The Congress of Vienna Revisited

Sep 25, 2014 Dominique Moisi

Two hundred years ago, on September 25, 1814, the start of the Congress of Vienna ushered in the longest period of peace Europe had known for centuries. So why, in a time of growing global disorder, has its anniversary all but been ignored?

PARIS – Two hundred years ago, on September 25, 1814, Russia’s Czar Alexander I and Friedrich Wilhelm III, the King of Prussia, were greeted at the gates of Vienna by Austria’s Emperor Franz I. The start of the Congress of Vienna ushered in the longest period of peace Europe had known for centuries. So why has its anniversary all but been ignored?

True, the Congress of Vienna is mostly viewed as marking the victory of Europe’s reactionary forces after the defeat of Napoleon. Yet, given today’s growing global confusion, if not chaos, something like “Proustian” nostalgia for the Congress may not be out of order. Here, after all, was a meeting that, through tough but successful negotiations, reestablished international order after the upheavals caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Can we apply any of its lessons today?

To answer that question, we should consider not just the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, but also the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, each of which in its own way brought to an end a bloody chapter in European history.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 5 in all 5 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Oct 23, 2014

Why has the international community forgotten to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Vienna Congress, which had managed to maintain relative peace in Europe until World War One? Lasting from November 1814 to June 1815 the Congress divided Europe up after the Napoleonic wars. The key-players were all monarchies - Britain, France, Prussia, Russia and the Austrian Empire.
Dominique Moisi is nostalgic about the "internationla order", created by this reactionary bunch in 1815 and wonders whether it is still applicable today? After the signing of the Treaty of Vienna, the century that led to World War One saw a concerted effort of oppressive monarchs across Europe to counter national revolutions. That it "reinstated the principle of the balance of power" was a lip service. The struggle for hegemony as well as "territorial and ideological revisionism" finally led to the outbreak of WW I.
This "feeling of belonging to a great and unified family" and "the common aristocratic origins of their diplomats" were remnants of elitism. It was a huge mistake to excluse the "cultural other”. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 was an awakening of a class struggle.
Today the United Nations holds the "international system" together and serves as the guardian of the global order. In recent months we are seeing an international action unter the auspices of the UN to prevent terror from engulfing the world.
Moisi sees Obama’s regional coalition with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates etc. as short-lived and that their "enthusiasm for US military intervention is likely to diminish quickly". It may be true, as nobody can foresee the vagaries of wars and conflicts. Turning a blind eye to ISIS is no option. The Islamic State lacks statehood and cannot be called a "state". The different actors involved in the region all have their national agenda, which makes the situation both fluid and complicated. As "China, India, and Brazil are stakeholders in the world system", they have to share the global burden. They should realise that in our world of interdependence "common interests should trump national priorities".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Roffel Sep 29, 2014

Mr. Moisi must have missed all the color revolutions. The US is the most revisionist country in the world. Far from accepting diversity it is bent on beating it down wherever it sees it.

Maybe Moisi should have mentioned that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the intervention in LIbya.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mareike Kleine Sep 27, 2014

The Congress of Vienna was most of all an agreement to maintain the DOMESTIC status quo, i.e. help monarchs defy democratic tendencies across Europe. It is also wrong that it resulted in a century of peace. There were enough spats during the 19th century that altogether built up the disaster that followed in 1914. The lesson that should be drawn from the Congress is that we need to assist other countries in a peaceful transition to democracy, to make sure that it doesn't result, as in Russia, in blatant nationalism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Sep 26, 2014

"open revisionists, like Russia and the Islamic State" Putting Russia and Islamic State in the same category seems a bit extreme isn't it, to say the least?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Sep 25, 2014

Metternich, Castlereagh, Alexander I and Talleyrand had in common the "feeling of belonging to a great and unified family," and "reestablished international order after the upheavals caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars." Did all of the four believe that the status quo was thus ensured forever by keeping the social changes that were taking place to topple an aristocratic culture, on hold? It was thirty-four years until 1848. Today cultural others are here and there in the world.

But I think Prof. Moisi has produced answers, though not total answers but at least partial answers, such as that "China, India, and Brazil, too need a minimum of order," or a group that includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, though weak at best, has enthusiasm for US military intervention. "States possess common interests that should trump national priorities" means that though we may not be a family, we live all as neighbours in this one connected world. The opinion that overwhelmingly prevailed in the UN is encouraging.

(I have a very minor difference of opinion from Prof. Moisi. though. In spite of the annexation of Crimea, Putin's Russia is not an expansionist country. The West mishandled the pro-Western and pro -Russian divided politics in Ukraine. It should be blamed to that extent.
I do not buy into Dr. Kissinger's love affair with China. The yuan is underappreciated; it should be appreciated. China is overappreciated; it should be depreciated. China shows a big size but we must not be deluded into believing it or mistaking its shadow for its reality, by playing the game that China is playing; China has historically cultivated the knack for this. A Chinese Shi Zi, now a naturalized Japanese Seki Hei, says that the Chinese government is very skillful at deceiving foreigners but very unskillful at deceiving its own people.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/LvAdMeN

Cookies and Privacy

The Congress of Vienna Revisited

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

The Congress of Vienna Revisited

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification