Rules Are Made to be Broken

In 1815, the dust was just settling from the Napoleonic wars that ravaged the European continent. Prince von Metternich, Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary, chaired a series of discussions from October 1, 1814, to June 9, 1815 regarding collective security in Europe. Prussia, Austria-Hungary, France, the United Kingdom and Russia took part. They supported the idea that “There is always an alternative to conflict.” [1]

Monarchies were restored all over Europe and the national boundries were redrawn to reestablish the balance of power. Everything Napoleon did was undone. The result was forty years of peace in Europe. The Congress of Vienna’s goals were:

“To secure the execution of the present Treaty and to consolidate the connections which at the present moment so closely unite the Four Sovereigns for the happiness of the world they have agreed to renew their Meetings at fixed periods… for the consideration of measures for the repose and prosperity of Nations and for the maintenance of the Peace of Europe”[2]

While Metternich was notoriously aristocratic and never attempted to disguise his disdain for common people, the Congress of Vienna was nevertheless a noble goal to work towards. It also established the so-called “Congress System.”

“The Congress system is a diplomatic process adhered to between 1815 and 1822, under which all matters of international importance were discussed at meeting of all European powers in order to insure uniform action on the part of all concerned.”[3]

“According to the Congress system the main signatory powers were to meet periodically (every two years or so) and collectively manage European Affairs.[4] Over the next decade, about five such European Congresss were held where disputed were resolved with an increasing degree of infeffectiveness. And as with many such treaties or international organizations, it eventually become obselete. By 1822, the whole system had essentially collapsed due to unreconcilable differences of opinion between the United Kingdom, Austria and Russia, as well as lack of support for the Congress system among the British public.

While the actual meetings of the Congress System lasted only a decade, the peace created by Europe’s great powers lasted forty years. The Congress System was reactionary, created in the wake of a terrible tragedy. Over time, after the situation had been remedied, and as the geopolitical situation changed due to various factors and perhaps most importantly the decline of the Ottoman empire, the previously established order was no longer enough to prevent war.

In 1945, as the dust was just settling on the European and Asian continent from the second world war, the United States, along with 51 other countries founded the United Nations. “The founders of the UN had high hopes that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security.” Peace would be preserved through international cooperation and collective security. This again, was a reaction to the second World War and an attempt to pick up where the League of Nations left off after WWI.

The Congress System created in Vienna was thrown off balance by a major power’s decline. In order to prevent an upset in the balance of power in Europe, the Ottoman empire was essentially put on life support in an attempt to preserve the status quo. Ultimately, little could have prevented WWI whose major causes were structural. Though the United Nations still meets regularly to discuss world affairs and has spawned many suborganizations, it too has become outdated. Though no major powers are in decline to an extent that would seriously upset world affairs, India and China are on the rise and Asia is quickly replacing Europe as the second pillar of globalization (with the US of course being the first). Combine that with new international threats such as nuclear proliferation, failed states and terrorism and we are looking at a major rule set change. The US has already responded to it, which came in the form of 9/11 and the former so-called “lesser includeds” whereas Europe hardly has.

Most European countries face not only new threats internationally but rapidly failing social systems on the domestic front. If they are unwilling to make the necessary changes domestically, how can we expect them to muster the will to do so internationally. Europe’s growing irrelevance puts them in a position of growing weakness from which they have to negotiate and experience has shown that the more irrelevant they become, the more important they think they are. I can’t help but be skeptical about the upcoming United Nations efforts to reform. Without touching on individual reforms themselves nor my own problems with the United Nations, we should all remember one thing:

At the end of the day, rules to break are better than no rules at all.