Porta na Kongresu u Karlovcu (1698.–1699.): kraj ad hoc diplomacije

Abstract

Istraživanje se bavi izdvajanjem krucijalnih momenata vezanih za kongres u Karlovcu, njegovo sazvanje, utvrđivanje principa rada i pre svega ponašanjem osmanskih predstavnika (opunomoćenika), sa ciljem da se odredi generalni stav Porte prema potpuno novom fenomenu u njenoj diplomatskoj istoriji. U radu su korišćena neobjavljena dokumenta iz Državnog arhiva u Beču i Nacionalnog arhiva u Londonu. Ova građa, sa nesumnjivo najvećom vrednošću za istraživanje, dopunjena je zbirkama objavljenih dokumenata i onovremenim istorijama, čiji su tvorci savremenici dešavanja pre i tokom rada kongresa u Karlovcu.

Karlowitz Congress represents a step forward for the diplomatic practices of the Ottoman state, when a drift of the Porte separated itself, which saw peace as a necessity for the survival of the Ottoman state. Political situation in Europe was good for this decision, because after Ryswick, France stopped being a useful ally. In the organisation of the congress, Porte used some of its familiar devices (in terms of equipping of mission and selection of representatives). But, in organisation of, and during negotiations, it seems that they complied with orders of the other side. Venetian and Habsburg representatives belonged to a society with more sense for negotiations, and their experience from XVII century, when first bilateral and multilateral congresses had been organised, qualified them for this task. No sources of western origin (including Italian) mention any initiative of Porte’s representatives during the preparation or in the course of the congress. For Porte, Karlowitz peace represented a loss, because they had to renounce a part of their territory, which was directly opposed to ideology represented by Shariat. This was met by a serious opposition in the society, which culminated in Edirne in 1703. But, its representatives were led by situation in which their state was at the moment, and which called for immediate peace in order to preserve inner stability. The Ottoman public did not come to terms with this loss easily, and this fact is confirmed by official historiography and its most important representative, Naima, who nevertheless tried to provide a justification for Porte’s acceptance, also mentioning the Shariat. The most significant consequence, however, is the fact that in Karlowitz Porte officially renounced unilateral diplomacy, founded on the forcing its will upon the other side, implemented from the emergence of the Ottoman state.