The ghost of the Concert of Europe

Listen to article

As the world transitions from the post-Cold War unipolar moment into an increasingly multipolar era, the question of how major powers can manage competition without conflict becomes urgent. With geopolitical tensions rising from Ukraine to the Indo-Pacific, many wonder if a historical model might offer insight. The 19th-century Concert of Europe, though deeply rooted in its own time, offers both a precedent and a warning for the challenge of great power cooperation today.

The Concert of Europe was formed in 1815 during the Vienna Congress, comprising Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and later France, after the Napoleonic Wars. This loose coalition's purpose was to ensure balance of power and continental peace. It did almost achieve four decades of peace, however it was deeply flawed. The arrangement maintained imperial control and suppressed nationalism. It was functional mostly due to members not trusting each other and instead coming to understand the consequences of a pan-European war.

However, the entire system was dependent on Eurocentric views which turned the Concert into an uncontrollable monstrosity. This was the case until the early 20th century when it utterly failed in the colossal war it sought to "protect" Europe against.

Moving towards the present day, the world is not only multipolar but is also more intricate than ever. The great powers now function in different continents under different regimes, in a system governed equally by economic interdependence, information flows and military power. Climate change, pandemics, cyber threats and transnational terrorism have blurred the lines between domestic and international security. Multilateral forums exist from the UN Security Council to the G20 but their effectiveness is often challenged by gridlock, vetoes and competing agendas.

Nevertheless, the reasoning for maintaining a concert-style mechanism is still appealing. If concert diplomacy was effectively managed, it could offer a controlled and highly adaptable schedule for dialogue amongst the powerful, one that seeks understanding over conflict. Scholars like Richard N Haass and Charles Kupchan propose creating a contemporary concert of five active regions identified by their strategic powers and not regime type. Their suggestions focus on non-religiously organised structure principles, placing regional organisations in an advisory position. While it does not solve problems, this idea helps for reflection towards stabilising an increasingly fragmented international system.

Trust remains severely deficient. The war in Ukraine, China's increasing assertiveness and fractures in Western alliances depict a volatile global system. Internal polarisation strikes democracies while authoritarian states escape external surveillance. Stability is not provided by a dominant nation or ideologies that were provided in the 19th century, rendering it no longer dependably enforced. Instead, it's crucial to understand that collaboration, even amongst adversaries, needs to occur, before disaster strikes.

This doesn't mean idealism; it means realism with lessons from history. A contemporary concert would not be abolitionist competition but it could institutionalise the rules of engagement, lower the propensity for miscalculation and provide a forum for confronting shared problems. And let's not aim for harmony, aim for managed rivalry. A lack of a mechanism for regular strategic dialogue makes global crises more explosive and harder to grip.

The ghost of the Concert of Europe should not be romanticised, but neither should it be dismissed. It reminds us that a peace is not the result of good intentions alone, but of good structure, of the willingness to restrain, and of a recognition of mutual boundaries. In a world where power is diffuse and the stakes are higher, the question is not whether great powers can cooperate but whether they will realise, before it's too late, that they must.