Moments and Significance of Balkan Diplomacy at the Start of the Twentieth Century

Moments and Significance of Balkan Diplomacy at the Start of the Twentieth Century Cotirlet Paul-Claudiu University of Bucharest ABSTRACT Historically, the Balkan Peninsula is marked as an area where the Ottoman Empire made its influence known. The notion of Balkan space is often thought of in a negative way, being associated with the so called „Powder Keg of Europe”. At the start of the nineteenth century, the peninsula was divided by the Ottoman and Habsburg empires. One century later, the same lands are divided up by six states. No less than 11 wars and countless armed conflicts were necessary in order to get to this result. For the Europeans that lived at the start of the last century, the Balkans represented a terra incognita, a particular area, slightly explored, constantly avoided, carrying the burden of violence. A territory filled with terror and endless strife, conjuring up unpleasant images: political instability, secret societies, and atrocities. This study shows the manner in which diplomacy tried to play a major role in this region’s stability through its fundamental concepts (summits, international conferences, parliamentary diplomacy, the international activities of transnational and subnational entities, the unofficial diplomacy of non-governmental elements, as well as the work put in by numerous international civil employees). Also, it will incline towards the last phase of the balance of power system, more specifically on its ending through the first Balkan war. Diplomacy is often mistaken for „foreign policy” or „external relations”, but the terms are not synonymous. Diplomacy is the main, yet not the only tool of foreign policy. On the other hand, foreign policy establishes goals, provides strategies and enforces measures that must be used in order for complete those goals. Diplomacy is therefore the main substitute for using violence, force or subversive tactics; it is the peaceful way in which two or more states can negotiate a common foreign policy. Keywords: Southeast Europe, Nationalism, Borders, Conflicts, 65 Balance of Power. 1. INTRODUCTION The Balkan Peninsula, partially considered a unit of transition between the middle and southern parts of Europe, occupies an area of 468.000 square km, being the third largest peninsula in Europe (Cotet, 1967). From a geographical point of view, this region is represented as a whole, being located between the Danube (the northern border), the Black C. Paul-Claudiu Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Adriatic Sea, making up the eastern, southern and western limits of the peninsula. The Ionian Sea, opening towards the Mediterranean, represents the south-western border, while the Aegean Sea, located in the south-east, advances along the line made up by the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits all the way towards the Black Sea. Throughout time, there have been many different opinions regarding marking the northern border, different authors also including regions from the north of the Danube. Geographically, it could be said that the peninsula stopped at the Danube. But from an economical, political and cultural point of view, the great river had to be passed (Bulei, 2011). In the modern age, the foreign affairs domain is reserved for a small group of decisional factors, being led by a monarch, who considers that diplomatic affairs can be managed through his personal relationships with other monarchs (Young, 2006). This is the reason for which regal visits have been perceived, during this age, as a true diplomatic event, that could contribute to clarifying certain differences that came up between two states (McLean, 2001). The political map of the start of the twentieth century shows us that monarchy keeps its positions, or conquers new ones, once other state entities show up. It’s no surprise that during this period, all diplomatic acts are being done in the name of the sovereign. Although in theory it was available to everyone, in reality, diplomacy during those times was part of a elitist community, that had its own customs and rules (Cain, 2012). It was a world ruled by the aristocratic principle. Diplomacy remains an aristocratic profession, as long as the active involvement in the central system of governmental policies is an aristocratic occupation as well (Jones, 1983). “We prefer to be ruled by an aristocrat, even if we know he is incompetent, because we know very well what he’ll do, and what he won’t” (Young, 1921) The predominance of aristocracy among the diplomatic corps was obvious: 40% in the UK, 65% in Italy, 45% in France, almost 66 entirely in Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (between 1860 and 1914). Constantinople and Bucharest were the two capitals 2016/1 from this region that were the most demanded and interesting for the diplomats of the Great Powers. During their stay on the shore of the Bosphorus, a lot of ambassadors saw this experience as an opportunity to propel to a higher position inside the state they represented. On the other side were Athens, Belgrade, Cetinje and Sofia, where life wasn’t as attractive and did not represent as many advantages as the aforementioned capital cities. The economic and financial leaders of the world changed the power and wealth balance at a global scale, thus we are left with inequality between diplomatic representation in the West and Moments and Significance of Balkan Diplomacy the Balkans. Only the Great Powers have representation through ambassadors. They tend to have between 7 representations, like in the case of the Ottoman and Czarist empires, and 10 embassies, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the French Republic. The majority of these embassies are opened in Europe, and especially the Western World, but we do have cases where diplomacy “crosses the ocean” (Germany, France, The Czarist Empire and Great Britain have embassies in Washington). The south-eastern space limits itself from a diplomatic representation perspective, only to The Old Continent. Thus, in 1909 the Serbian Kingdom sustains diplomatic relationships with 14 states, of which only two are not European (USA and Persia) (Vesnitsh,1909). In Romania’s case, we have 13 states, only one being situated outside of the continent, in Egypt. Both Bulgaria and Montenegro have diplomatic representation only in Europe, in 11 countries. European diplomacy at the start of the twentieth century is based on the “Concert of Europe” principle, or Congress System principle, as it was later called. This principle consisted of the balance of power that existed in Europe starting with the Wien Peace Congress that marked the end of the Napoleon Wars (1815). To understand this balance, we must first discuss power. Power, like love, is easier to experience than to define or measure. Power is the ability to achieve your means and objectives. More specifically, it is the capacity to influence others and to obtain the results that you want (Nye Jr., 2005). The balance of power system had divided into 5 stages of evolution: between 1815 and 1822, the states have conjugated their actions, meeting frequently in order to appease disputes and maintaining a balance. Once nationalism and democratic revolutions start to rise, the balance of power enters a new stage between 1822 and 1854. The occurrence of wars (Crimean war or the Unification war in Italy) has led this balance system process to a turning point. Once this moment had passed, the balance of power manifested under the face of the great Bismarck, who tried to push 67 France over the borders into imperialist adventures, and to stray the attention of his allied partners form his lost province (Alsace 2016/1 and Lorena) in 1870-1890. Bismarck’s predecessors didn’t show the same flexibility in the international arena and this caused the end of the balance of power starting with the Balkan Wars between 1890 and 1912. The European Congress made it so that Europe would live the longest period of peace ever known. For 40 years there hadn’t been even one war between the Great Powers, and after the Crimean War in 1854, no war took place for another 60 years (Kissinger, 2003). After the Congress of Wien, the relationship between the balance C. Paul-Claudiu of power and a common sentiment of legitimacy was expressed into two documents: The Quadruple Alliance, made up of Great Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia, and the Holly Alliance, which was limited to three of the so called Western Courts: Prussia, Austria and Russia. But all these alliances had weak spots. One of them was the Oriental Issue, more specifically, how can the nations that wanted to escape from Turkish dominion be stopped, and of course, to see if this was desired. A potential closing in towards the Straits by Russia, was being looked at with skepticism by London’s as well as Wien’s decision forums. The fall of the Ottoman Empire was inevitable, so the shock that followed had to have as little effect as possible, as well as the status quo not suffering changes. And so it happened that the so called Concert of Europe was finally crushed by the Oriental problem. In 1854, the Great Powers found themselves fighting each other for the first time after the age of Napoleon. Through an irony of sorts, the Crimean war, which for a long time was considered by historians as an affair that had no sense and could have easily been avoided, was started not by Russia, Great Britain or Austria (countries that had great interest in the Oriental Issue) but by France. Coming back to the studied time period, we find that this European Concert, which ensured peace for a hundred years, would cease to exist from all points of view. With a blind recklessness, the Great Powers threw themselves into a bipolar world, which consisted of two blocks of power.

Load more