Development of Multilateral Diplomacy in Europe in 19th Century - Essay Example

Diplomacy is often accused of having excessive privacy and really, for ages it was carried out completely unbeknownst to Europeans. The resident envoy, the most enduring feature of modern diplomacy, was the product of the Collapse of Christendom with its hierarchical structures and common ethical code, and the emergence first in Italy and then elsewhere in Europe of politics whose rulers were indebted to no superior political institutions. Meanwhile diplomacy helped fashion a pattern of international behaviour and law which formed the basis of the new system of sovereign states. The extension of that system through the growth of European influence overseas, the eventual erosion of Europe’s pre-eminence, the rise of the superpowers, the birth of new states, and the challenge of universalist creeds and ideologies, each in their own way influenced the methods, style and content of diplomacy. The emancipation within barely thirty years of almost all the colonial and dependent territories of Britain, France, the Netherlands and Portugal thus vastly inflated the world’s corps diplomatiques, strained traditional diplomatic values, and transformed institutionalized ‘multilateral diplomacy’ – or diplomacy by committee as it has been most appropriately termed – from a convenience into a necessity. The post-Cold War multilateral diplomacy is exemplified by more versatile policies of meetings and discussions with enormous issues and the rising contribution of authorities, national groups and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Multilateral diplomacy was trying to get used to to these new circumstances. Several issues were escalating ‘multilateral diplomacy’ in Europe – such as scientific, economic, anti political matters are worldwide and enormous in extent (Anderson 1993, pg. 106). They are outstripping the age-old means by which European regime managed them. The signing of the Peace of Westphalia reinforced by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, founded the theory of nationwide control, thus placing the nations of Europe on equivalent lawful balance (Clive 1999, pg. 689). This concept of self-governing equivalence – awarding each state with protective honour and the right to carry out domestic and overseas dealings without outer involvement – symbolizes the initial real ordering code amongst nations. After Westphalia, ‘decentralized control by self-governing states’ (Falk 1969, p. 69) gave the foundation of straight international order essential to the following expansion of worldwide organization. The Westphalia state command and multilateral diplomacy have co-developed as equally strengthening organizations and through them European thoughts in the empire of statecraft and inter-state relationships have been spread internationally. The international diplomatic set-up based entirely on European political conducts, incidence and ideational arrangements (which were?) is an exceptional instance of early ‘Europeanization’ instated as diffusion or export of structures of political parties and governance distinct for Europe away from the European land. If certainly, as Joschka Fischer reveals, “the centre of the conception of Europe after 1945 was and still is a refusal of the European balance-of-power system and the hegemonistic goals of peculiar states that had come out following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648”, and, as Romano Prodi puts forward, Europe’s part in international supremacy is that of repeating the European practice on a universal scale (Kagan 2002). The earliest incidences of multilateral diplomacy took place in the nineteenth century in Europe after the ending of the Napoleonic Wars where the ‘big powers’ gathered to draw the map of Europe again at the Vienna Congress. The Congress of Vienna in 1815, as Neumann (2002) pointed out, was a decisive moment because particular diplomatic exercises were codified and formalized, and since this was a structure of diplomatic interface that went away from discussing specific treaties and conditions. According to Clive Archer, “Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) established diplomatic basics for a new European security order subsequent to the destruction of the Napoleonic Wars” (1999, p. 694). The Concert of Europe1, as it turned out to be recognized, was a set of larger and smaller powers that would convene to solve problems peacefully. Conferences such as the ‘Conference of Berlin’ in 1884 helped reduce great power conflicts during this period, and the nineteenth century saw the beginning of multilateral diplomacy in Europe in a most peaceful way. As a result, four most important peacetime negotiations were held from 1815-1822 (Clive 1999, p. 693). After this episode, the ambitions of the Congress system caved in to a more unofficial administration. As categorized by one history writer, ‘A looser alliance of the Great Powers continued existing - an assuaged Congress system restricted to coping with crises as they come up, not aspiring to expect them or to flatten them out of continuation’ (Hinsley, 1963, 213). This ‘Concert of Europe’ marked periodic gatherings during the nineteenth century, predominantly in reaction to conflicts – such as Parisin 1856, Vienna in 1864, Prague in 1866, Frankfurt in 1871, Berlin in 1878, Berlin in 1884-1885, and The Hague in 1899 and 1907 (Clive, 1999, p. 694). These final two conferences went so far as to set up boards of judges to resolve international clashes and created a conference for the pacific resolution of worldwide clashes. According to Watson (1982, pg. 10), who indicates that as foreign policy is the matter of a state’s relationships with other states and organizations and the objectives it endeavours to attain by those relationships, diplomacy is “the process of meetings and negotiations by which nations systematically carry out their dealings and practise their functions by means short of war”. In its most basic structures, diplomacy existed from the time when first human groups come out and spoke to each other. Industrialized and colonialized opposition, combined with moves in the stability of power after the creation – by diplomacy and occupation – of Germany by Prussia expected breaks were emerging in this structure by the turn of the nineteenth century (very awkward sentence) . The Concert system was completely ruined by the First World War. After that war world head-of-the-states built the “League of Nations” so as to make sure to put off another War similarly. Several worldwide arms limitation agreements were also signed such as the “Kellogg-Briand Pact”. But the League was confirmed to be insufficient to stop Japans take-overs in Eastern Asia in the thirties, rising fascist belligerence and, in the end, the eruption of the Second World War from 1939. After the Second World War era the winners, having illustrated understanding from the malfunction of the “League of Nations”, formed the United Nations (UN) in 1945 with a proposal to deal with the flaws of the prior body. In contrast with the League, the UN had active contribution to the U.S. as well as the Soviet Union, the worlds top super powers. While signing out the dangers of Bonapartism, the allies also expressed more general fears about liberal revolution: “And as the same revolutionary principles which upheld the last criminal usurpation, might again, under other forms, convulse France, and thereby endanger the repose of other States; under these circumstances the High Contracting Parties…engage…to concert themselves…for the safety of their respective states, and for the general tranquillity of Europe (Webster 1969, p. 54). Further, the allies pledged to “renew their Meetings at fixed period…for the purpose of consulting upon their common interests” to promote prosperity and maintain the “Peace of Europe” (Hartmann, p. 5). The Concert of Europe thereby received formal recognition and its role as a discussion forum was codified2. Together with the political bodies of the UN the pre-war eras also observed a wide range of other multilateral diplomatic institutions, for instance the GATT (latterly named as “World Trade Organization”), the World Bank (purported Bretton Woods organizations) and the World Health Organization build up. The grouped multilateral structure played an imperative role in sustaining world harmony in the Cold War. Furthermore, UN armed forces positioned around the world became one of the most noticeable signs of multilateralism in Early Europe. As Watson (1982, pg.17) indicated: “in the European world of nations, diplomacy has come out as a systematized institute, bearing its distinguishing styles and behaviour and its own set-ups of actions, rules, contracts and other obligations. The European organization, so carefully planned, was able to enforce hostility and command over their affiliates because they were bound from the start by much more than just political agreements. [...] And it is generally known that the trendy methods and sensitive consciousness of how the nations’ system worked, which European diplomacy necessitated from its self-governing member states, subscribed not a little to the notable phenomenon, against the understanding of other states systems [e.g. Hellenistic, early Chinese and Indian], that no solitary state confirmed to be so influential that it could for any span of time absorb or even control all the others”. Isomorphic forces inside the organizational fields have supported the spread of diplomatic practices, arrangements and rules internationally, and with them West cognitive formation and meaning organizations in the empire of intra-state relationships have been spread on international scales. Eventually and throughout mutual communications, civil servants from different states have slowly but surely extended a mutual expert characteristics. As Nicolson (1939-1988, pg.14) indicates: “by 1815 therefore the Diplomatic Services of the states had been known as a distinctive area office of the community service in each state. A definite vocation had been set up, having its own chain of commands and regulations, and intended […] to advance its own freemasonry and gatherings”. In an inter-state surroundings with no overarching power diplomacy is a shared code of behaviour, rules, and main beliefs controlling relationships between countries. It forms the basic structure of the inter-state coordination, in which states perform their roles as a result of their characteristics as states. Diplomacy then came out as the byword of a set of judgments of exactness connected with the nation-state in international political affairs of Europe. It made the problems of measures facilitated categorization of state of affairs easier, determining legal performers and legitimate opportunities for acts. As G.R. Berridge points out, “traditionally, diplomacy largely involves such representatives as diplomats and envoys. Additionally, diplomacy also brought up a specific means of doing business” (1995, pg.1). These are the earliest examples of how ‘multilateral diplomacy’ flourished throughout Europe and why Europe has seen the emergence of it in the nineteenth Century. The result of the Concerts was, certainly, quite a long period of comparatively non-violent inter-state relationships amongst the larger powers of Europe. References: Kissinger, H. Diplomacy New York: Simon & Schuster, (1994) Watson, A. Diplomacy. The Dialogue Between States London: Eyre Methuen, (1982), pg. 10-17. Kagan, R. “Power and Weakness” Policy Review, No. 113, June 2002 (www.policyreview.org/JUN02/Kagan.html) Falk, Richard A., ‘The Interplay of Westphalia and Charter Conceptions of International LegalOrder’, in Black, Cyril E. and Falk, Richard A. (eds), The Future of the International LegalOrder, Vol. 1 Trends and Patterns, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1969, 32-72. Neumann, I.B., (ed.), Diplomati som sosial praksis,: Global politikk i praksis: krig, diplomati, handel, deltagelse Oslo: Cappelen, 2002 G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, London: Prentice Hall, 1995, p.1 Hinsley, Francis H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History ofRelations between States, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg. 213. Clive Archer, International Organizations.New York: Routledge, 2001, pg. 689-694. Nicolson, H., Diplomacy, Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 1939-1988, pg. 17. M. Anderson, The Rise of Modern Diplomacy 1450-1919, Chapter Three: Coming to term with a changing world 1789-1919, pp106, (1993) Longman, London & New York. Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Needs attention Content/Addressing the question X Dealing with concepts X Analysis X Structure X Spelling, punctuation, grammar X Presentation X Adequate sources X Bibliography/references X Comments: Mohammad, This is generally OK. You have a good insight about the nineteenth century innovations in diplomacy. You cover the Concert of Europe effectively. But the essay then goes on to describe aspects of the twentieth century without clearly indeifiying the link between the innovations of the Concert and the lessosn for the League and UN. You simply describe each in turn. At times the written English is very hard to foolow mainly because you try to produce unnecessarily complicated and long sentences. This means some of your ideas do not come across effectively. Assignments are marked in Grade Points on a 15 point scale as follows: A Pass is signified by a mark of 50-59% (7-9 grade points) in any module A Merit is signified by a mark of 60-69% (10-12 GPs) A Distinction is signified by a mark of 70% and above in any module (13-15 GPs) Mark awarded: 9 This mark is subject to second marking and could change. Read More