The Congress of Vienna was held when Europe faced a crossroads and “the prime movers of statecraft,” namely Metternich and the British Foreign Minister Viscount Castlereagh saw that the “time of the balance of power had passed” (Nathan, 2002, p. 93). Several important issues were discussed and formalized at the congress, including the establishment of future congresses that would continue to take place for the next century until the outbreak of WWI. European borders were established, the German confederation created, slavery condemned, and the beginning of spheres of influence began to take shape with Russia and Prussia coming to dominate Poland. Even overseas colonies were not spared, with Britain gaining former Spanish and Dutch territories in the West Indies and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) and the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa). It was this series of Congresses that formed the foundation of European, and for that matter world, diplomacy until the outbreak of WWI. The congresses were the first time that Europeans widely used ‘multilateral diplomacy,’ which is when face-to-face negotiations are conducted at conferences or congresses by ambassadors or representatives from three or more sovereign nation-states (Berridge, 2002, p. 146). While multilateral diplomacy had occurred previously in the ancient states of India (Watson, 1984, p. 91), and the Greco-Persian Empire in the fourth century BC (Watson, 1984, p. 85-88), it was the first time that it was used to such a degree in Europe, Westphalia being the possible exception.
Concert of Europe and Pax Britannica
After the Congress of Vienna several more meetings took place, most notably the congresses at the following locations: in 1818, in 1819, in 1822, in 1832, and in 1878. From the onset the nations that met sought to temper or even eliminate the ideals of nationalism, popular sovereignty, and idealism that had arisen as a result of the French Revolution and the earlier American Revolution. They sought to re-establish monarchies as the supreme governance of nations, most notably France where the House of Bourbon was restored to the throne. Austria was the chief proponent of the restoration of monarchy as they feared change away from monarchy and realized that if the trend continued their Hapsburg monarchy would not last. Even Britain which had instituted changes away from a ruling monarchy previously, went along with the re-installation of monarchies in continental Europe. The Congress of Carlsbad in 1819 is a prime example of the fear of nationalism when this congress was held for the express purpose of banning nationalist groups, removing liberal university professors, and placing even more censorship on the press (Kremer, 1992, p. 674).
The only regional power that did not participate in the Congresses of Europe was the Ottoman Empire most likely because they were seen as outsiders and they were not necessarily excluded but chose not to participate. I believe that this has a lasting effect to this day as the modern nation of Turkey that has resulted from the fall of the Ottoman Empire is still struggling to get included into European politics and the European Union (Migdalovitz, 2010, p. 26). However the British Empire, which was also outside of continental Europe did participate and in fact utilized the congresses to further their own interests with Pax Britannica. The term Pax Britannica is Latin for “The British Peace” and is used to define the timeframe that we are studying (1815-1914) which was a period of relative peace in Europe, the term ‘relative’ being key here. Britain controlled most of the key maritime trade routes and was the ruler of the seas without any significant naval challenger during this time. The term also applies to the spread of British imperialism after Napoleon’s defeat in the Battle of Waterloo (Pugh, 1999, p. 83). While there was no major outbreak of hostilities for Britain until the Crimean War in 1854, there were several conflicts notably in Canada in 1837 during the Patriot War Rebellion (Greer, 1996), 1838 saw the beginning of the First Afghan War (Waller, 1993) and in South Africa with the a Zulu uprising (Thompson, 2001), the First Opium War in China began in 1839 (Brook, 2000), then the First Sikh War began in 1845 with Second Sikh War following soon afterwards in 1848 in India (Cook, 1975), and an uprising in Burma in 1852 (Guyot, 1966). All of these conflicts were within their colonial empire and not with a recognized sovereign nation, with the exception of China.
Spring of Nations
In 1848 Europe again saw widespread violence as many nations erupted into revolution, and thus began the eventual downfall of the Congress of Europe and Metternich’s system of diplomacy. What began as another revolution in France that resulted in King Louis-Philipp and monarchy as a whole being ousted again, spread to over 50 nations in Europe and Latin America. This was the first and only collapse of authority in Europe, however it did not affect Britain, Russia, the Netherlands, or for that matter the United States, and it became known as the “Spring of Nations” (Merriman, 1996, p. 715). However the revolutions did have lasting impacts in Austria, France, Germany, and Italy. The revolutions sprang from a variety of causes, but mostly due to the industrial revolution that was transforming workers lives, and popular ideals that had re-emerged such as nationalism, or were emerging as popular liberalism and socialism did during this timeframe. Additionally with large swathes of nobility becoming discontented with royal absolutism, they rose up against the nobles (Bideleux, 1998, p. 295). While this ‘Spring of Nations’ lasted from 1848 until 1871 and ultimately failed for the liberal forces, it did result in the unification of both Germany and Italy which was a triumph of nationalism, and the peasants were released from serfdom in Austria; which would have lasting effects for remainder of Europe. It was the unification of Germany and Italy that began the steady decline of the Metternich system of diplomacy.
In 1871 at the palace of Versailles Germany was officially unified, which was after the Austro-Prussian War in which Austria was defeated and the Franco-Prussian War immediately following. While Austria lost no land, Prussia gained the ability to govern the German provinces without Austrian interference. It was Otto von Bismarck that unified Germany and he was such an imposing figure not only in Germanic affairs but on the world stage that he was known as the ‘Iron Chancellor.’ He utilized a type of diplomacy now called ‘Realpolitik’ which refers to the art of diplomacy based upon power and practical considerations rather than ideology or ethical ideals (Grant, 1997, p. 40-41). He was such a charismatic leader and changed diplomacy in such a way that over a century later former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated of Bismarck, "The embodiment of realpolitik turned power into an instrument of self-restraint by the agility of his diplomacy. He dominated Germany and European diplomacy from a single power base” (Kissinger, 2011, p. 1).
Clash of Nations, Scramble for Africa, and America
After the ‘Spring of Nations’ and German unification the world began moving towards a system of alliances, which ultimately led to the outright downfall of Metternich diplomacy, and Pax Britannica. The last congress of the Concert of Europe took place in Berlin in 1878, was chaired by Chancellor Bismarck, and was attended by the Ottoman Empire. It took place just after the Russo-Turkish War, and sought to reorganize the Balkans after the Ottomans were pulling out defeated. As a result of this final congress the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy was formed in 1882 and lasted until the outbreak of WWI in 1914. In 1907 to counter the rising threat from the Triple Alliance, Britain, France, and Russia formed an alliance that was to be called the Triple Entente, and later Japan, the United States, Portugal, Brazil, Canada, and Spain all joined.
Additionally, the colonial ‘Scramble for Africa’ for Africa began circa 1880 and lasted until WWI, which resulted in all of Africa being colonized except for the nations of Liberia (Only because of US protection) and Ethiopia (To which Italy would soon invade). Secondly the colonial powers greatly expanded their empires in Southeast Asia as well, with Britain conquering Myanmar and Malaysia, France taking all of Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos), and the Dutch extending their control of Indonesia. Thailand was the only nation in Southeast Asia to evade conquest. This conquest of other civilizations by the Imperial nation-states led to the subjugation of the conquered peoples to the point where they had no or little diplomatic voice, options for governance, or freedoms. While Latin America had gained independence from either Spain or Portugal earlier in the decade, they still had little impact upon the diplomatic course of world affairs.
America did conduct foreign policy with Latin American nations, as we saw in our study of ‘Dollar Diplomacy’ and its disastrous effects that still linger to this day (Schell, 2011). Additionally the American Civil War led to the United States into some strange diplomatic waters regards Europe, with trying to keep the British from aiding the Confederates. The diplomacy of the US during the Civil War combined with the general US policy and attitude of isolationism kept the US from making any significant contribution to the European system of diplomacy until after WWI.
Conclusion
The foreign policy of the many states in the world from the period between 1815 and 1914, resulted in Pax Britannica for Britain but not necessarily for the remainder of the world. While continental Europe was constantly beset by wars and revolutions, and the US fought a devastating civil war, most of the world was colonized by the western European nations or fought to get out from under a colonial yoke during this time. The policy of colonizing anyone and everyone was a failure in diplomacy, and actually of humanity or common decency, and if this policy remained today we would continue to see wide-spread revolution. While the world had its’ bloodiest century in the 20th century, I believe that it would have been much bloodier had we still had the same worldview that led nations to colonize. Colonization was a world-view that developed due to racism, social-darwinism, and a lack of diplomacy. The diplomacy during this period was instituted to keep monarchies in power, and nationalism as well as the common people down, and therefore was doomed to fail. People became more educated as a result of the industrial revolution, and therefore more aware of who they were and their place in the world. They wanted more for themselves, and a greater say in their governance. Therefore diplomacy as did the rest of the world changed at a rapid pace during the 19th and 20th centuries.
References
Albrecht-Carri, R. (1973) A diplomatic history of Europe since the Congress of Vienna, New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.
Berridge, G., (2002) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Basingstroke, UK: Palgrave Publishers.
Bideleux, R., & Jeffries, I. (1998) A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London, UK: Routledge.
Black, J. (2008) Great Powers and the Quest for Hegemony: The World Order since 150, New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.
Brook, T., & Wakabayashi, B. T. (2000) Opium regimes: China, Britain, and Japan, 1839-1952, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cook, H. C. B. (1975) The Sikh wars: the British Army in the Punjab, 1845-1849, Faridabad, IN: Thompson Press.
Grant, R. W. (1997) Hypocrisy and integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau, and the ethics of politics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greer, A. (1996) The patriots and the people: the rebellion of 1837 in rural Lower Canada, Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
Guyot, J. F. (1966) [Review of the book The Stricken Peacock: Anglo-Burmese Relations 1752-1948, by M. H. Aung] The Journal of Asian Studies, 25(3), 544-545.
Kissinger, H. A. (2011, March 31) Otto von Bismarck, Master Statesman, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/books/review/book-review-bismarck-by-jonathan-steinberg.html?_r=2&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema1
Kremer, R. L. (1992) [Review of the book Staat kontra Universitdt: Die Universitat Halle-Wittenberg und die Karlsbader Beschlusse, by M. Brummer] Isis Journal of the History of Science Society, 83(4), 673-674.
Merriman, J. (1996) A History of Modern Europe: From the French Revolution to the Present (3rd ed.), New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Migdalovitz, C. (2010) Turkey: Politics of Identity and Power, Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service
Nathan, J. A. (2002) Soldiers, Statecraft, and History : Coercive Diplomacy and International Order, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Nicolson, H. (1946) The Congress of Vienna: a study in allied unity: 1812-1822, London, UK: Lowe & Brydone Publishers.
Pugh, M. (1999) Britain since 1789: a concise history, London, UK: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Schell, W. (2011) American investment in tropical Mexico: rubber plantations, fraud, and dollar diplomacy, 1897-1913. Business History Review, 64(2), 217.
Thompson, L. M. (2001) A history of South Africa, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Waller, J. H. (1993) Beyond the Khyber pass: The road to British disaster in the first Afghan War, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Watson, A., (1984) : The Between , London, UK: Methune & Co. Publishers.