Pope Leo XIV's first international journey, from Turkey to Lebanon, showed a leader determined to place Christian history and symbolism at the center of his pontificate and to fit each of his ethical positions into a clear legal framework. His diplomacy is distinguished by narrative subtlety and constant appeal to law, which he uses as a universal foundation in politically fragile environments.
Upon his arrival in Ankara, he visited Ataturk’s mausoleum, a reminder that modern Turkey is built on a secular legal architecture that the current government is reshaping. This powerfully symbolic gesture preceded a speech in which he emphasized “fundamental” freedom and “the dignity of all,” concepts that, in his usage, are always rooted in the language of international law and human rights. He often refers to them without citing specific documents, but rather by adopting their language. For example, his call for the recognition of the plurality of religious identities in Turkey explicitly relied on the country’s international obligations regarding freedom of religion.
In Istanbul, he further deepened this approach during a meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. By stating that Christians are an integral part of Turkish identity, he did more than simply highlight a historical fact: he indirectly reminded the Turkish state of its obligation to protect minorities, in accordance with domestic legislation and international conventions ratified by Ankara. In this way, his diplomacy does not remain merely symbolic: it offers a legal framework, which Turkey is expected to respect, although the Pope has carefully avoided any direct conflict.
The gesture that has caused the most comment is his decision not to pray at the Blue Mosque. By visiting the monument without a liturgical act, Leo XIV drew a clear interreligious boundary: mutual respect does not imply mixing rituals. Here too, he relied on a legal principle - freedom of conscience and respect for the religious practices of each community, which is the very basis of interreligious dialogue.
An appeal to the Lebanese soul
In Lebanon, he continued on this path. Calling on political authorities to meet the expectations of their people, he returned to the basics of the political role of the state and the rule of law. He also recalled, invoking Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the right to leave one's country and to return to it. Here too, ethical messages - calls for peace, reconciliation and national reconstruction - are always linked to some legal text, legal mechanism or institutional obligation.
A distinctive diplomatic style emerged from this first visit. Activist and humanitarian diplomacy gave way to a more normative and protective state diplomacy. Leo XIV works by reshaping narratives - for example, through his invocation of the resilient “Lebanese soul” - as well as by his constant appeal to law, which he never uses as a weapon, but presents as a common basis for coexistence. His reminder of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fits into this framework.
This approach offers clear advantages: it allows the Holy See to engage in dialogue with regimes that are more sensitive to national honor than to direct criticism, avoids diplomatic schisms, and gives the Pope the role of arbitrator, all the more convincing because it relies on universal, rather than exclusively religious, references.
By explicitly paying tribute in Istanbul to the “courageous Christian witness of the Armenian people,” the Holy See sent a strong signal: the pope did not arrive merely as a head of state, but also as an ambassador of ecclesial universality.
Here the Holy See's status as a neutral and spiritual state came into full play. Unlike national powers pursuing their own interests, the Vatican does not intervene to impose political sovereignty, but to protect communities, minorities, and endangered traditions. Such a stance allows the Pope to play the role of protector-mediator, a credible figure in countries where Christians are minorities, especially in Turkey, as well as in fragile states like Lebanon.
Muted condemnation
However, this approach also carries risks. The first is the question of clarity: if too much reliance is placed on implicit norms, condemnations may seem too muted. The second is the risk of symbolic appropriation: in an authoritarian regime, the Pope's visibility could be used to neutralize the legal and ethical implications of his words. The third risk concerns minorities: in environments where rights are poorly respected, minorities may expect more than a discreet reminder of the law.
Nevertheless, Leo XIV accepts the challenge: a diplomacy in which tradition, symbolism and law complement each other. A diplomacy based on neutrality and a global religious network that protects minorities, especially Christians. It remains to be seen whether these words will translate into real protection for vulnerable communities throughout the Mediterranean region.
The article is taken from "London"
Translation: NB
Bonus video:
