Essay on the Importance of the Foreign Policies made by Castlereagh and Canning

Castlereagh was born in 1739. He was in favour of giving limited freedom to the Catholics. He was appointed Foreign Secretary in 1812 Castlereagh was a simple but dignified man of high intellectual capabilities.

He could not be deceived by imaginary schemes or high-sounding impractical ideas. He always reached the roots of everything. Not only from the political stand-point, was he a very brave and useful personality but even otherwise he could foresee the things and events which were likely to happen. He had a very legal temperament. He used to think over a problem in a cool and dispassionate atmosphere.

His schemes ‘could always be translated into practice. He wanted to safeguard the British interests through the medium of a policy of co-operation and peace based on friendship with other countries.

Organisation against Napoleon:

When Castlereagh became Foreign Secretary there was no power to contend with the might of Napoleon in the conti­nent. The countries fighting against Napolen were doing it single handedly and without any organised thinking or plann­ing between themselves. Castlereagh felt that unless there was an organised effort on the part of the countries against Napoleon and actually intended doing so.

England had all the necessary resources to launch such a venture against Napoleon. Gradually and slowly England emerged as the arbiter of the file of Europe. And credit for this rightfully goes to Castlereagh. He toured many European countries and established personal relations with the heads of those countries. He favoured the idea of the statesmen of different countries collecting at a place for the full, fair and free exchange of ideas.

This would eliminate the differences of policies followed by different countries opposed to Napoleon. He wanted that all the powers should combine and then attack the common foe-Napolean. In this connection mention must be made of the Treaty of Chau-mount of 1814.

Castlereagh did not wish that revenge should be taken by defeating France either. He was farsighted enough to realise that in case a revengeful attitude was adopted, lasting peace could not be established.

He rather every rightly believed that verity of France should not be injured by shrinking her natio­nal boundaries and the same time she should not be allowed to retain the spoils of war.

This is clear from what he wrote to Liverpool. He wanted that France should be offered a show down and should be emasculated. This idea was that France should not be given a chance to raise her head again. Castlereagh was successful in his attempts because the European Countries sided with him. He treated France very politely. No compensation was far form France.

Castlereagh and International Co-operation:

While negotiating with France for peace, Castlereagh was not trying to solve the question of peace of one country alone but he had the whole world before him. There was some controversy about a provision of the Treaty of 1815. Castlereagh substituted that particular provision by another one.

That throws a flood of light on his international ideas. He said that it was necessary for major countries participating in the Treaty to agree to have conferences at regular intervals. It was inten­ded to facilitate giving a practical shape to the treaty and for its protection.

Frequent meetings of the four major countries would lead to strengthening the relations of the countries between themselves and towards the welfare of the world. In these, conferences, the kings of these major countries or their representatives well participate with a view to maintaining peace in Europe to strengthen the countries themselves and to boast their interests by mutual discussions and consultations.

Castlereagh really wanted peace. He accepted the secret treaty entered into by Ferdinand IV of Naples and Austria. However, at the same time, Castlereagh was a believer in the Maxim that no country should interfere in the internal matters or domestic affairs of any other country. Castlereagh violently reacted when Prussia, Austria and Russia volunteered to act as international policy.

In 1815, he declared that England was not prepared to interfere in a country’s internal affairs on the pretext that the king there was tyrannous and undesirable.

He also made it clear that in case a danger to European peace cropped up, England would take its rightful place at the proper time. However, he was not prepared to follow hallow and imaginary principles as a matter of precaution against likely danger on the eve of Vienna congress, while Castlereagh was preparing to participate in it; and was pondering over the possi­bilities of debate and discussion on the Spanish issue, being let by some particular emotions, he committed suicide.

There upon Whllington was sent to the congress on behalf of England, Historians have described Castlereagh as the greatest of English Foreign Ministers. According to Seaton Watson, Castlereagh was one of the greatest Foreign Ministers in the history of England who cultivated good relations with European powers.

According to Webster, Castlereagh had understood that one should be prepared for peace if one wanted to avoid wars, and he followed this principle. Little wonder that he succeeded greatly. Inspite of his successful foreign policy Castlereagh was much hated by his own countrymen. Perhaps very few persons lamented for his committing suicide.

George Canning (1822-27):

Introduction:

George Canning was born in 1770. He received his education at Eton and Christ Church College. He was a disciple of Pitt. Canning was elected for the first time to the Parliament in 1723. In 1796, he was made under Secretary of Foreign affairs in the Grenville Ministry. From 1807 to 1809, he was his country’s Foreign Minister. He settled down as Foreign Minister only after the death of Castlereagh in 1822 and continued to hold that position till 1827.

As Foreign Minister:

George Canning had to face a host of difficulties immediately after he is becoming the Foreign Minister. Out of the lot three were most outstanding and they were:

(I) Revolt by Greece,

(ii) War between Turkey and Russia,

(iii) And Trouble in Spain and revolt in her American colonies.

A fourth was also added to the series and that was the disputed position of Braganza family in Brazil and Portugal. The aims and objectives of Canning and Castlereagh were the same but their means of obtaining .the objectives were diffe­rent In fact, Canning was more in tune with his times. He believed in nationalism while Castlereagh was a believer in internationalism.

Canning had good faith in ancient traditions of his country. He wanted other nations to emulate the example of England and benefit from the English institutions and conventions. He wished that other countries should follow the English institutions as their ideals.

Canning and Portugal :

Napoleon launched an attack on Portugal in the year 1807. However, before Napoleon could reach there, the ruler of Portugal along with his family and treasury fled to Brazil. After the downfall of Napoleon it was hoped that the king of Portugal John VI would stage a come-back to Lisbon, but these hopes were belied.

However, he was compelled to do it only in 1824. After Spain, France wanted to extend her influence over Portugal also. Napoleon’s wish could not materialise before the resolute will of George Canning. In the meanwhile the Spanish government started hatching plots in Portugal.

There upon Portugal sought the help of England. And in turn Canning sent her soldiers and protected the constitution of Portugal. This he did on the plea that she was helping a friendly nation to retain her independence.

Greek War of Independence :

Greece was under the rule of Turks who were perpet­rating arbitrary indignities and tyrannous deeds on the Christians of Greece. England could not tolerate such a state of affairs for a long time. In 1823 England gave recognition to Greece as an independent nation and in 1827.

Canning got along with France and Russia the Treaty of London signed the main aim of this treaty was the protection of Greek independ­ence. The most important result of the Treaty of London was that Austria was completely isolated. This helped England to boost her trade and commerce with Greece.

It cannot be denied that the Treaty secured the freedom of Greece. Slightly later October 1827 after the death of Canning, the joint navies Qt Russia, France and England destroyed the navies of Turkey and Egypt in Bay of Navarind. Although the benefit of these events was exploited mainly by Prussia, it cannot be denied that the Greek policy of Canning was successful.

Canning and Spain :

The Vienna Congress authorised France to re-establish her royal dynasty in Spain. Canning opposed this and pleaded that internal affairs of a country should not be interfered with. He was not contact with this. On this very basis Canning drew England out of the Congress. France tried to ignore England and attempted to face Ferdinand VII on the throne of Spain.

George Canning could not cut much ice in Europe. This was so because the opposition of France meant preparation to fight with all countries of Europe. Therefore, he directed his attention towards the Spanish colonies in South America, He granted recognition to the independent colonies there and he did many things at one stroke.

This protected the English trade, the colonies were relieved of the constant threat from France, and otherwise they had to be prepared to fight all the time. Another achievement of Canning’s Policy was that the principles of the Holy Alliance were violated and made absolute. France would have done some thing against England at this juncture, but it was not possible because the naval power of England was of a very high order.

Great Britain gave recognition to the independence of Columbia, Mexico and Buenos Aires in 1824. And the next year in 1825, Chile, Peru and Belivia were recognised by Canning.

The policy of George Canning was supported by the United States of America. The American President, Munro, declared that it was a threat to American internal peace and security that European countries were interfering in America. She declared that she would not tolerate foreign intervention in the countries whose independence was recognised by America on some justifiable basis.

These countries had set up independent governments. Any European power interfering in the affairs of these countries would be deemed as unfriendly to the United States of America.

England also declared her similar intention in strong words. She said that her earlier protests were treated as dustbin material and their denunciations were described as conceit. This joint venture by England and America was a decisive step. By the near 1830 all Spanish influence over America had evaporated,

Following of Canning:

The policy of George Cunning, adopted by him as Foreign Minister was followed by England for the coming half a century or so. He put and ends to the Holy. Hlliance, He compelled the European Countries not to interfere in any other country’s internal affairs. He had laid special emphasis on national unity.

Canning’s with was that he should have the support of the masses for his policies, so that the world may accept that his voice was the voice of his country. Canning was keen that the future English foreign policy should be such as could be popular and easily understandable.

However, he did not believe in giving under powers to the people to impose their will on the government in the formulation of foreign policy. He made his foreign policy popular without making it meaningless.

Canning had no faith in congress and conference. He laid emphasis on the balance of power in Europe. Otherwise he believed that all countries should take care of themselves.

So canning believed in the policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other states.