By K. Papadimitriou
In the early 19th century after the end of the destructive Napoleonic wars a system, widely known as the “Concert of Europe”, had been established in Europe aiming to promote stability and the maintenance of the status quo in the continent. This political system based on the Holy Alliance, the Quadruple Alliance, and their Congresses, aimed primarily at maintaining the absolute power of the great monarchical empires of Europe, by suppressing every national claim and revolutionary movement that could challenge their authority, as the Greek Revolution. The United States, geographically distant from the region, did not become actively involved in European affairs and the Eastern Question, maintaining a neutral stance on European issues, as part of its pursuit of the least possible European involvement in the western hemisphere.
On January 19th, 1824, two hundred years ago, Congressman Daniel Webster speaking in the House of Representatives, and supporting the appointment of an American Commissioner in the revolted Greece, states:
“It cannot be denied that the great political question of this age, is, that between absolute and regulated governments. The substance of the controversy is, whether society shall have any part in its own government…The main controversy is between that absolute rule, which, while it promises to govern well, means nevertheless to govern without control, and that regulated constitutional system, which restrains sovereign discretion, and asserts that society may claim, as mater of right, some effective power in the establishment of the laws which are to regulate it”.
and he continues, referring to the establishment of the Holly Alliance:
“I have the most deep and thorough conviction, that a new era has arisen in the world, that new and dangerous combinations are taking place, promulgating doctrines, and fraught with consequences, wholly subversive, in their tendency, of the public law of nations, and of the general liberties of mankind”.
As it can be easily understood from the above-mentioned extracts, Webster vividly manifests the contrast between the United States’ liberal and democratic tradition, a democratic, wholly elected, and representative political system of governance, where society has its part in its own government, and a non-elected directorate of the European monarchies – namely the Holly Alliance – taking unilateral decisions and actions that involve and affect not only their empires, but the whole of European nations, without the approval and legitimization of their peoples. Webster’s words strongly remind us of the contemporary era with the prevalence and global dominance of large supranational, non-elected, organizations, over local, representative and elected governance. Nations cede authority and sovereignty to such bodies, which form and affect, with their decisions and actions, not only the governance of their member-states, creating and shaping world politics.
But let us go back to the 19th century. This debate takes place a month and a half after the articulation by President James Monroe of the famous “Monroe Doctrine” in his annual message to Congress, on December 2nd, 1823. The President, responding to interference and colonization efforts of the European powers in the American continent, declares that any attempt of these powers to extend their political system to the western hemisphere would be considered as a hostile action. With his declaration President Monroe affirms, on the one hand, the reciprocity of the principle of non-intervention in the issues of the two hemispheres, and on the other hand attempts to emphasize the difference between the American democratic and liberal state and the supranational directorate of the “enlightened” monarchies that dominated the political map of Europe, and did not tolerate the manifestation of any national liberation movement threatening the European status quo, by his strong moral support to the rebellious Greeks.
Along the same lines as the President, Webster states that it is the duty of his country to defend its liberal and democratic political system and oppose to the establishment by the Holly Alliance of doctrines and principles, which violate the International Law. His words are characteristic:
“This system we are not likely to abandon; and while we shall no further recommend its adoption to other nations,…, we are, nevertheless, interested, to resist the establishment of doctrines which deny the legality of its foundations. We stand as an equal among nations, claiming the full benefit of the established international law; and it is our duty to oppose, from the earliest to the latest moment, any innovations upon that code, which shall bring into doubt or question our own equal and independent rights”.
Webster names the two main principles established by the Holly Alliance, as follows:
“The first of these principles is, that all popular, or constitutional rights, are holden no otherwise than as grants from the crown. Society, upon this principle, has no rights of its own; it takes good government, when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, but can demand nothing…But the second, and, if possible, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible interference in the affairs of other states. A right to control nations in their desire to change their own government, wherever it may be conjectured, or pretended, that such change might furnish an example to the subjects of other states, is plainly and distinctly asserted.”
and continues to condemn these principles, as well as the supranational governance in Europe, asserting:
“Instead of relying on the affections of the governed, sovereigns are to rely on the affections and friendship of other sovereigns. There are, in short, no longer to be nations. Princes and people no longer are to unite for interests common to them both. There is to be an end of all patriotism, as a distinct national feeling. Society is to be divided horizontally; all sovereigns above, and all subjects below.”
Finally, Webster portrays vigorously his opposition to the supranational governance in Europe and defends the values and principles of the American political system stating:
“If the authority off all these governments be hereafter to be mixed and blended, and to flow in one augmented current of prerogative, over the face of Europe, sweeping away all resistance in its course, it will yet remain for us to secure our own happiness, by the preservation of our own principles; which I hope we shall have the manliness to express on all proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in every extremity. The end and scope of this amalgamated policy is neither more nor less than this: to interfere, by force, for any government, against any people who may resist it.”
Webster’s speech is indicative of American political system’s perception at the time in favor of local governance, and its reaction and strong opposition to global non-elected, non-representative organizations, such as the Holly Alliance. This reaction involves mainly two aspects, the first being the support of the democratic and civil rights of the peoples, the right of self-determination, the right of peoples to choose their government and to participate in their local governance. The second aspect concerns the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of nations, by supranational organizations, that limit the independence, the rights and the equal status of states as provided by International Law.
How similar do you find the situation 200 years back to today? Can you identify similarities and differences? The divide between global governance today, on the many issues that are common across nation-states, and local governance is an important point of discussion. As back then, global governance can only be considered in the context of powerful organizations or states or both – the organizations being by necessity supra-national and non-representative. But are the norms, rules, and regulations of global governance facilitators of problem solving and co-operation or impediments to progress and nation-state freedom of choice? Global and local governance are interconnected and often influence each other. Global governance in order to be useful and stimulating to mankind should not exceed certain limits, those posed by representative democracy, and should not violate or interfere with the free and independent states’ policy and actions. Webster was very clear 200 years ago, as foreseeing the developments of the current era.
REFERENCES:
James Monroe, Seventh Annual Message (Monroe Doctrine), December 2, 1823.
Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech on the Greek Revolution, John S. Meehan, Columbian Office, North E Street, Washington City, 1824.
