Why Imperial Russia's Levantine ecclesiastical diplomacy is still worth studying
By B.C.
CALL me a dabbler in the obscure if you like. I have just been perusing a compelling tale of Levantine (literally) diplomacy which unfolded at the very end of the 19th century. Thanks to some largely invisible Russian footwork, the Patriarchate of Antioch, one of the most august offices of the Christian world, passed from Greek to local Arab control. Against a backdrop of Greek-Slavic rivalry in the Balkans, the Russians hoped to nurture a useful future ally. For their part, Arab Christians rejoiced when a Syrian cleric whose church name was Meletius was enthroned as Patriarch of Antioch (a post whose holders reside in Damascus) in 1899. It was a giant boost to the cause of Arab nationalism and a blow to the cosy Greco-Turkish condominium which had previously held sway over much of the eastern Church and its holiest sites. Wresting control from the Greek hierarchs ultimately required diplomatic exchanges at the highest level between the courts of Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman sultan, and Tsar Nicholas II.
With a new cold war looming over Ukraine, and Syria still engulfed by endless carnage, is it too much of a luxury to be poring over these exotic but largely forgotten episodes from the annals of diplomacy? No less a person than Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, publicly posed that question recently, and answered with an emphatic "no". And Mr Lavrov's remarks are worth studying closely, just as a historian might parse the cables of his predecessor, Count Mikhail Muraviev (pictured above), who was the master of the Tsar's diplomacy. With an almost British flair for understatement, the current foreign minister said (my translation):
It might seem that the...details of transactions between different Christian confessions, and their relationship to the Ottoman authorities, and the role of the great powers in these questions, is not of absolutely direct relevance...and that it has no specific bearing on current international affairs. But in my view, a whole series of factors prompt us to draw the very opposite conclusion. The Middle East is to this day at the top of our international priorities. A wave of upheavals in the Arab world is affecting the interests not only of the countries of the region but of all the main global players, and its effects may be far-reaching, including on relationships between cultures and religions...The fate of minorities in the region—especially the fate of Orthodox Christian communities in Syria and other countries—is a cause for serious concern. There is a massive exodus from the region of Christians who have been an indispensable part of the Middle East's (cultural) mosaic for many centuries.
Mr Lavrov was speaking at the launch of a book on Russian religious diplomacy in the 19th century by Mikhail Yakushev, one of the leaders of an officially-backed Russian NGO with a self-explanatory name, the Centre for National Glory. The wranglings over the Patriarchate of Antioch mark the final twist in the book's labyrinthine subject matter. The minister praised the author for "recreating a richly textured picture of the presence of the Russian state, and the Russian Orthodox church, in the eastern Mediterranean...and of the efforts which were undertaken and are being undertaken to strengthen the links between Russia and Holy Land." Mr Lavrov also recalled that his ultimate boss, President Vladimir Putin, had spoken of the "unbroken character of (Russian) national history" as a basis for present-day foreign policy.
If an American bishop or a human-rights campaigner in Washington or Brussels had issued a statement about the plight of vulnerable churches in the Middle East, many people would have nodded with approval but not given the matter much more thought. When the same point is made by the foreign minister of a nuclear power which is in the process of annexing a piece of territory, it will probably get a bit more attention. That may be unfortunate. But above all, it seems a good idea that the cause of religious minorities in the Middle East (which is an important issue regardless of who is raising it) should not be monopolised by any one diplomatic player. And that countries with a sincere interest in that cause should co-operate rather than using it as an excuse to fight, and making life worse for everybody.
