.
Indeed, opening the country is one thing, surely positive. Check the people entering is another, since this latter one allows to stem the possible criminality, which may cause internal troubles.
Q. - Lately Libya has been trying to get rid of its past in the eyes of the International Community. Can the Church play any role in this process?
Since last few years, even more after September the 11th, Libya has been striving hard to show the world that the Libyan Islam does not identify itself with the expression of violence and terrorism.
Libya has distanced itself from those terrible events. Particularly, it has given signs of appreciation to the Church, in general, and the Pope.
The fact that the Holy Father has been able to loudly speak against the war in Iraq has been something providential also for us. Very often Arabs are inclined to identify the Christianity with the US. While in 1991 there was some hesitation, this time the Holy See has been very definite and careful, also reassuring us, as far as possible negative reactions.
Lately the Vatican has taken a clear position to resume the way of dialogue and openness. However, also the Libyan authorities should try harder to moderate some positions.
Q. – How would you define Libya today?
Libya is fragile, huge, precarious. It is a country that has made many steps forward, but it is still building itself. The actual regime wishes to strengthen the sense of nation, reducing the fragmentation of tribes, qabile and powers. My sense is that Libya has acquired a different, precise identity, it has never had before.
On the other hand, the regime itself has changed since the revolution: while before it was more idealist oriented, wishing to strictly apply the Green Book principles, in time this attitude has been mitigated and fit itself to the requests of the population emerging within the Popular Committees.
The regime remains, but it allows now more flowing positions. The unity of the Arab world, which seemed a fundamental necessity for Libyan foreign policy, has been dropped. Now, its direction is towards Africa: I think this new foreign approach is an important signal. Who worries about Africa today?
Libya, swimming against the stream and possibly part of the population, has undoubtedly the courage to help Africa to grow and develop, mediating among conflicting positions of the different tribes of the continent, through some grants but also giving the African students the chance to come to Libya to study.
After 34 years of power, I think that Gaddafi is willing to demonstrate that his regime has certainly made many mistakes, such as considering terrorism as a political instrument.
However, Libya has been able to reverse. Gaddafi wants Libya to recover its dignity among the international community. This is the prize for the future.
Alessia Casetta
alessia.casetta@unicatt.it
