The Holy See has one of the oldest diplomatic corps, with representation in countries to which larger and more powerful countries may have no access.
It is a diplomatic corps representing an entity with no military or economic might. It is the quintessential soft power that does not rely on coercion but on seeking common ground, shared values, diplomatic exchange and cultural initiatives. This non-threatening role gives it an edge over other powers which, by their very nature, have to protect their economic and geopolitical interests.
It has also always been scrupulously neutral, though this did not necessarily translate to ineffectiveness or silence. In terms of the war in Ukraine, Pope Francis’s statements have been interesting, at times very pertinent and on other occasions baffling.
The context in which he was speaking was not an easy one. Pope Francis has consistently attempted to rewrite millennia of Catholic thought and tradition regarding just war. Though war is always regrettable, it is utopic to believe that peace can be maintained through general goodwill. As Russia has demonstrated, international norms are not always respected.
Pope Francis has been vocal about the suffering of the Ukrainian people. When speaking in Malta, he lamented that “invasions of other countries, savage street fighting and atomic threats” were no longer “grim memories of a distant past”. In thinly veiled phrases, he referred to “some potentate, sadly caught up in anachronistic claims of nationalist interests” who is “provoking and fomenting conflicts”. He urged people not to “allow the dream of peace to fade”.
Nonetheless, in recent weeks, the tone has softened. When asked by Corriere della Sera whether arming the Ukrainians for self-defence reasons was a good thing, the pope replied with an uncommitted but honest “I don’t know”. The pope went on record to criticise NATO for “barking at the gates of Russia”, perhaps hinting that there was an element of provocation on the Ukrainian side. He has also never mentioned President Vladimir Putin by name.
These mixed signals are likely to alienate both sides.
The Russian side has treated the pope with relative indifference. Cold water was poured on his proposed visit to Moscow while a scheduled visit with Patriarch Kirill in June was “suspended”. His calls for a truce to mark the Eastern Orthodox Easter celebrations also went unheeded. Despite his recent overtures, he seems to have made little headway with Russia.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian side may have misunderstood some of his actions and statements. His attempts to put the two sides on an equal footing will not be well received. This will be particularly galling for Ukraine’s significant Catholic minority, which is often the target of Russia’s propaganda machine.
However, not all is lost. The Church has been instrumental in its consistent call for peace and the provision of humanitarian aid. It is the only consistent voice to place peace ahead of geopolitical and economic considerations. Its neutral role also keeps the door slightly ajar to possible discussions with President Putin on the way forward. Whether this will be successful remains to be seen.
It must, however, avoid falling into the trap of appeasement. One of the flagship policies of the Bergoglio pontificate involved reaching out to the People’s Republic of China. The sudden arrest of 90-year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen demonstrated just how thin the line between diplomacy and appeasement is and how dangerous the latter is when used with unscrupulous regimes.
The same mistake needs to be avoided in Ukraine.