In his homily at the inauguration Mass, Pope Francis urged his listeners around the world to “be protectors of God’s gifts!” I have been as fascinated and charmed by the new pope as anyone else, of course, as taken by his manner of dignified simplicity as I have been intrigued by the international implications of his country of origin. But his reference to gifts made me smile a short while later.
As the international and religious dignitaries lined up to meet him, I noticed that some came bearing gifts. I asked myself, mischievously, whether the Pope would “protect” the gifts given him with the same tenderness that he urged the world to protect the weak and vulnerable.
One young mother (I don’t know which government her husband was representing) presented the pope with a white papal skull cap that seemed a size too small for Pope Francis. What she was thinking of, I don’t know, and I’m not sure the pope, listening politely to her, did either.
Even before the morning’s celebrations began, controversy had arisen in Taiwan over the gift that President Ma Ying-jeou planned to present: a Franz vase embossed with the design of a magpie. According to Taiwanese beliefs, the magpie is a symbol of blessing and joy. But an Opposition politician criticised Ma for lacking “an understanding of European culture”, where a magpie is often understood as a bad omen. Whether the gift was given in the end, I don’t know.
On the other hand Joseph Muscat's gesture inviting Lawrence Gonzi to accompany him and President Abela was definitely a move in the right direction. Although I have no idea if there wise men bore gifts.
No doubt, however, the most significant gift, symbolically speaking, was given earlier by Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s: a mate gourd and straw for drinking the nation’s traditional tea. It was a sly reminder of the pope’s national identity.
Kirchner made no secret that she has asked Pope Francis to mediate between Argentina and the UK over the islands the former call the Malvinas and the latter calls the Falklands.
This request, however, comes in the wake of two events last week. First, in a referendum, the inhabitants of the Falklands voted nearly unanimously to remain subjects of the British crown. Second, UK prime minister David Cameron was asked what he made of the declaration by the then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, last year, that the Malvinas had been “usurped” by the UK. Cameron replied, with British aplomb, that he “respectfully” disagreed with Cardinal Bergoglio, while making it sound that he would re-fight the Falklands war if he had to: “The white smoke over the Falklands was pretty clear.”
The issue was raised again by the international press on Tuesday, which noted that the UK delegation was one of the most low-key. The Queen was represented by the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (21st in line to the throne), while Her Majesty’s government was represented by the minister for faith and communities, Baroness Warsi, and a minister without portfolio, Kenneth Clarke.
Warsi, however, played down the nature of the delegation, saying that its selection had begun before the new pope had been elected. She also meaningfully added that she was sure the pope understood that longstanding Vatican position that it was a bilateral matter between Argentina and the UK.
My own view on the dispute is greatly coloured by my recent private visit to the islands (two, East Falkland and West Falkland) in December. Last year was a memorable one for the islanders since it was the 30th anniversary of the British-Argentine war.
The referendum had not yet been held and I was curious to know if the 2500-strong community would consider independence, rather than belonging to one country or another. They were adamant, however, that they wanted to remain British. No Argentine pressure is going to change their position. Indeed, Argentine maneuvers to isolate the islands by a communication and transport embargo is having the opposite effect on the Falklanders.
Being there made me think about why the issue was so important to two large prosperous countries. The Falklands present an unforgiving environment. It is a tough place to live in. The capital, Stanley, has brightly coloured houses to somehow limit the monotony of the surrounding landscape. Almost treeless it is home to half a million sheep and several different types of penguins. The rock hoppers impressed me most and their awkward movement on land is compensated by their excellent swimming at sea.
The issue goes beyond geography. Although the proximity to Argentina makes the latter’s claims seem natural, the dispute between the two countries can be traced back some 200 years.
Much closer to our time, the 1982 war may have begun as an attempt by the Argentine military junta of the time to distract the country from domestic troubles. The UK itself decided to recapture the seized islands when the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was battling for political survival. Her military victory enabled her to win the general election a year later.
It is troubling to think that both Argentina and the UK are, once more, suffering from domestic troubles. One should hope militarism will not tempt either of them. If it does, Pope Francis, who wryly described himself, on the day he was elected, as a pope “from the end of the world”, may find his far-off homeland shadowing him very closely.
