Gheorghe Cliveti
Abstract. According to that clause-based point of the Paris Treaty, on 30 March 1856, the Russian protectorate of the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia ended. The two State entities would be – like Serbia, but distinctly – subject to the collective guarantee of the European powers. The difference between the guarantee applied to the Romanian Principalities and that applied to Serbia was that the “Moldo- Wallachian populations” would decide, through ad hoc forums and in the form of a European test, on their future organisation. Under such circumstances, the very constitution of Romania would display unparalleled features among the “cases of the century of nationalities.” To reveal them, I had to take a more nuanced look at the collective guarantee of the European powers as it was established. As a favourable aspect, that guarantee implied the exit of the Romanian Principalities from a “grey” political geography, marked by the ambitions of Russia, and the evolution of the two small state entities towards another truly European geostrategic configuration. It was, thus, the merit from the very beginning of the collective guarantee of the European powers. However, the problem of the “organisation of the Romanian Principalities,” the impulses of which came inexorably from the unfolding of the national cause, would be a delicate matter under the aegis of the same powers. The fundamental wishes of the ad-hoc Assemblies were denied to them by the guaranteeing courts. Consequently, the fait accompli policy has revealed itself almost naturally as the primary way the Romanians related to the regime of collective guarantee. The victories of 1859 or 1866 were moments of infringement of the guaranteed order and defiance of the collective attitude of the high courts. Relying on the legitimacy of the desires of the ad-hoc Assemblies, the Romanians fully understood that the triumph of their national cause depended on the firmness and energy of their attitudes but also on the involvement of the fait accompli policy in the dispute, which characterised Europe’s century of nationalities, between the profound forces of dissolution of the conservative order and those of its support. The “Latins of the Danube,” observing the old rights stipulated by the treaties concluded – as was mentioned in the national programmatic acts and admitted diplomatically in 1856 under European auspices – by the Moldo-Wallachian voivodes with the High Porte. They were confident in the future of their affirmation as a nation; they did not hesitate to act according to the circumstances caused by the dissonance they kept noticing between the solidaire et indivise attitude, under their status as guarantors, and the particular tendencies of the powers’ policy. Curious as it may seem, the clashes between the specific interests of the great cabinets contributed, besides the acts of the Romanians, to undermining the established order for the United Principalities. It would be wrong, however, to regard specific particular trends of the powers as having arisen of their own accord in favour of the action of the Romanians. They proved to be this way only in so far as they were “interwoven” with the Romanian national acts, an “interweaving” which could only have been brought about by the daring acts of the founders of modern Romania. This fact is also proved by how the guaranteed side was able to maintain direct relations with the guarantors. Since these attitudes are contrary to collective reason, I have deemed it necessary to make frequent incursions into the general development of international relations to reveal their underlying reasons and scope.
Keywords: Fait Accompli, The Union of Romanian Principalities, The Guarantying Powers, The Ottoman Suzerainty, The ad-hoc Assemblies of Moldavia and Wallachia, The Diplomatic Congress and Conferences.