Diplomatic success is difficult to gauge. The lack of a clear framework to evaluate success is a result of the different and complex diplomatic processes which often need years, if not decades, to bear fruit.

In many cases, the success of one faction is often attained at the expense of another. This raises another plethora of questions. What yardstick should be used to measure success? Does compromise, which implies that a position has been altered to reach consensus, constitute success?

The prevalence of pragmatism over principle further compounds our problem.

Nonetheless, the ability to foster some form of dialogue on an international level and the peaceful resolution of a number of conflicts indicate that diplomatic success is real and attainable, although often slowand unmeasurable.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr provides a simple, yet effective working definition that can help in gauging success: “Perhaps success and failure must be defined against opportunities to change the direction of events.”

Success is harder to gauge in the Near East, particularly in the conflict between the Israel and Palestine. Despite the number of accords and processes, tensions are still rife and peace is still elusive. Pope Francis’ recent visit to the Holy Land, however, seems to alter the tone of the debate. Fifteen months into the Bergoglio papacy, one can identify two elements which form an integral part of his approach: the use of sound bites and the use of powerful images. The former are very effective, although they may lead to misinterpretation or trivialisation. The latter, however, are an effective way to communicate complex messages.

The images of Pope Francis visiting the poorest parishes of Rome, praying for the hundreds of dead migrants off the coast of Lampedusa and hugging a man afflicted with neurofibromatosis are challenging reminders of the way we must relate to those whose presence may make us uncomfortable.

The Pope’s visit to the Holy Land was replete with similar poignant moments and lasting images. There was the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in Amman attended by thousands of displaced peoples, mostly Catholic refugees from Iraq, Syria and other parts of the region.

The link between effective gestures and diplomacy should not be understated

At his Regina Ceoli address in Bethlehem, the Pope invited President Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas to pray for peace at the Vatican.

During an unscheduled stop, the Pope prayed at the site of a wall erected by the Israel following a Palestinian uprising.

At the Yad Vashem, the Pope kissed the hands of holocaust survivors.

At the Western Wall in Jerusalem, he embraced Rabbi Abraham Skorka and Imam Omar Abboud.

The significance of these gestures did not go amiss.

It may take a while to grasp the full extent of the significance of this trip and it may take years for it to bear fruit. However, there are some points which may be relevant to a discussion on effective diplomacy.

Firstly, there is the issue of credibility. The Pope’s appeal for peace and reconciliation is made even more credible by the fact that he himself was on a pilgrimage of reconciliation. The apostolic visit was held to mark the 50th anniversary of the meeting between the Venerable Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I.

That visit marked the beginning of an even more fruitful ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Communion.

The meeting between Pope Francis and Bartholomew I outside the church of the Holy Sepulchre, their joint prayer at the site of Christ’s burial and the signing of a joint declaration are all positive steps towards healing the divide which began in the Great Schism of 1054.

Secondly, the Pope’s powerful gestures highlight the complexity of the profound historical realities and rifts, the lack of effective political solutions and the acute social anguish which plagues the region. The link between effective gestures and diplomacy should notbe understated.

Thirdly, the Pope was not representing any political position; he had no geostrategic considerations and represented no lobby group. His actions were purely underpinned by a genuine desire for an acceptable political solution that brings peace and stability to the region.

In a bipolar conflict, the propensity to take sides at the expense of the bigger picture is quite common. Moreover, in long-standing conflicts, it is hard to bring something fresh to the debate. The Pope’s contribution to the debate was that of prophetic witness.

In the book Democracy Matters, American philosopher Cornel West defines prophetic witness as those “human acts of justice and kindness that attend to the unjust sources of human hurt and misery”.

Such witness “calls attention to the causes of unjustified suffering and unnecessary social misery. It highlights personal and institutional evil, including the evil of being indifferent to personal and institutional evil”. The goal is “to stir up in us the courage to care and empower us to change our lives and our historical circumstances”.

This is perhaps the aim behind the Pope’s invite to Peres and Abbas. Their meeting in Rome is a good opportunity for both sides to come together not as political leaders but as pilgrims and seekers of peace. This adds a different dimension to the debate.

A long-term political solution is still an imperative. The road ahead may be long and tortuous. However, by grasping the opportunity to change events, Pope Francis may have truly begun writing a new chapter in the history of the region.

andre.deb@gmail.com

This article was written before Sunday's meeting at the Vatican.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.