Since he became the pontiff, Pope Francis has become actively involved in world affairs and has made efforts to help solve international conflicts. He volunteered to play the role of a mediator between the leaders of Israel and Palestine; he implored Western leaders, particularly, the U.S. and Russian presidents, not to resort to force in the Syrian crisis; and he asked President Putin not to use military force in solving the Ukraine crisis.

The world welcomes his initiatives but is divided into positive and negative views on the effectiveness of his active involvement in international conflicts. The positive view holds that in the post-Cold War era the religious leader’s diplomatic involvement can contribute positively to world peace. The negative view disputes this argument, contending that we are still living in the age of nation-states and a spiritual leader’s political involvement is more likely to aggravate international conflicts, because most nation-states adhere to the principle of separation of spiritual and temporal authority and believe that power is the most important determinant in the international arena.

In recent years states have increasingly been trying to solve international conflicts through negotiations rather than resorting to use of force. Moreover, in contrast with the pre-Cold War period they utilize multilateral rather than bilateral negotiations. Multilateral negotiations take three forms: the U.N. Security Council; a group of powers or a coalition of the willing; or a roundtable of the parties directly involved and concerned. In actual reality, none of them has worked satisfactorily. The U.N. Security Council has not functioned effectively mainly to disagreements among the permanent members. Groups of powers have rarely worked because the great powers rarely agree on major international issues and cannot form a group, as we have seen with the Syrian crisis. Coalitions of the willing are usually composed of big powers sharing similar interests and consequently are likely to impose their positions on the party they oppose, as shown in the Iraq conflict. For similar reasons, roundtable negotiations do not work well, as the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue have demonstrated.

In this environment the pope’s role as a peacemaker should be welcomed. Now we can think of three kinds of leadership in the international community: the U.N., the U.S. and the Vatican. The pope, who represents the Catholic Church, has advantages and disadvantages compared to the secretary-general of the U.N. and the U.S. president.

One great advantage is that the pontiff identifies himself with the interests of humanity as a whole and therefore is likely to work for the interest of mankind as whole, whereas the U.S. president represents the U.S. and therefore is more likely to work for the national interest of the U.S. On the other hand, the U.N. secretary-general is required to represent the international community. But the international community is composed of states and he can hardly reconcile the national interests of member states and harmonize them with the general interest of the international community. Moreover, member states can hardly agree on the general interest of the international community.

There are three kinds of clashes in the world: the clash of civilizations (cultures); the clash between the rich and poor; and the clash of national ideologies or dogmas. These three types of clashes can happen between states, within states or among religions. Under the circumstances, even if Pope Francis claims to represent humanity, the leaders of other religions and civilizations may believe that he represents Christianity, not humanity. By the same token, even if the U.S. president advocates democracy and human rights, other national and religious leaders may say that he masks the U.S. national interest with those ideologies and identify him as a representative of the West. In the case of the U.N., the secretary-general has no muscle to impose the ideals and goals of the U.N. on nation-states, however hard he tries to influence national leaders.

Despite the complicated international environment, the pope can make valuable contributions to world peace. The world knows that he does not represent the interests of any nation and has charisma, and therefore can be impartial to any party in a dispute and is likely to propose solutions that are acceptable to all the parties involved.

The pope advocates a continued and serious dialogue among civilizations, the eradication of poverty and the subjugation of national interest to the interest of humanity between states, within states and among religions. This is his strength and his advantage over any secular leadership.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a former rector of Kyung Hee University’s Graduate Institute of Peace Studies and the author of “Globalized Korea and Localized Globe.” ― Ed.