Diplomatic Negotiation

194 Diplomatic Negotiation
although he had been Napoleon’s ally for quite some time. He both admired and despised
Napoleon.
It was difficult to negotiate with Alexander. Negotiations very much depended on his
mood. Although he could easily be influenced, it was hard to steer him in the desired
direction of a compromise. He had been educated in an enlightened way, but he had to rule
over a feudal, theocratic country. In essence he lacked self-confidence, but compensated
for this by acting in public in an overly confident way. In his private life, especially with the
many ladies with whom he had liaisons, he could be very open and vulnerable. He was in
need of attention and wanted to please others, while he could be rude one moment later,
for example to the Tsarina, with whom he had a lukewarm and complicated relationship. In
other words, Tsar Alexander I was not too predictable and, as predictability is an essential
element of a stable negotiation process, this created problems in his dealings with the
other negotiators. Although the Tsar had enlightened ideas, in the end he never brought
them to materialization, and the weight of the Russian Empire in Europe and on the peace
negotiations was a hot potato for his counterparts, especially for the representatives of
smaller states.
Alexander’s entourage included the Polish Prince Adam Czartoryski, the most skilful
Russian negotiator. Depending on the Tsar’s mood, Prince Czartoryski could be very
influential, using his influence to get the Tsar to agree to as much Polish autonomy as
possible, if not independence. Czartoryski’s relationship with Alexander was a complicated
one, partly because he was in love with the Tsarina, and as time went by, the relationship
between the prince and his master deteriorated. Another important advisor, and at a
later stage minister and negotiator, was the Prussian patriot Karl Heinrich vom Stein, who
had been born in Nassau and who fell out of favour with the Prussian king as he hated
the French, while Prussia’s Frederick William III was of the opinion that an alliance with
Napoleon would be beneficial for Prussia. While Tsar Alexander and his advisers tended
to look at Turkey as the future prey of Russia, Stein sought to change their course in the
direction of German confederation, which he hoped to unite after the Russians had freed
it from French dominance and occupation. Both Czartoryski and Stein failed to convince
the Tsar to create a unified Poland and Germany, as Alexander I did not see this to be
in Russia’s national interest. Stein, however, laid the foundation of German unification
by restructuring Prussia. The same is true for the Ionian diplomat in Russia’s service,
Count Ioannis Capodistrias, who pleaded for Greek independence, did not get it, but laid
the foundations for the Greek state that emerged fifteen years later, with himself as the
first president. Furthermore, Count Charles Nesselrode played his – quite passive – part in
the negotiation process as Russia’s acting foreign minister, at the time in competition with
his predecessor Prince Nikolay Petrovich Rumiantsev (Rey, 2012: 67).
Count von Metternich (Sandeman, 2006), who was Austria’s Foreign Minister for
39 years, was the nucleus of the Vienna Congress. His wait-and-see policy after Napoleon’s
retreat from Moscow gave him the role of mediator, which he skilfully exploited. When he
finally took sides, he managed to convince the allies to have the peace negotiations in the
Austrian capital, giving him the opportunity to play a home match. One of the advantages
of this was the opportunity to build an Austrian spy network, which was extremely
successful in giving Metternich an information advantage. His spies were active – for
example, as servants – in nearly all the foreign residences, including the Austrian court