University of Bath PHD “How many divisions has he got?” The Holy See’s soft power on the US Wars in Iraq, 1991 & 2003 Cahill, Luke Award date: 2019 Awarding institution: University of Bath Link to publication Alternative formats If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact: [email protected] General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 Citation for published version: Cahill, L 2019, '“How many divisions has he got?” The Holy See’s soft power on the US Wars in Iraq, 1991 & 2003', Ph.D., University of Bath. Publication date: 2019 Link to publication University of Bath General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 11. Jun. 2019 “How many divisions has he got?” The Holy See’s soft power on the US Wars in Iraq, 1991 & 2003 Luke Edmund Cahill A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Bath Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies April 2018 COPYRIGHT Attention is drawn to the fact that copyright of this thesis/portfolio rests with the author and copyright of any previously published materials included may rest with third parties. A copy of this thesis/portfolio has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it understands that they must not copy it or use material from it except as licenced, permitted by law or with the consent of the author or other copyright owners, as applicable. Access to this thesis/portfolio in print or electronically is restricted until ………………. (date). Signed on behalf of the Doctoral College...................................(print name)…………. Acknowledgements No man is an island, and each conversation and interaction impacted this work in small and large ways. First and foremost, thanks go to Dad and Mum, without their continual support, guidance and willingness to lend a hand, none of this would have been possible. Naturally, thanks go to my supervisors, Dr Scott Thomas and Dr Brett Edwards. Thank you Scott for your boundless patience, your encouragement and making yourself so readily available and agreeing to take me on. Brett, your good humour, reassurance and sound advice helped me deliver this project at times when doubt clouded my mind. Before embarking on this journey, I had read how some students led an isolated PhD life. I feared the worst. Yet, because of the people around me I never encountered this to any great degree. Valerie and Cecilie, you were the best housemates I could have wished for in that hectic first year. I am pleased to have met you in that chance encounter, and will always appreciate the friendship that has grown out of that year in Ringwood Road. Stephen, you were a regular visitor to Bath. Whether the curry, the sights or my company was the greater attraction I’ll never know, but I am certain I’ll always value your visits and the times spent together over these years. Recognition and deep appreciation goes to those I was lucky enough to share an office with and made these years thoroughly enjoyable and at times, fall off my chair funny. So thanks, in no particular order to, Dr Mattia Cacciatori, Dr Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou, Dr Milena Romano, Dr Hakki Goker Onen, Dr Neville Li, Dr Zainab Mai-Bornu, Eva Polymenakou, Katie Halet, Andrea Delgado, Tomos Evans, Tom Hobson and our honorary office member, Dr Sandra Daroczi. None of this overlooks two ace people, Dr Steve Davey and Aurimas Bukauskas, thanks for all the fun times and walks. Thanks also to Andrew Johnstone for your friendship, conversation and the clarity of your advice. A special word goes to Dr Gala Ravelli, who has advised me on matters doctoral and non-doctoral. Your sincerity, warmth and wit gently guided me during those times I did not know which way to turn. Dr Kate Pincock and Dr Renske Visser, I couldn’t have wished for better pub quiz teammates, we never got to play our specialist rounds, but will someday. 2 AMDG 3 Abstract It is unsurprising that the Holy See, as a religious actor, opposed both 1991 and 2003 Iraq Wars. However, a contradiction exists as to why it did so. In 1991 it predicated its opposition on not all the just war criteria being met. This was despite UN Security Council support and the war been seen as just. For the 2003 war, Holy See opposition was based principally on the lack of a Security Council resolution. From this, its presumed moral status can be questioned through its seemingly total rejection of the moral use of force. Using Nye’s concept of soft power and Arnold Wolfers’ possession (security or territory) and milieu (shaping the environment in which states operate) goals, this thesis will argue that the Holy See’s milieu goals were too weak to overcome US possession goals. As expected the Holy See emphasised milieu goals while the US stressed possession goals. However, these delineations became blurred. The United States sought to merge milieu and possession goals. It wished to be seen as benevolent, in addition to its seeking possession goals. The Holy See also wished to advance its possession goals. It sought to protect Iraqi Chaldean Catholics, as well as Christians in the wider Middle East, through vocal opposition. The Holy See hoped that this opposition would separate the US-led coalitions’ actions from the indigenous Christians in the region in the eyes of non-Christians. Thus, seeking to avoid a regional backlash against Christians. The central hypothesis of this thesis tests how the Holy See attempted to use soft power to attract the United States to its policies. It will be maintained that the divisions between US Catholics weakened Holy See attraction on the US government. Consequently, the pope had more divisions than he would care to admit. Central to domestic factors were cultural differences. US political culture was fundamentally Protestant and had a binary worldview, making the use of force more likely. Other domestic factors were Catholicism’s divided nature, institutional and polling aspects which benefited both presidents. Concurrently, its special international status made it harder to relate to the United States and weakened its soft power. However, Holy See opposition was also predicated on the advancement of its possession goals. This thesis helps understand Holy See foreign policy through the lens of milieu and possession goals. Its neutrality and theology made it apply an impossibly high just war theory standard. It also has wider implications for the study of soft power to the study of International Relations. 4 Contents PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. 9 PART ONE ............................................................................................................................. 10 Chapter I ................................................................................................................................. 10 Introduction: Ut Unum Sint .................................................................................................. 10 Resurgence of Religious Actors ....................................................................................... 14 Background ....................................................................................................................... 17 Reasons for Holy See Influence .................................................................................... 17 Holy See (In)Ability to Influence ................................................................................. 19 Domestic Politics .......................................................................................................... 24 International Politics ..................................................................................................... 28 Holy See “actorness” .................................................................................................... 29 US-Holy See diplomatic relations ................................................................................ 33 Research Questions........................................................................................................... 37 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................ 38 Chapter II ..............................................................................................................................