TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE CONGRESS SYSTEM BETWEEN 1815 AND 1823 SEEK TO DEFEND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE MAJOR EUROPEAN POWERS? Having defeated Napoleonic France in 1815, the major powers embarked on the also difficult task of mapping the future of post-war Europe. As this essay shall show issues of self-interest inevitably cropped up but the powers were none-the-less driven by common goals of achieving peace and stability during the congresses they held between 1815 and 1823. Self-interest was certainly served by the territorial arrangements agreed upon at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Austria re-asserted its authority in Italy and also gained the presidency of the newly constituted German Bund. Russia got the congress to endorse its acquisitions of Finland from Sweden, Bessarabia from Turkey and its control of Poland. The congress also acknowledged Prussia’s acquisition of Pomerania from Sweden in addition to gains of the Rhineland and two-fifths of Saxony. Britain also satisfied its thirst for colonies with gains of Mauritius, Guiana, Malta and Tobago from France as well as Ceylon and the Cape from Holland among others. It was also in the interest of the major powers to restore monarchical governments that had been overthrown by the French revolutionaries. Austria particularly pushed for this return to ‘legitimacy’ because its own interests would be served by the restoration of the Hapsburg princes to their old Italian kingdoms. The French Bourbons also favoured the policy as it not only restored them to their French crown but it also restored their Bourbon cousins to Spain. Self-interest also led to the endorsement of the Russian scheme for a ‘Holy Alliance’ of the monarchs directed against liberal and nationalist forces wherever they would arise in Europe. Only Britain refused to join this anti-revolution crusade aimed at perpetuating absolute monarchical rule. Thus restoring monarchs and suppressing revolutionary forces were both self-serving schemes born out of the need for self-preservation. Although self-interest was significant it was by no means the only consideration at the 1815 congress. Achieving peace and stability was also an important concern. The territorial arrangements already discussed were also undertaken with a view to achieving a balance of power which would leave no one state too powerful and therefore capable of attacking others and disturbing the peace. That is why even defeated France was treated with such leniency. It is worth noting that it was only pushed back to its 1790 boundaries after it had supported Napoleon’s ‘hundred days’ campaign and disturbed the peace once more. That was the point that the congress decided it had been too lenient in allowing France to keep its 1792 conquests therefore it had to be cut down to prevent it remaining too powerful. Liberal and nationalist principles of the French Revolution were being suppressed because their capacity to cause international conflict had already been witnessed. After more than twenty years of fighting a France that was inspired by such ideals and hell-bent on spreading them all over Europe, the congress of Vienna was justified in taking that hard-line stance against those forces. The 1818 Congress of Aix la Chapelle was more concerned with addressing issues of general rather than the self-interest of the major powers. Among other things the congress agreed on the sensible decision of rehabilitating France by re-admitting it to the ranks of the great powers as an equal partner. The Quadruple Alliance was therefore transformed into the Quintuple Alliance. The army of occupation which France had suffered since 1815 was withdrawn. Such a conciliatory stance was especially necessary in the interests of European peace. The congress also addressed itself to tackling the twin evils of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Barbary pirates who threatened European shipping and trade on the seas. They also discussed the revolt of Spain’s American colonies with Russia urging European intervention to support Spain. Disagreements pitting Britain against the others arose over these issues. Tackling the slave trade and the pirates would have required stationing naval squadrons with stop and search powers over all ships. Only Britain had the naval capacity and other powers were wary of giving Britain that kind of authority fearing it would only entrench its dominance. Conversely Britain was also wary of placing its navy under international authority and so the slave trade and piracy continued unabated. Russia’s interventionist schemes in America were opposed by Britain and Austria. Britain evidently hoped the revolts would lead to the collapse of the Spanish empire therefore allowing it access to trade markets it was excluded from. In all these developments there was clearly the motive of self-interest but as shown especially by the issue of France, there was more to the congress than just that. Even the congresses of Troppau and Laibach (1820 and 1821 respectively) demonstrated a common desire to work together to resolve common problems. It is important to note that although differences usually arise among parties that does not necessarily indicate self-interest. It is only normal which is why congresses were held to iron these out and once a majority decision was taken it bound even those who held different views-that is what agreeing to differ is all about. Such differences did arise at the two congresses over the revolts that had broken out in Spain, Portugal and Naples. Britain and France opposed Austrian and Russian interventionist schemes on behalf of the governments. Austria was eventually authorised to intervene in Naples by Russia, Prussia and Austria at Troppau. If anybody was driven by self-interest it was Britain which sulked over the majority’s decision and told Austria that it was intervening in its personal capacity not that of the congress. The scenario was no different at the Congress of Verona called in 1822 to discuss the Spanish and Greek issues. The usual disagreements over intervention arose and this time Russia was in support of the Greek rebels against their Turkish masters while France sought to crush the rebels in Spain. As usual Britain was opposed. Russia was restrained by the majority decision against intervention while France was authorised to act in Spain although Britain objected. At the end of the day it was not so much of self-interest but just differences of opinion manifesting themselves among powers that were none-the-less committed to co-operating for the common good. In conclusion, it can be observed that self-interest was not the only concern of the major powers. The congresses revealed that they were also committed to working for peace, stability and other common goals although differences did exist among them.
Posted on: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:09:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015