Why doesn't the Vatican recognize Kosovo?

Written for Kosovo Online by: Zeljko Sajn

Many are puzzled as to why the Vatican has not recognized the independence of Kosovo, given the fact that the Holy See did not have a particularly friendly relationship with Yugoslavia. Moreover, Croatia is the Catholic Church's main favorite in the region, i.e., in the former SFR Yugoslavia, within the framework of the new geopolitical configuration, where the architecture of the new world is being set up after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.

Perhaps the contours of this answer should be sought in the historical and spiritual relations between the Christian and Islamic religions. In preparing for a meeting with Pope Francis at his general audience in the Vatican, I came across information that could shed light on many uncertainties regarding the Vatican's actions on this issue. In this, I was certainly helped by a conversation with Professor Darko Tanaskovic, ambassador to the Holy See from 2002 to 2006.

Let us focus on just one sentence from the dialogue between Pope John Paul II and Ambassador Tanaskovic, which is recorded in the book "Autonomy of Thought.”

"Do Albanians feel more like Albanians or Muslims?" asked Pope John Paul II to His Excellency Darko Tanaskovic.

This single sentence indicates that the Holy See approaches this problem very seriously and, importantly, the essence of the problem is not foreign to it. Towards Serbia, it has taken a principled stance and expressed respect for its territorial integrity and sovereignty by not recognizing the independence of Kosovo, even though great powers in which the Pope, as the head of the Catholic Church, enjoys significant influence, have done so. Among them are the USA, whose current president, of Irish descent, is a Catholic – Joseph Biden.

With its strong diplomacy, the Holy See commands centuries-old information, which fundamentally guides its pragmatic moves and significant decision-making. It can be taken into account that the Edict of Milan granted freedom to Christians and all others to follow their religion in devotion. Emperor Constantine the Great thus favored Christianity, and in 380, five decades after the Edict of Milan, under Emperor Theodosius the Great, Christianity also became the state religion of the Roman Empire. This radically changed the political and social position of the Church at the end of the fourth century. The Church became an official organ of the empire closely linked with the imperial administration and political power.

Hence, Emperor Constantine, who was born in Nis, left a testamentary decision that interfaith dialogue is a good basis for peace. Although Emperor Constantine, in a way, also determined the path to maintaining freedom and peace through interfaith relations, unfortunately, many centuries after this edict, we are today witnessing conflicts even within a single faith, in the current events on the territory of Ukraine.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, the second most powerful person in the Vatican, in an interview given to "Politika" on May 5, 2019, visionary predicted many worrying events that, unfortunately, have come true or are coming true. He quoted Pope Francis saying that we are living in a time of the third world war in fragments. At that time, the Minsk agreements were signed in Ukraine, but instead of dialogue without weapons, there was a false peace, and they only served as preparation for Ukraine's war with Russia.

In the thematic context of "Politika's" question that it seems there is an attempt to renew the conflict of the old blocs while new centers of power are emerging, especially in Asia, Cardinal Parolin emphasized:

"I would say that after the Cold War, we are still far from achieving a new, positive, and sustainable international order.

If it is true that history has always known hostile opposing positions and conflicts, the new scenarios that have opened before our eyes in recent years are confusing. Starting from 2001, the overall international situation has even worsened. The scandal of the existence of hunger in the world, the violation of human dignity, the systematic destruction of the civilian population, new mechanisms by which world power exercises its dominance, disruptions in the international economy, the return of increasingly brutal terrorism by fanatics invoking Islam, the exploitation of the labor of many for the well-being of a few, the drama of migrants who massively leave their own country due to war or extreme poverty, deprived of future and hope: these are facts that cannot leave us indifferent, this is the third world war in parts, to use the phrase Pope Francis often uses.”

Therefore, we have the image of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Ukraine. For the Holy See, one of the significant religious hotspots is precisely Ukraine, where Christian brothers, primarily of the Orthodox faith, are clashing in the turmoil of war, with threats to global peace becoming ever closer to realization.

In recent days, just as current President Biden withdrew from his candidacy for the U.S. presidency, the Secretary of State of the Holy See, Pietro Parolin, visited Ukraine and President Zelensky to convey the Pope's views and pray for peace. Although there was an indication that Pope Francis would personally visit Kyiv, this did not happen due to the assessment and decision of the Vatican, the Holy See, and the Catholic Church. Thus, Parolin visited Kyiv and hinted at the Vatican's role in the process of achieving peace and attempting to prevent a possible total third world war.

The key is in dialogue—both political and interreligious.

From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis has advocated for dialogue as an effective means of resolving social, political, economic, cultural, and religious conflicts, as he emphasized in a historic interview for "Politika" on November 1, 2020:

"Dialogue does not mean nullifying or ignoring differences, or even the wounds that may have been inflicted in the past. On the contrary, dialogue is a conscious and humble way of accepting history, injustices, differences, and positioning them in relation to a future in which policies of integration and division, systems that involve an insatiable race for profit, and ideological tendencies that incite hatred will not have the last word (see the Document on Human Fraternity). Conflicts are not resolved by forgetting, ignorance, or 'erasing everything and starting over,' but through dialogue, which involves recognizing the other and joyfully accepting that we are called to broaden our view to recognize the greater good, from which we will all benefit."

When we talk about interreligious dialogue as a significant step towards establishing peace, during my meeting with Pope Francis, I got the impression that the Pope is willing to meet with Patriarch Kirill, especially considering that Secretary Gallagher emphasized that without interreligious dialogue, there can be no peace.

Interreligious dialogue is certainly crucial for achieving peace in the world, but precisely in proportion to political dialogue, which would respect the politics of balance on the principles of curbing hegemony and an equal relationship in achieving interests, without military blocs. Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin knew how to change the world map through dialogue at the Versailles Conference with President Wilson of the United States and influence the path of peace. On the basis of dialogue, it is possible to find a balance of interests, strengthen economic stability, and raise the standard of living for people, who in the modern world should not live in fear of war.