Pope Francis greeting pilgrims in St. Peter’s Square. As a global spiritual leader without armies or wealth, he wields a unique form of soft power on the world stage.
In an infamous quip during World War II, Joseph Stalin skeptically asked, “The pope? How many divisions does the pope have?” – mocking the notion that the Vatican could influence geopolitics without military force. History, however, proved Stalin shortsighted. Decades later, the Soviet bloc crumbled, due in part to papal diplomacy and moral pressure, as exemplified by Pope John Paul II’s support for Poland’s Solidarity movement. Today, under Pope Francis, the Holy See’s diplomatic service remains sui generis – a global network wielding “soft power” grounded in ethical persuasion and universal spiritual appeal. This article explores how Pope Francis’s approach to international diplomacy, characterized by moral leadership and bridge-building, contrasts with the fragmented and interest-driven governance that dominates responses to global environmental crises. Using the case of PFAS “forever chemicals” pollution in Africa, we juxtapose the Vatican’s values-based outreach with the challenges secular states face in cooperatively addressing transnational ecological threats. We further examine the limits of moral authority in the face of scientific uncertainty, economic interests, and political inertia, and consider how diplomacy might evolve to integrate ethical considerations – a question of pressing importance for diplomats and policymakers confronting crises of planetary scale.
Pope Francis and Vatican Diplomacy: A Global Moral Voice
In the twenty-first century, Pope Francis has reinvigorated Vatican diplomacy with a focus on humility, dialogue, and the moral dimensions of global issues. The Holy See maintains formal diplomatic relations with over 180 states and is an observer at the United Nations, giving it one of the world’s most extensive diplomatic networks. Yet unlike great powers, the Vatican commands no army and has negligible economic clout; its influence stems from spiritual authority, a transnational constituency of believers, and a reputation for impartial advocacy of peace and human dignity. Pope Francis’s Diplomatic Outreach. Francis, building on a legacy of papal peacemaking, has pursued a “diplomacy of the peripheries” – prioritising engagement with conflict zones, developing nations, and marginalized peoples over self-aggrandising appearances on the world’s grand stages. He has made pastoral visits to forgotten corners of the globe and used personal gestures to convey solidarity: for example, travelling to the Central African Republic in 2015 amid civil strife, or visiting refugees on Greek islands. These journeys, described as missionary diplomacy, are guided by a criterion of “going where God’s presence is most needed,” reflecting a Jesuit instinct to venture to the frontiers of human suffering. Such visits are often ecumenical or interfaith in nature, reinforcing dialogue across religious divides – as seen in Francis’s meetings with Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew and Muslim leaders during trips to the Holy Land, Turkey, and the Arabian Peninsula. Each journey doubles as a diplomatic statement: the Pope’s very presence in war-torn or neglected regions shines a spotlight on crises that major powers might otherwise ignore.
Mediation and Conflict Resolution. Beyond symbolic travel, Pope Francis has actively intervened in international disputes through behind-the-scenes mediation and public appeals. The Vatican’s neutrality – “sovereign but not aligned,” as one analyst notes – allows it to serve as an intermediary trusted (or at least tolerated) by opposing sides. Early in his pontificate, Francis played a pivotal role in brokering the 2014 rapprochement between the United States and Cuba, facilitating secret talks that helped end a half-century of Cold War enmity. This notable success underscored the Holy See’s value as a discreet channel of communication. Vatican envoys carried messages between Washington and Havana, and the Pope’s personal letters to Presidents Obama and Castro urged reconciliation on humanitarian and moral grounds. Likewise, Francis has tried to mediate in Venezuela’s political crisis, offering Vatican auspices for talks between the government and opposition. In Colombia, he supported peace efforts to end decades of civil war, complementing formal negotiations with his moral encouragement for forgiveness and reconciliation. In conflict-torn Nicaragua, too, the local Church (backed by Rome) sought to foster dialogue. These efforts have met mixed results, highlighting both the potential and the limits of papal mediation.
When conflicts have escalated into war, Pope Francis consistently raises his voice for ceasefire and negotiations – often as one of the few global figures framing peace as an unconditional imperative. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Francis has called repeatedly for an end to hostilities, lamenting the “madness of war.” He dispatched trusted cardinals – including Cardinal Matteo Zuppi – to Kyiv, Moscow, and Washington in an unprotocolled peace mission aimed at exploring possible paths to a settlement. This initiative, though earnest, has so far borne little fruit, illustrating the constraints of the Holy See’s soft power when met with intransigent geopolitical forces. Similarly, during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Francis pled for a ceasefire and the protection of civilians. His careful refusal to unilaterally condemn one side – maintaining a humanitarian equivalence – drew some criticism. Observers noted that this was part of a deliberate realist posture: the Pope sought to keep lines open to all parties (including those viewed as pariahs) to position the Vatican as a potential mediator. Indeed, Francis’s foreign policy has been described as realpolitik in service of dialogue – a departure from the more ideologically rigid stances of some predecessors. He has courted leaders who do not share Catholic values or Western democratic ideals, from China’s Xi Jinping to South Sudan’s rival factions, believing engagement can achieve more than isolation. This pragmatism, however, sometimes sits uneasily with the Vatican’s moral voice: reconciling prophetic witness with diplomatic neutrality is an enduring tension.
The Power of Symbolic Acts and Moral Appeals. Perhaps Pope Francis’s most striking diplomatic interventions have been his spontaneous gestures appealing to the conscience of world leaders. A profound example occurred in April 2019, when he invited the president and opposition leader of South Sudan – a nation struggling to implement a peace deal after a brutal civil war – to a spiritual retreat at the Vatican. At the retreat’s conclusion, the 82-year-old Pope, who suffers from chronic leg pain, dropped to his knees and kissed the feet of these previously warring leaders, imploring them as “brothers” to keep the peace. The South Sudanese politicians looked stunned as the Pope, aided by aides due to his age, performed this act of humility. “I am asking you with my heart, let us go forward… resolve your problems,” Francis pleaded. Such an image – an elderly religious leader bending to kiss the shoes of power-holders – resonated globally as an embodiment of moral authority. It conveyed, in one tableau, the Pope’s vision of leadership in service of the most vulnerable, and it exerted a moral pressure on South Sudan’s elites that no threat or sanction could. Observers credit this shocking gesture with helping solidify the fragile coalition government that eventually formed in South Sudan. It also underscored a key facet of Vatican diplomacy under Francis: when formal negotiations stall, symbolic acts of love and humility can jolt leaders into remembering their ethical responsibilities. In a world of cynically calculated statecraft, Pope Francis’s approach reintroduces the language of the soul – mercy, brotherhood, sacrifice – into diplomatic discourse.
Linking Peace, Social Justice, and Ecology. Pope Francis has also broadened the agenda of Vatican diplomacy to explicitly connect issues of peace with social and environmental justice. Francis’s worldview, deeply influenced by Catholic Social Teaching and his own Latin American context, posits that conflicts are often interwoven with poverty, inequality, and ecological devastation. At a 2024 summit of the G7 (Group of Seven) industrial powers in Italy, he urged leaders to adopt “new ethical guidelines” not only in geopolitics but also in arenas like artificial intelligence – stressing the need for a human-centric, morally grounded approach to global challenges. Vatican analysts note that Francis’s distinctive contribution has been “to link military conflict to social justice questions and particularly the environment”. In his annual addresses to ambassadors (the Holy See’s “State of the World” speeches), he has ranged far beyond traditional war-and-peace issues: condemning human trafficking and modern slavery as affronts to peace, decrying the plight of migrants and refugees, and imploring action on climate change as a duty to protect the vulnerable and future generations. In one such address, he pointedly criticised the hypocrisy of nations that speak of peace while selling arms, noting how profits from weapons undermine the moral credibility of those powers. This broad moral canvas differentiates Vatican diplomacy from secular statecraft, which often compartmentalises “security” separate from “environment” or “development.” Pope Francis insists on their interconnectedness – an approach encapsulated in the term he popularised: integral ecology. This concept, drawn from his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato si’, recognises that “we are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental”. Thus, efforts for peace, poverty reduction, and ecological protection must go hand in hand.
Under Pope Francis, the Holy See has not only preached about the environment but has taken on a visible role in global ecological diplomacy. Laudato si’, the first papal encyclical devoted entirely to environmental stewardship, was an unprecedented magisterial document that resonated far beyond the Catholic Church. It was hailed by the United Nations as a much-needed “moral voice” on the climate crisis and even described by secular commentators as “arguably the most important piece of intellectual criticism of our time”. Crucially, it had concrete diplomatic impact: the encyclical is widely credited with bolstering momentum in the run-up to the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP21), helping 196 countries achieve consensus on the Paris Agreement. Ban Ki-moon, then UN Secretary-General, explicitly thanked Pope Francis for his influence in urging global leaders to act. By framing climate change as a moral issue – a matter of justice for the poor and responsibility toward God’s creation – Francis elevated the discussion beyond scientific and economic terms alone. He condemned the “politics concerned with immediate results” and “short-term growth” that often paralyse environmental policy, calling instead for “a new way of thinking about human beings, life, society and our relationship with nature”. Such admonishments from the Pope’s bully pulpit highlight how Vatican diplomacy operates: rather than wielding material incentives or coercion, it seeks to form consciences and shape the normative climate within which policy decisions are made.
In summary, Pope Francis’s diplomatic outreach is distinguished by its moral clarity and global vision. It leverages the Vatican’s soft power – neutrality, convening ability, and spiritual gravitas – to mediate conflicts and advocate on issues from war to migration to climate change. The Pope’s personal credibility as a humble, compassionate leader has amplified this influence, whether through dramatic gestures like kissing warlords’ feet or through eloquent documents that galvanise international action. However, this moral leadership, powerful as it is, encounters profound challenges when confronting entrenched interests and systemic inertia on the world stage. The case of PFAS “forever chemicals” in Africa, to which we now turn, starkly illustrates the limitations of prevailing global governance and the very different kind of response such crises often receive from states compared to the holistic ethical approach championed by Pope Francis.
Fragmented Global Environmental Governance: The Challenge of PFAS
While Pope Francis urges an integrated moral response to what he calls a combined social and environmental crisis, the reality of global environmental governance today is largely fragmented and driven by national and corporate interests. Nowhere is this more evident than in the governance of hazardous chemicals – a field characterized by a patchwork of regulations, slow international consensus, and powerful industry lobbies. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have emerged in recent years as a paradigmatic example of such a transnational ecological threat that outpaces our collective political will to respond. Often dubbed “forever chemicals” due to their extreme persistence in the environment, PFAS are synthetic compounds used since the mid-20th century in countless industrial processes and consumer products – from non-stick cookware and waterproof textiles to firefighting foams. Their chemical stability, once seen as a marvel of innovation, is now a global liability: these substances do not break down under natural conditions, accumulating indefinitely in water, soil, and living organisms. The scientific alarm bells have been ringing for some time – studies link PFAS exposure to kidney disease, certain cancers, thyroid dysfunction, reproductive disorders and developmental issues in children – yet meaningful regulatory action has lagged, and contamination continues to spread unchecked in many parts of the world.
Global Governance Frameworks and Fragmentation. At the international level, environmental governance relies on multilateral treaties and institutions that often address specific categories of problems (for example, separate conventions exist for climate change, biodiversity, ozone depletion, hazardous waste, etc.). In the realm of toxic chemicals, the principal treaties are the Basel Convention (controlling cross-border movement of hazardous waste), the Rotterdam Convention (on prior informed consent for trade in dangerous chemicals), and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). PFAS, by their very nature, fall under the concern of POPs – they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. However, the global governance response to PFAS has been slow and piecemeal. Only a few PFAS chemicals (notably PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS) have been listed for phase-out under the Stockholm Convention in recent years, and even these listings came after protracted negotiations. The vast majority of the estimated 4,700 PFAS compounds remain unregulated by any global treaty, despite scientific consensus on their risks. This reflects a broader fragmentation: each chemical or subclass requires separate consideration and agreement by over 180 countries – a cumbersome process often hampered by divergent national interests and technical debates. As a result, global policy is reactive rather than precautionary, often lagging a decade or more behind scientific discoveries of harm.
Even where international agreements exist, implementation is uneven. Countries have varying capacities and political will to enforce restrictions. For instance, all 11 African countries identified in a recent study as PFAS contamination hotspots are parties to the Stockholm Convention. In theory, this commits them to eliminate certain listed PFAS and manage related pollution. In practice, enforcement in these countries is “weak,” and national regulations lag far behind the strict limits now proposed in the European Union. Many African states lack the monitoring infrastructure, technical expertise, or regulatory frameworks to effectively control PFAS. The global regime offers support and guidance, but not always the concrete resources needed to build local capacity. Moreover, the Stockholm Convention itself has limitations: it depends on consensus of parties to list new substances, which can be stymied by industrial producers or major exporting countries. In 2025, as international delegates prepared to discuss adding more PFAS to the convention, the very need for such deliberation highlights the incremental nature of progress. Each chemical must jump through hoops of evidence and politics to be globally managed, during which time production and pollution often continue unabated.
Interest-Driven Responses and Industry Influence. A defining feature of environmental governance in the case of PFAS is the weight of economic interests in shaping political responses. The chemical industry that produces PFAS (and myriad products that depend on them) is a powerful stakeholder with much at stake in any stringent regulation. Over the decades, companies have at times concealed data on PFAS toxicity and fought regulatory proposals – a dynamic familiar from past battles over substances like asbestos or lead. In recent years, investigative reports in Europe have uncovered “aggressive lobbying by the chemical industry, including thousands of public comments aimed at delaying regulations” on PFAS. As the European Union moved toward a sweeping proposal to ban most PFAS, industry groups mobilised en masse, inundating the process with technical objections, economic arguments, and requests for exemptions. This concerted pushback has indeed led to delays; the EU’s decision on a PFAS ban was postponed amid the onslaught of input and the complexity of analyzing thousands of substances. In the United States, similarly, chemical manufacturers have engaged in protracted legal and lobbying battles to limit their liability and postpone regulatory strictures, even as PFAS contamination of water supplies has sparked public health alarms. The result is that policy often advances at a glacial pace: regulators negotiate compromises, carve-outs, and long phase-in periods under pressure from industry and sometimes from military or other government users of PFAS-containing products (like firefighting foams). Such interest-driven responses stand in stark contrast to the urgency that scientists, and moral leaders like Pope Francis, would ascribe to the issue. Where a moral perspective might demand immediate precautionary action to prevent harm to people and planet, the political-economic perspective tends to prioritize short-term costs, trade competitiveness, and the convenience of existing technologies – thereby perpetuating inertia.
Scientific Complexity and Political Inertia. Another challenge in governance is the complexity of the PFAS problem, which can breed political paralysis. PFAS comprise a large family of chemicals with different uses and properties; this has allowed some stakeholders to argue that broad-brush regulation is inappropriate or that more research is needed for each variant. Policymakers can be overwhelmed by the technical detail and uncertainty – a situation that industry lobbyists sometimes exploit by emphasizing gaps in data or the feasibility of alternatives. Meanwhile, the harms of PFAS are insidious, not as immediately dramatic as an oil spill or nuclear accident. PFAS pollution is often a slow-motion crisis: chemicals seep into groundwater, accumulate in fish, and incrementally increase cancer risks or immune system impairment in communities over years. The diffuse, long-term nature of this threat does not always spur urgent action from politicians focused on the next election cycle. Indeed, Pope Francis’s critique in Laudato si’ seems apt – he lamented political systems “driven to produce short-term growth” and tending to ignore problems that require long-term vision. The PFAS saga exemplifies this short-termism: for decades, the convenience and profit of these “miracle” substances took precedence over any distant worries about pollution. Even as evidence mounted, action was slow and grudging. We thus find a kind of governance gap – global markets freely spread a persistent pollutant worldwide, while global governance belatedly struggles to mount a coordinated response, hampered by the very national self-interests and corporate influences that a moral viewpoint would question.
To better understand the stakes and the governance failures, we now delve into the specific case of PFAS pollution in Africa. This case study illuminates how a transnational environmental hazard plays out on the ground in a region often peripheral to global decision-making, yet deeply affected by its outcomes. It will illustrate the real-world consequences of the fragmented, interest-driven approach described above, and set the stage for comparing this approach with the moral and diplomatic framework espoused by Pope Francis.
Case Study – PFAS Pollution in Africa: A Crisis of Environmental Governance
A polluted stretch of the Nairobi River in Kenya, one of Africa’s PFAS contamination hotspots. Industrial runoff and inadequate wastewater treatment have left banks strewn with waste, exemplifying the governance challenges in managing “forever chemicals.”
In recent years, environmental scientists have sounded the alarm that Africa – often assumed to be less industrialised – is nonetheless grappling with a significant and under-reported PFAS contamination problem. A comprehensive study published in late 2024 identified PFAS pollution in water bodies across 11 African countries, including major economies like South Africa and Nigeria as well as others such as Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Mali, and Tunisia. Notably, South Africa was found to have some of the highest PFAS concentrations on the continent. Hotspots span from the Nile Basin to Southern Africa: Lake Victoria – Africa’s largest lake, which feeds the Nile River system – has concerning PFAS levels, threatening a water source that directly supports over 300 million people in 11 countries. In Kenya, the Nairobi River running through the capital is heavily polluted by PFAS due to urban runoff and industrial effluents. In South Africa, the Vaal River (crucial for Johannesburg’s water supply) has been similarly impacted by industrial discharges. These findings demolish any myth that “forever chemicals” are a problem only for wealthy, industrialized nations. Instead, they reveal a pattern of globalised pollution coupled with inadequate governance in regions with limited regulatory oversight.
Sources and Pathways of Contamination. The African PFAS hotspots point to familiar culprits. Industrial effluent outfalls – from factories producing or using PFAS-containing products – are a primary source. In South Africa’s industrial heartland, for instance, decades of manufacturing (in sectors like textiles, plastics, and firefighting foam) have introduced PFAS into rivers. Commercial agriculture also contributes: PFAS-laden pesticides or soil amendments have been detected, reflecting how these chemicals permeate supply chains (even some fertilisers or treated sewage sludge can carry PFAS, which then leach into soils and streams). A third major pathway is urban wastewater. Many African cities have outdated or overburdened sewage treatment plants that do not filter out PFAS. These facilities, often lacking advanced treatment technology, end up discharging PFAS into waterways, effectively cycling the contaminants from household and industrial use back into the environment. As researchers note, numerous wastewater plants in the surveyed countries “use outdated technology and are not sufficiently regulated,” allowing PFAS-laden effluent to flow into rivers and lakes. This points to governance issues: environmental regulations (where they exist) are often weakly enforced, and investment in pollution control infrastructure is insufficient. Furthermore, because PFAS are invisible and cause no immediate die-off (unlike, say, an oil spill that kills fish outright), the discharges historically attracted little public attention, enabling the problem to proliferate silently.
Health and Environmental Impacts. Although under-reported until recently, the consequences of PFAS pollution in Africa are potentially grave. These chemicals bioaccumulate through the food web – meaning that fish and livestock concentrate PFAS in their bodies over time, and humans consuming them can end up with significant PFAS burdens. Indeed, studies globally have found PFAS in the blood of virtually all people tested (in the US, 98% of Americans have PFAS traces in their blood), and Africa is unlikely to be an exception, although data is sparse. The risks include increased rates of certain cancers (notably kidney and testicular cancer linked to specific PFAS exposure), hormone disruption, impaired immune response, and developmental problems in children. One worrying sign is that in some African lakes and rivers, PFAS levels exceed European safety thresholds for surface waters, implying that local communities depending on those waters for drinking or fishing could be ingesting dangerous concentrations. Ecologically, PFAS contamination threatens biodiversity. In Lake Victoria, for example – a massive ecosystem upon which millions depend for fish protein – PFAS may harm aquatic life by affecting reproduction or growth of fish and amphibians. Researchers have noted effects such as altered hormone levels and developmental defects in wildlife chronically exposed to these pollutants. These diffuse impacts accumulate into what can be called an environmental injustice: communities in Africa, often among the world’s poorest, are bearing health and ecological burdens largely caused by global industries and compounded by weak governance.
Governance Gaps and International Support. The PFAS pollution case exposes several gaps in both national and international governance. At the national level, many African countries lack specific standards or limits for PFAS in water and soil. Environmental laws may generically prohibit pollution, but without numeric PFAS criteria or routine monitoring, those laws have little teeth against this particular threat. Only South Africa has begun drafting guideline levels for some PFAS, and even there, enforcement is nascent. Many countries are essentially blind to the issue – PFAS levels in rivers or reservoirs are not regularly tested, given the costs and technical expertise required. This data scarcity was highlighted by scientists as a barrier to action. In the international context, while African nations are party to the Stockholm Convention (which now lists a few PFAS), translating that into domestic action is challenging. The convention does offer avenues for technical and financial assistance (through the Global Environment Facility and other means), but accessing those resources and implementing projects takes time. Meanwhile, unlisted PFAS can still be freely imported and used. For instance, outdated firefighting foams containing PFOS (one of the earliest PFAS) might still be in use in African airports or oil facilities if not yet replaced – often due to cost constraints. Additionally, the globalized nature of commerce means Africa can become a sink for PFAS through imported goods: second-hand electronics, textiles, or cars imported to African markets might carry PFAS (in water-repellent coatings, stain-proof treatments, etc.), eventually releasing them into local environments at end-of-life.
Internationally, no single institution coordinates PFAS response. Instead, it cuts across the mandates of the World Health Organization (health advisories for drinking water), the UN Environment Programme (which hosts the chemicals conventions and provides scientific assessment), and even trade bodies (since any ban or restriction has trade implications). This fragmentation means there is no swift global emergency action akin to, say, the Montreal Protocol’s unified phase-out of CFCs to stop ozone depletion. Efforts are under way to address plastics pollution through a new global treaty – a process that incidentally also touches on PFAS, since some PFAS are used in plastics and packaging – but a dedicated PFAS treaty does not exist. In short, the governance response in Africa (and indeed globally) has been reactive and uncoordinated. Only after contamination is detected do authorities scramble to respond, and often they rely on standards and research from Europe or North America to guide them. Africa’s voice in setting those standards has been limited, mirroring a broader pattern in global environmental governance where developing regions are under-represented in scientific research and decision-making. This situation raises ethical questions: should not the global community ensure that poorer countries – who often did not benefit significantly from the industrial uses of PFAS – are protected from such toxic legacies? Pope Francis, with his emphasis on the plight of the poor and the concept of global solidarity, would frame this as an issue of justice: an ecological debt owed by the wealthy to the developing world, requiring action and aid.
Local Action and Signs of Hope. Despite the challenges, the PFAS issue in Africa is at least now coming to light, which is the first step toward remedy. The study identifying PFAS hotspots has spurred calls for action. Environmental NGOs in Africa are raising awareness, and some governments are beginning to respond. For example, South Africa’s authorities have acknowledged PFAS hotspots like the Vaal River and are considering stricter oversight of industrial discharges. There is talk of upgrading wastewater treatment plants – employing advanced techniques such as carbon adsorption or high-temperature incineration to capture or destroy PFAS. Such upgrades, however, require significant investment and technical training. International support will be crucial here: whether through development aid, technology transfer, or the Green Climate Fund (if climate adaptation funds can stretch to co-benefit chemicals management). Aligning with international frameworks like Stockholm Convention has been recommended as a strategy for African nations not just on paper but in practice, leveraging the treaty to press for corporate accountability and safer alternatives to PFAS. Indeed, holding producers accountable is a recurring theme – applying the “polluter pays” principle globally so that companies profiting from PFAS bear the costs of contamination cleanup and substitution. This could take the form of legal liability for foreign firms whose products cause local harm, or international funding from industry for remediation efforts. Yet, such measures remain aspirational in most African contexts due to limited regulatory clout.
The PFAS case study demonstrates the complexity of addressing a diffuse, slow-burn environmental crisis within current governance structures. It shows how moral imperatives – protect human health, prevent pollution of creation – can be sidelined by lack of political urgency and the influence of economic interests. There is a stark contrast between the ethical framing of the issue (as one of intergenerational justice and the rights of the poor to a clean environment) and the political framing (as one technical issue among many, to be balanced against economic growth and handled gradually). This dichotomy sets the stage for a broader comparison: how does the approach of Pope Francis and the Vatican to such global challenges differ from that of secular powers? And what can each learn from the other? In the next section, we directly contrast the ethos and methods of Pope Francis’s diplomatic engagement with the typical state-centric response to a transnational ecological crisis like PFAS, highlighting the geopolitical and ethical dimensions of this divergence.
Geopolitics and Ethics: Divergent Responses to a Common Threat
The juxtaposition of Vatican diplomacy under Pope Francis and the global handling of the PFAS crisis in Africa reveals a fundamental divergence in outlook and approach. On one side stands a mode of leadership rooted in moral persuasion, universal ethics, and long-term holistic thinking – as embodied by Pope Francis’s teachings and actions. On the other side, we see the prevalent mode of state-centric governance and realpolitik, often short-sighted and fragmented, that characterises the world’s response to environmental threats. Both are attempts to exercise influence on global issues, but they operate in different currencies: one in values and compassion, the other in interests and power. This section contrasts these approaches along key dimensions, illuminating how each frames problems and what tools they bring to bear.
Framing of the Issue – Moral Imperative vs. Technical Regulation. Pope Francis consistently frames challenges like environmental degradation in moral and spiritual terms. In his view, caring for the environment is not merely a policy choice but a matter of ethical responsibility to creation and to the poor. He speaks of pollution and climate change as sins against God’s creation and failures of solidarity with the vulnerable. For instance, Francis laments the “cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” – insisting that those least responsible for ecological harm often suffer it most, which he deems a profound injustice. Applied to PFAS in Africa, the Pope’s logic would highlight that African communities, who contributed little to global chemical manufacturing, are enduring polluted water and health risks – an illustration of what he has called the “ecological debt” owed by wealthier nations. This moral framing demands urgent redress: it is wrong to allow children to drink water laced with toxic chemicals for the sake of industrial convenience elsewhere. In contrast, the typical political framing of PFAS has been as a technical and regulatory matter. Governments discuss setting parts-per-trillion limits, phasing out certain chemical uses by specific dates, or negotiating exemptions for “essential uses.” The discourse is steeped in science and economics – risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses, etc. While these are of course necessary, they often lack the moral clarity that would galvanize stronger action. The debate can become one of acceptable risk rather than ethical unacceptable harm. No statesman on the world stage has equated PFAS pollution with a moral failing in the way Pope Francis might; rather, it is treated as an unfortunate externality to be managed incrementally. Thus, one key difference is urgency and priority: Pope Francis’s approach imbues the issue with ethical urgency (a matter of conscience and justice), whereas the inter-state approach tends to prioritise other concerns unless a crisis becomes too dire to ignore.
Scope of Vision – Integral Ecology vs. Siloed Governance. As discussed, Pope Francis champions integral ecology, which insists on seeing the connections between phenomena that governments often tackle separately. In the PFAS context, an integral view would link this chemical pollution problem with questions of economic development, global inequality, and public health infrastructure. Indeed, PFAS in Africa can be seen as a byproduct of a global economic system that externalises environmental costs to poorer regions – connecting it to trade, finance, and development aid issues. A Vatican-style approach might therefore seek comprehensive solutions: reducing PFAS use globally (to protect the whole human family), while simultaneously helping affected communities with healthcare and clean alternatives (an expression of solidarity). The secular governance response, by contrast, is fragmented by sector and jurisdiction. Environmental ministries deal with pollution standards, trade ministries worry about industrial competitiveness, health ministries might issue advisories about fish consumption – often without a single coherent strategy tying these together. Internationally, the issue bounces between environmental treaty meetings and scientific panels, seldom rising to top-level political summits (no G20 communiqués focus on PFAS, for example). The result is a piecemeal approach that lacks the holistic perspective Pope Francis advocates. The Pope’s own diplomatic interventions on the environment – such as his addresses to the UN or his initiative with religious leaders before COP26 – deliberately try to broaden the perspective of decision-makers, reminding them of ethical and human dimensions beyond the technocratic details. In doing so, he challenges the siloed mindset: he would argue, for instance, that ensuring clean water free of toxic chemicals is as much a peace and stability concern as it is an environmental one, because communities deprived of safe resources and justice may fall into conflict or suffer social breakdown.
Actors and Alliances – Leading from Above vs. Grassroots Pressure. The Vatican’s influence is often exerted top-down – the Pope speaking to other leaders, invoking higher principles that ideally trickle down into policy. Pope Francis uses platforms like the UN General Assembly, G7 meetings, or encyclicals circulated to bishops worldwide to shape the narrative. When he urged the world at COP26 to recognize a “crisis of values” underlying the ecological crisis, he was effectively calling on leaders to elevate their perspective and show courage that matches the scale of the problem. In global environmental governance, change more typically comes from bottom-up pressure or crises. Many environmental treaties, for example, were agreed only after public outcry or visible disasters (e.g. the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer spurred the Montreal Protocol). In the PFAS case, momentum has built thanks to investigative journalism (uncovering contamination in communities), lawsuits by affected citizens, and activism by NGOs and scientists. These grassroots and civil-society forces shame or sue governments into action. For African nations, international advocacy has been critical – local NGOs collaborating with global networks to highlight how PFAS pollution is a human rights issue (the right to clean water, to health, etc., which the UN now recognises as fundamental). Pope Francis’s approach often seeks to preempt such crises by moral foresight – imploring humanity to act before irreparable harm occurs. But secular governance, lacking a single moral authority, tends to respond only when the drumbeat from society grows loud enough or when political leaders see advantage or necessity in action. The difference could be caricatured thus: moral leadership appeals to conscience, whereas political leadership often reacts to constituency pressure or tangible threats.
Navigating Interests – Common Good vs. Negotiated Compromise. In Pope Francis’s worldview, the common good of humanity and the planet should override narrow interests. He frequently appeals to leaders to resist the temptations of partisan or short-term gains in favor of what benefits all in the long run – a stance rooted in Catholic social thought. In practice, he has denounced the “throwaway culture” that sacrifices the vulnerable and the environment for the sake of profit and convenience. Applied to PFAS, this implies that no company’s balance sheet or nation’s competitive edge can justify poisoning creation and people. The moral approach calls for sacrifice: industries must transition to safer alternatives regardless of cost, wealthy nations should assist poorer ones in cleanup and prevention, and leaders should tell their publics hard truths about changing unsustainable consumption patterns. In stark contrast, the typical international response is one of negotiated compromise among interest-bearing parties. An example is the slow EU deliberation on banning PFAS: regulators weigh the common good of eliminating hazardous chemicals against counter-arguments about economic impact on certain sectors, then seek a compromise that might ban many uses but grant exceptions or delayed timelines for others. Each country similarly balances citizen health versus industrial output, often erring towards protecting industries due to jobs and economic fears, unless public demand for health protection is overwhelming. Globally, negotiations often water down proposals to the lowest common denominator acceptable to major powers or corporate lobbies. This dynamic is evident in climate talks and is mirrored in chemical governance. The fragmented sovereignty of the international system – each state guarding its interests – contrasts sharply with the universalism of Pope Francis’s appeal, where he speaks as if to a single human family with a shared home. The friction between these paradigms is clear: moral leadership points to what should be done unequivocally, while political negotiation settles for what can be agreed upon by competing actors, which may be far less.
Effectiveness and Limitations. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The Vatican’s moral diplomacy can inspire and guide, but it cannot implement. Pope Francis can move hearts and shape norms – as arguably happened with the Paris Agreement – yet he has no formal power to enforce environmental rules or fund clean-ups. The secular governance system, for all its flaws, does possess the machinery of laws, budgets, and enforcement – but often lacks the will or unity to use them decisively for the global common good. The PFAS problem in Africa vividly demonstrates this: the legal and technical tools to address it exist (we know how to filter PFAS, how to ban them, how to hold polluters accountable), but the collective will and coordination have been insufficient. Moral leadership could help galvanize that will by reframing the issue as urgent and unifying, but it requires receptivity among political leaders. Pope Francis’s influence is notable, but not all leaders heed him – especially if it conflicts with powerful domestic interests or ideologies. Some industrialised countries talk laudably of environmental action but balk when it comes to costly measures; similarly, some developing country leaders may deprioritise a long-term pollution issue amidst more immediate challenges like poverty or conflict, unless moral pressure and public awareness elevate its importance.
In sum, the Vatican’s ethical diplomacy and the secular world’s interest-driven governance often operate on different wavelengths. One is prophetic, sometimes idealistic, calling humanity to its better angels; the other is pragmatic, sometimes cynical, managing trade-offs among competing demands. The gap between them can mean that even when moral consensus exists on what ought to happen (for example, “we should stop poisoning our water”), the translation into policy lags or falters. Recognising these divergent approaches is the first step; the crucial next step is exploring how they might be brought into better alignment. Could the moral energy exemplified by Pope Francis be harnessed to strengthen global governance? Could diplomatic frameworks be reimagined to integrate ethical and spiritual perspectives, thereby overcoming some of the inertia? We will examine these questions in the following section, discussing the limits of moral leadership in isolation and the opportunities for synergy in forging a more responsible form of global diplomacy.
Limits of Moral Leadership in the Face of Inertia
The moral leadership exemplified by Pope Francis holds immense persuasive power, but it also encounters real-world limits when faced with entrenched scientific, economic, and political inertia. Understanding these limits is essential for a clear-eyed assessment of what moral voices can and cannot achieve on their own in global affairs.
The Nature of Scientific Inertia. Science is often an ally of moral leadership, providing evidence that can underpin ethical calls to action. Pope Francis has been adept at incorporating scientific findings – for instance, citing climate science in Laudato si’ – to bolster his moral arguments. Yet scientific processes can also be slow and cautious, which may delay recognition of a crisis’s urgency. In the case of PFAS, it took decades of research to fully understand their persistence and health effects. Early warnings by independent scientists were at times disputed by industry-sponsored studies sowing doubt. This delayed a clear scientific consensus, which in turn delayed regulatory action. By the time the science was unequivocal, massive dissemination of PFAS had already occurred. A moral leader like Francis can urge precaution in the face of uncertainty (echoing the precautionary principle: act to prevent harm even before all evidence is in). However, policymakers often hide behind scientific uncertainty as a reason to postpone action. Thus, one limit of moral pleas is that they can be undermined by claims of insufficient evidence or by the genuine slow pace of scientific confirmation. Moreover, issues like chemical pollution are highly technical; they do not lend themselves to public moral outrage as easily as visibly cruel practices might. It is challenging for a spiritual leader to rally the masses over an invisible toxin. Pope Francis’s eloquence on the environment draws on poetic spirituality as much as data – but even he might struggle to make PFAS a household moral concern globally, given its complexity. In short, moral leadership thrives when the moral truth is clear and intuitively graspable; scientific complexity can obscure that clarity, dampening the immediate impact of ethical appeals.
Economic Inertia and the “Status Quo” Bias. Perhaps the greatest limitation on moral leadership’s effectiveness is the force of economic self-interest. Global society is, to a large extent, organised around economic competition and growth. Appeals to conscience can falter when they confront the hard calculus of profits, jobs, and market advantages. The PFAS saga illustrates this brutally: despite moral and health arguments for phasing out PFAS, production continued largely unabated as companies prioritized their earnings and consumers their conveniences. A Pope can decry this mindset as part of a “throwaway culture” or the worship of technology and markets over human well-being, but changing it is a monumental task. Economic inertia manifests as powerful lobbies resisting change (as seen with chemical companies lobbying the EU), but also as a diffuse societal dependence on harmful practices. For instance, millions of consumers worldwide enjoy the benefits of PFAS (stain-resistant clothes, non-stick pans) without knowing it. Phasing these out requires not only corporate shifts but consumer acceptance and possibly higher costs for alternatives. Moral authority, unless backed by widespread public support, cannot easily overcome the inertia of an entire economic system geared toward certain products and consumption patterns. Pope Francis can inspire individual ecological conversion – and indeed, his writings encourage simpler, more sustainable living – but expecting voluntary change at a scale sufficient to solve the PFAS problem is unrealistic. Meanwhile, binding economic change (like banning a profitable chemical line) typically requires government mandates, which are subject to the interest-driven political process discussed.
Political Inertia and Sovereignty Concerns. Politically, even when leaders might agree with a moral exhortation, they often face institutional and ideological constraints. Internationally, the principle of national sovereignty means each state jealously guards its right to set its own policies. A global moral voice, be it the Pope or the UN Secretary-General, cannot unilaterally impose standards. For instance, Pope Francis might implore all nations to outlaw toxins that harm the poor, but each nation will decide if and how to do that, based on its internal politics. Some regimes may be indifferent to moral pressure, especially if it comes from a religious figure they do not feel accountable to. Additionally, global problems demand collective action, but there is no world government to enforce compliance. If one country refuses to regulate PFAS (perhaps to attract industry that flees stricter jurisdictions), others cannot easily compel it without resorting to trade sanctions or diplomatic pressure, tools which are rarely used for chemical pollution issues. Politicians also face short-term electoral cycles which disincentivize investment in preventing long-term problems. A cleanup project that yields benefits beyond their term, or a ban that might anger industries now, may not be attractive. Moral leaders operate on longer timescales – the Church thinks in generations – but elected officials often cannot afford that luxury. Furthermore, moral leadership does not always align neatly with political ideologies; a conservative leader might bristle at Pope Francis’s critiques of capitalism or calls for global equity, even if they respect his religious role. A nationalist leader might reject external moralizing as interference. Thus, the pluralism of the international community means not everyone shares the Pope’s frame of reference or priorities. This pluralism itself is a source of inertia: forging consensus among different value systems is painstaking, which is why diplomatic agreements can be so incremental.
Moral Authority Without Enforcement Power. Ultimately, Pope Francis’s influence has soft limits: he can persuade, but he cannot coerce. International politics often hinges on incentives and punishments – carrots and sticks that shift behavior. The Vatican wields virtually no carrots (it cannot offer large loans or market access) and certainly no sticks (no military or economic sanctions). Its currency is persuasion and example. This means that moral leadership may fail to achieve concrete outcomes if other actors are not moved enough to act against their immediate interests or if they believe they can ignore the moral reproach without consequence. For example, in climate negotiations, the Pope’s words may inspire public opinion, but a country that calculates it benefits from delaying climate action might still delay, betting that the cost is merely reputational. The Pope can call out such obstinance – as Francis indirectly did by lamenting the weak commitments of some countries – but he cannot directly change it. This asymmetry is a structural limit on what any spiritual or moral actor can do within a system governed by state sovereignty and corporate influence.
The Danger of Preaching to the Choir. There is also a subtle limit: moral leadership often resonates most with those already inclined to agree. Pope Francis is hugely popular in many quarters, but also faces criticism and resistance, even within the Catholic Church, from factions who find his views on economics or environment too progressive or inconvenient. There is a risk that his diplomatic and ecological appeals, however moving, are dismissed by skeptics as idealistic or politicized. For instance, some climate change deniers or libertarian economists might castigate the Pope for venturing into “political” issues beyond spirituality. This can blunt his impact on those audiences who perhaps most need conversion. Similarly, African communities suffering pollution might deeply appreciate the Pope’s solidarity and call for justice, yet that doesn’t automatically equip them to change their situation without external support. The converted – those who share the Pope’s sense of urgency – may grow frustrated at the slow pace of change around them, while the unconverted remain unmoved.
Nonetheless, it would be wrong to conclude that moral leadership is ineffectual. It has often been the soul of great political sea changes – from the abolition of slavery (driven by moral fervor) to the civil rights movement. Pope Francis’s contributions, for instance, undeniably influenced the ethos of climate negotiations and elevated topics like environmental justice onto the world agenda. The limitations discussed are real, but they point toward a need for synergy: moral leaders set directions and inspire, but to implement their vision, they must engage and sometimes reshape the political and economic mechanisms that currently resist change.
Recognising these limits, the next section will explore how the strengths of moral leadership could be more effectively integrated into global diplomacy and governance. The goal is to outline opportunities for renewed frameworks that bridge the gap – frameworks in which ethical and spiritual considerations are not merely voices in the wilderness, but structured components of decision-making. By doing so, perhaps the inertia that frustrates solutions to crises like PFAS can be overcome, guided by the compass of moral truth that leaders like Pope Francis provide.
Toward an Integrated Diplomatic Framework: Bridging Ethics and Global Governance
Confronting global challenges such as ecological degradation demands not only technical solutions but also a transformation in the values and frameworks guiding international cooperation. The contrast between Pope Francis’s Vatican diplomacy and the prevailing state-centric governance of issues like PFAS reveals both the shortcomings of the current system and the potential of moral-ethical leadership. The question, then, is how to integrate spiritual and ethical considerations into formal diplomatic frameworks so that moral leadership and political action work in tandem rather than in parallel or at cross-purposes. In this final substantive section, we explore opportunities and proposals for bringing these domains closer together – effectively infusing global governance with the ethos of the common good that Pope Francis champions, while giving moral voices more tangible avenues to influence outcomes.
1. Institutionalising Moral Dialogue in International Fora. One practical step is to create spaces within international policymaking where ethical and spiritual perspectives are given a formal hearing alongside scientific and economic analysis. The precedent set in October 2021, when Pope Francis convened religious leaders and scientists to craft a joint appeal ahead of COP26, is instructive. That event, Faith and Science: Towards COP26, culminated in leaders of the world’s major religions handing a climate appeal to the President of the UN conference. It symbolized how faith voices can unite on shared moral principles and interface with political negotiations. Building on this, the United Nations could establish an advisory council or periodic forum for spiritual and ethical leaders to address pressing global issues. For example, ahead of major environmental summits or high-level UN General Assembly debates, a Global Ethics Forum could be held, bringing together figures like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, prominent philosophers, indigenous elders, and youth climate activists to formulate moral guidance and inject a sense of purpose into negotiations. Such input would not be binding, but it would be on record and could influence diplomats similarly to how scientific advisory bodies do. Over time, normalising the presence of moral arguments in international discourse could counterbalance the technocratic and interest-driven tendencies. It’s a way of saying: policy should be informed not just by what is feasible, but by what is right.
2. Enhancing the Role of the Holy See and Other Value-Based Actors. The Holy See already plays a unique observer role in bodies like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – indeed, under Pope Francis it formally acceded to the Paris Agreement in 2022, signaling commitment to being part of the solution. This move converted the Holy See’s moral stance into a legal undertaking, albeit largely symbolic given the Vatican’s tiny carbon footprint. Similarly, the Holy See could consider acceding to treaties like the Stockholm Convention on POPs or the Minamata Convention on mercury, even if just to champion their goals. By joining international agreements, the Vatican positions itself inside the tent, able to advocate from within for stronger provisions and greater support to poor countries. Furthermore, Pope Francis’s diplomats – the papal nuncios – could prioritise environmental justice in their bilateral talks with governments. For example, in African countries riddled with toxic pollution, the nuncio (ambassador) could quietly work with the local Church and international partners to highlight these issues and support initiatives for cleanup, leveraging the Church’s grassroots networks. Another avenue is coalition-building: the Holy See can partner with other states that have ethical foreign policy orientations (some smaller nations like Costa Rica or island states champion moral causes in climate and disarmament). A coalition of the willing – states and non-state actors aligned on moral purpose – could punch above its weight in negotiations by moral suasion and by tabling bold proposals that shame bigger powers into responding.
3. Integrating Ethical Principles into Treaties and Agreements. Traditionally, international treaties are dry legal instruments focused on obligations and numbers. However, inserting guiding principles in these documents can have subtle but real effects on interpretation and implementation. For instance, the preamble of the Paris Agreement acknowledges climate change as a common concern of humankind and notes the importance of climate justice. Future agreements on chemicals or other environmental issues could explicitly state principles of environmental justice, intergenerational equity, and the responsibility to prevent harm – principles strongly articulated by Pope Francis. By codifying such language, diplomats give moral concepts a foothold in the legal framework. Courts and policymakers can then invoke these principles when making decisions. A treaty on plastic pollution currently under negotiation has active involvement from civil society pushing for a clause on the “right to a clean and healthy environment,” which has now been recognised by the UN General Assembly. Including this would echo Pope Francis’s sentiment that access to clean water and land is a basic human right, not a privilege. Similarly, introducing the concept of an “ecological debt” – rich nations owing support to poorer ones – into climate and pollution agreements could pave the way for more generous assistance to affected countries like those dealing with PFAS in Africa. While such language might seem aspirational, it gradually shifts expectations and norms, making it easier to hold actors accountable to a higher standard.
4. Ethical Impact Assessments and Accountability. Borrowing from the practice of environmental impact assessments, the international community could require ethical impact assessments for major policies or projects with transnational implications. For example, before approving a new chemical for widespread use, regulators could be mandated to consider not just safety in the using country, but also ethical questions: Will manufacturing this chemical create pollution burdens in countries with lax laws? Is it fair to introduce it if there is no plan for global management of its wastes? This expands the decision-making lens to factor in global justice. It’s a kind of operationalising of the Golden Rule across borders. Moreover, accountability mechanisms could be strengthened by incorporating ethical oversight. An idea floated by some scholars is an International Environmental Court or a special rapporteur for environmental justice under the UN. Such bodies could review claims where vulnerable communities allege that international inaction (or actions by powerful states/companies) has violated their rights to a healthy environment. While enforcement might be tricky, even the act of review and the moral judgment passed can pressure governments to change course. For instance, if an African community affected by PFAS could bring a case to an international body and get a finding that their predicament represents a failure of global stewardship, it might compel richer nations to fund cleanup or accelerate regulatory bans. Essentially, this pulls moral judgment into a quasi-legal process, giving it teeth in the court of public opinion if not in strict law.
5. Engaging Religious and Community Networks in Implementation. An often underutilised asset in global governance is the on-the-ground reach of religious and civil society organizations. The Catholic Church (and other faith groups) has extensive networks in developing countries that could assist in implementing environmental initiatives. For example, if an international fund is set up to help communities filter PFAS from water or to monitor pollution, Church-run hospitals and schools in Africa could be distribution points for filters or information campaigns to educate the public about avoiding exposure. During the pandemic, these networks were crucial for disseminating health guidance – the same could apply to ecological hazards. By formally recognizing these networks as partners in global programs, international agencies can bridge trust gaps and ensure ethical principles (like prioritising the poorest) are followed in practice. Pope Francis has encouraged the Church to take up the cause of the environment, terming it an act of love for God’s creation; indeed, after Laudato si’, numerous Catholic initiatives, such as the Laudato Si’ Movement, have mobilised believers to advocate and act on environmental issues. Collaborating with such value-driven movements can reinforce the moral narrative around a policy, keeping public support strong even when tough measures are enacted. For instance, phasing out PFAS might mean certain products disappear or costs rise; faith leaders can help communicate the ethical necessity of such sacrifice for the greater good, using the language of stewardship and sacrifice familiar to their communities.
6. Education and Leadership Development. To truly integrate ethics in governance, future diplomats and leaders should be schooled not only in law and economics but also in moral philosophy and intercultural ethics. Diplomatic academies and international relations programs could partner with institutions like the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences or leading theological faculties to develop curricula that train “ethical diplomats.” These would be professionals comfortable operating at the intersection of policy and principle, able to dialogue with religious figures and translate moral concerns into actionable policy proposals. Over time, this could create a cadre of negotiators and officials who intuitively seek common ground that is not just expedient but principled. The impact might be seen in subtle shifts – maybe a delegate in a chemicals negotiation says, “Yes, our industry wants a longer phase-out, but is that just, given it will harm others? Perhaps we can compromise earlier,” – a change of tone influenced by ethical reasoning.
7. Public Engagement and Moral Consensus. Finally, integrating moral considerations requires engaging the global public in a discourse about values. Diplomatic efforts often fail when they lack popular legitimacy. Pope Francis’s popularity and clear moral messaging have a way of catalysing public opinion – for example, after Laudato si’, polls showed increased public concern for climate issues in many countries. Governments can harness this by more explicitly linking their policy justifications to ethical arguments, thereby building a broader consensus. The more citizens see environmental action as a moral duty and part of their identity (not just a regulatory burden), the more political capital leaders have to take bold steps. In democratic societies, this can translate to electoral mandates for green policies; in international relations, it can translate to peer pressure among nations – nobody wants to be seen as the sinner against a shared moral imperative when the world is watching.
To illustrate, imagine a near future where, in an assembly of the African Union or the UN, a resolution is passed recognising that contamination by “forever chemicals” is an affront to the rights of the poor and future generations, calling it a moral failing that must be corrected. Imagine that resolution passing unanimously, with even major powers acquiescing because they know global public opinion, nurtured by voices like Francis, expects no less. That would be a diplomatic framework infused with ethical resonance, not merely an expression of technical concern.
Of course, none of these changes happen overnight or without resistance. Integrating spirituality and diplomacy challenges longstanding notions of secular governance. But the severity of global threats – climate change, mass extinction, pervasive pollution – is prompting a search for deeper solutions. There is growing recognition that purely interest-based international relations are inadequate for problems that require solidarity and trust at a planetary scale. The moral and ethical traditions of humanity, carried by religions and philosophical systems, are reservoirs of wisdom on cultivating such solidarity. Pope Francis’s outreach is a living example of how tapping into those reservoirs can elevate and energise global cooperation. The task ahead is to make such integration systematic and sustained.
For diplomats and political leaders the message is one of integration and courage
In a world beset by crises that spill across borders – climate change, pandemics, pollution, conflicts – the need for enlightened global leadership is more urgent than ever. This article has explored two contrasting paradigms of leadership and governance: the moral diplomacy of Pope Francis’s Vatican, and the often fragmented realpolitik of states confronting transnational challenges exemplified by the PFAS pollution in Africa. We have seen how Pope Francis, as a spiritual leader and global moral voice, has carved out a distinctive diplomatic role that prioritises ethics, compassion, and the universal common good. He has mediated conflicts through humility and dialogue, broadened the international agenda to include the poor and the planet, and spoken uncomfortable truths to the powerful – whether it be a plea for disarmament or a prophetic warning about environmental collapse. In parallel, we scrutinised the response of the international community to PFAS “forever chemicals,” finding it wanting: delayed by self-interest, impeded by structural silos, and insufficiently attuned to the cries of those suffering invisible harm.
The geopolitical dimension of this contrast is profound. Vatican diplomacy, though lacking armies and riches, wields soft power to shape global norms and sometimes catalyse political shifts (as in the Cuba–US thaw). It operates on the premise that moral legitimacy can influence the behavior of nations – a premise validated at times (such as the partial success of Pope John Paul II against Soviet communism) but also tested by ongoing wars where the Pope’s pleas have limited effect. Meanwhile, global environmental governance is an arena where might and interest often prevail over right: powerful industrial lobbies and states negotiate outcomes that reflect bargaining power more than planetary needs. Africa’s experience with PFAS illustrates a geopolitical imbalance – pollution flows freely across borders, but remedies and regulations do not. The poor are left with contaminated rivers while the rich world debates definitions and delays action. This disparity is both a result of and a contributor to geopolitical inequality.
The ethical dimension has been at the heart of our analysis. Pope Francis frames issues in terms of right and wrong, sin and virtue, solidarity and indifference. His language, speaking of our common home and calling for ecological conversion, re-infuses international discourse with a moral vocabulary largely absent in diplomatic parlance. In contrast, the language around environmental governance is typically technocratic or economic. Ethical terms like justice, duty, or compassion rarely feature in treaty texts or conference rooms unless voices like Francis’s insert them. The PFAS case confronts us with an ethical question: is it acceptable to allow a chemical convenience for some to translate into toxic exposure for others, often unknown and far away? Politically, this question gets transmuted into talks of thresholds and management – important discussions, but ones that risk glossing over the moral urgency. As we argued, one limit of the current system is precisely this ethical neutering of issues that are in fact laden with moral consequence.
The governance dimension we examined reveals a structural misalignment. Pope Francis can articulate a vision of integral human development where politics, economy, and ecology serve human dignity. Yet our international institutions remain fragmented: one set tackling trade, another health, another environment – each with its own logic, sometimes at odds. In governance terms, the Vatican’s approach is integrative and principled, whereas global environmental governance is segmented and often reactive. This calls for reforms and innovations, some of which we outlined: from embedding ethics in international fora to harnessing the outreach of religious networks in implementation. The opportunity before us is to create a hybrid paradigm of governance – one that retains the strengths of legal and scientific rigor but is guided by the star of moral wisdom.
In drawing these threads together, it becomes clear that moral leadership and political structures need not remain estranged. The case of PFAS in Africa, when viewed through the lens of Pope Francis’s teachings, transforms from a narrow regulatory challenge to a test of our civilisation’s conscience and solidarity. Will the world heed what Francis in Laudato si’ called the cry of the poor and the cry of the earth, or will it remain mired in what he described as the “politics of immediate results”? Bridging the gap requires humility on both sides: moral leaders must understand the complexity of policy, and policymakers must acknowledge the indispensability of morality.
Encouragingly, we see signs of convergence. The United Nations has begun to speak more boldly in moral terms about climate and inequality. There is growing global youth activism, much of it echoing ethical and even spiritual themes (like intergenerational justice or humanity’s relationship with nature). Pope Francis’s own legacy has spurred countless initiatives that blend faith and action – from bishops lobbying for climate policies to interfaith alliances for rainforest protection. These are seedlings of a new diplomatic culture where values are not an afterthought but a foundation.
For diplomats and political leaders the message is one of integration and courage. Integration, in that successful diplomacy in the 21st century will require deploying soft power (culture, values, faith) alongside traditional hard power and bargaining. A state that leads on ethical grounds can build coalitions that outlast and outweigh mere transactions. Courage, in that embracing moral leadership means sometimes going against the grain of domestic interests or short-term gains. It means, for example, enacting strong environmental protections not just when the public demands it, but even earlier, because it is the right thing to do for humanity. It means listening not only to industry representatives in the boardroom but also to prophetic voices like the Pope in forums of conscience.To conclude, the story of Pope Francis’s diplomacy versus the PFAS governance challenge is not one of declaring a winner, but of highlighting complementary strengths. The Vatican’s approach offers vision, direction, and heart; the international system brings tools, resources, and enforcement capability. The urgent task is to marry the two. If the moral clarity of leaders like Pope Francis can be welded to the machinery of global governance, we might yet craft solutions equal to the daunting problems before us. In the fight for a sustainable, just future – whether cleansing “forever chemicals” from our rivers or silencing the guns of war – a diplomacy that speaks to both the head and the heart stands the best chance of success. As Francis himself wrote, “truly, much can be done!” – but only if we unite the ethical and the practical, guided by a shared sense of responsibility for one another and for our common home.
