The European integration began in 1815 (Beatrice de Graaf About “Against Terror”)

The European integration began with the international cooperation after the fall of Napoleon. This is the conclusion of Professor of History of International Relations Beatrice de Graaf in her new book, Against Terror. In it she describes how between 1815 and 1818 the European superpowers worked together intensively for the first time to guarantee peace on the continent. 'Our expectations of and demands on those in power have never been so high.'

Your new book is about the Allied Council, which was created in 1815. What was that ?
"The Allied Council was a gremium consisting of ministers from Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, who initially met twice daily every six months and met at the British Embassy in Paris. These diplomats governed France after the exile of Napoleon and sought European security. You can see the Allied Council as the first European experiment to achieve far-reaching cooperation. Long before economic interests drove European cooperation, the common fight against terror was a great unit maker.

Which terror do you exactly mean by this?
"On the one hand the Terror of the French Revolution and the uprising against the ruling authority, on the other the terror of Napoleon Bonaparte and " le grand peur ": the fear and chaos that arose time and again during and after the Revolution. At the end of the Napoleonic wars, the powers were like death that the fledgling peace would be disrupted again, that revolts would break out again that would lead to despotism. Never again a new despot could get up that would subject Europe to himself. All countries of the Seventh Coalition agreed unanimously: only by working together could they prevent this twofold terror of uprising and domination. '

How did this collaboration actually work out?
'The ministers of the four largest powers - Russia, Austria, Prussia and the United Kingdom - formed a group that called itself the European Council and which did not go home after the victory against Napoleon but remained in Paris for five years (eventually more than three years). There they met frequently, at 11 o'clock in the morning, with coffee and lunch, to discuss all urgent structural safety problems concerning France - but also elsewhere in Europe. They did that at the British location in Paris. This location shows that Britain had an important voice in the whole and presented itself as broker of the new peace order. The envoys took measures to increase and preserve European security, such as the introduction of passports and international orders. They also created a European intelligence service and took the initiative to establish a kind of precursor to NATO. They also jointly maintained an occupation army of initially 1.2 million troops, later reduced to 150,000, which remained in France and occupied two-thirds of the French territory.
Incidentally, it was quite difficult to find this Council. We searched in several European archives until one of my colleagues found the key piece - the numbered minutes of the board - in London. Then we could gather all documents together in Paris, Berlin and London. Then all the pieces of the puzzle fell into place. "

We all know the Congress of Vienna, but the Allied Council has completely fallen into oblivion. How is this possible?
"When historiography professionalized itself in the nineteenth century, historians were primarily employed in the construction of their own national narrative. As a result, something like international cooperation did not reach the books. In France, this period of national humiliation was, of course, preferably completely concealed or reduced to a marginal level. In addition, the nineteenth century disappeared in the background of the history ofthe international relations in itse last decades , because the attention was mainly focused on the important events in the twentieth century. Think of the Cold War, the globalization or post colonialism. Historians all went global: Europe was old and dusty, something for old, white male historians.
But to understand what is happening now - such as the resurrection of "strong leaders" like Putin and Erdogan or the undermining of NATO - and in what system we live, we must look back further than the twentieth century. The cart tracks of our history that are now exposed have not been drawn in the 1940s, but in the years after 1815. '

Why did those years, after the fall of Napoleon, have been so decisive for the world today?
'We live in a juncture in which the rulers of everything are thrown to their heads by dissatisfied citizens. Look, for example, at how people recently carried on against Angela Merkel's Willkommenskultur in the German city of Chemnitz. At the same time, our expectations and demands from the government have never been so high.

This attitude towards authority is a relatively new phenomenon. People were more self-reliant until the French Revolution. Security was organized locally and decentrally, for example with civil guards and in guilds. With the French Revolution came an end to many local practices of administration and administration of justice. A new central unitary state was being rigged, or that process that had already been set in motion had in any case been accelerated enormously. After the collapse of the pretensions of freedom, equality and fraternity, after 1815 the desire for security and a central government that governed it remained. From 1815 onwards, for the first time, there was a strong state that could cooperate with other centrally-led countries. The basis for our government's desire to solve everything was then laid and the idea of collective, above-ground safety was born at the time. Of course there was a lot of protest against this, but that was soon suppressed and persecuted, in the name of the new peace order. '

You call this council the first European experiment for far-reaching cooperation. Has the experiment been successful?
'Yes, but the question is how, at what price - and for whom. The measures implemented were effective, but there was also a downside. Because the cooperating countries supported and did not attack each other, several European countries were able to expand their colonial empire considerably. The increase in collective security on the European continent meant the starting signal for renewed expansive and imperialist efforts towards the outside world. But within the own countries themselves too, security was curtailed and oppressive for those who were more on the line of democracy and say they wanted more freedom of press and speech. Alleged radicals, Bonapartists, or other liberals were persecuted throughout Europe and were only able to produce their pamphlets and pamphlets in a few places, including in Brussels and Krakow. '

What role did the Netherlands play in the Allied Council?
'The world of that time was not egalitarian and there was a clear hierarchy between the different European countries. There were three ranks: the big four - ie Great Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria - were on the first row. The Netherlands was the leader of the second rank, which also included Spain and Sweden and some German states. The Netherlands did not have a seat in the Allied Council, but was allowed to participate in discussions of subcommittees. King William I therefore sent his best ambassadors and ministers to represent Dutch interests. And he did not do that badly: the Dutch territory became larger and our country received a huge amount of arrears from France. So the Netherlands benefited from the collaboration. '
After World War II, the Allied Control Council - with envoys from the US, Great Britain and Russia - took over the government of Germany. To what extent was that Council comparable to that of 1815?
"In both cases, the victorious nations did not withdraw their armies, but did not incorporate the conquered state either. That was really new in 1815: from the outset, the partners had only a temporary takeover in mind. The goals were to get stabilization, demilitarization and getting recovery payments started. Also purification and re-education was a goal, in 1945 more than in 1815, but even then the occupation was very paternalistic and meddlesome in nature. A big difference with the situation in 1945 is that the Cold War soon broke out and the then Allied Control Council in Germany disintegrated into two ideological camps. The powers of 1815 were more equal and more common. There was also a great need for denazification in 1945, which of course did not play in 1815. There was no question of an institutionalization of crimes against humanity in 1815 either. The purges and re-education were then more political and bureaucratic in nature. '

How did the European Council come to an end?
"When the first generation of ambassadors died. the relations between the ministers of the four great powers of 1815 cooled off. Moreover, the United Kingdom also began to withdraw from European affairs, driven by protests in the British Parliament. An interesting parallel with the current situation. This shows how decisive diplomacy is: to keep speaking, to speak to each other on solidarity and to keep alive the thought of the common memory - in this case the terror of Napoleon. We have been living in peace in Europe for so long, you can see that in diplomacy: European ministers know each other, but countries are much less willing to make concessions to prevent war.
Increasing democratization also played a role in the loss of the Allied Council. From the 1930s and '40s of the nineteenth century public opinion became more and more important and it became much more difficult for ministers to push their way behind the scenes. They had to respond at be accountability. '