CONGRESS OF BERLIN AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Austrian (Habsburg) strivings and aspirations in Bosnia date back as early as at the time after the Great Turkish or the so-called Vienna War, i.e. the Treaty of Karlowitz of 1699, when Ottomans failed to take Vienna and were definitely stopped in their raid to Europe.

Austrian plans on taking Bosnia from Ottomans were encouraged by the “Eastern Question” (res Orientales), as the question of the survival of the Ottoman Empire in Southeast Europe. The “Eastern Question” significantly affected the destiny of Bosniaks and Bosnia: it was a question of the survival of Bosnia and Bosniaks on their native soil, and the preservation of their own, Muslim identity independent of the destiny of the Ottoman Empire. As a country on the border, Bosnia found itself in the focus of interest of two great empires.

Resolution of the “Eastern Question” was accelerated by Orthodox villagers in Herzegovina and Bosanska Krajina (Bosnian uprising or the so-called Nevesinje Rifle in 1875). Autonomous principalities of Serbia and Montenegro, which were backed by Russia, saw the uprising as an opportunity. It was this uprising that triggered and shaped a great Eastern crisis, which was resolved at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Russian political thought of the time was very strongly influenced by Pan-Slavism and varied in the range from liking of Slavdom to a grandiose joint Slavic empire under the rule of Russian tzar.

Austro-Hungarian Eastern policy, with foreign minister Gjula Andrassy as its key exponent, believed that, in case of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary should by all means take over Bosnia. In no case was it desirable for Serbia or Montenegro to do it, because Andrassy believed that possible expansion in a great Balkan state would be dangerous for Austro-Hungary, since expansion of Serbia would result in Russian, and particularly Habsburg hostility.

After Ottoman troops crushed the Bosnian uprising, in late June 1876, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on the Ottoman Empire, and Russians followed suit. Russian involvement in the conflict was arranged so as to not provoke European powers, since Russian tzar Alexander II tried to win over Bismarck's support.

The Ottoman defeat resulted in the Treaty of San Stefano of 3 March 1878, which established the autonomous, self-governing “Great Bulgaria”, which, in turn, could better serve their interests in the Balkans, despite Serbian politicians' expectations that Russia would form the “Great Serbia” for them.

Pursuant to Article XIV of the Treaty of San Stefano, Bosnia was supposed to obtain a sort of autonomy, with the implementation of reforms that had previously been planned. Ottomans could not hope that they would be able to overturn the defeat, and they accepted the conditions dictated by Russians in the Treaty of San Stefano. However, the treaty only deepened the European crisis since it revealed the whole antagonism of great European powers.

The treaty was supposed to allow Russian domination in Eastern parts of the Balkan peninsula, which Russian justified with the goal of protecting Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire, while in fact they wanted to use an opportune moment to invade Istanbul and two significant straits, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and Andrassy cynically called it the “Orthodox-Slavic sermon”

Russia's presence in the Aegean Sea by establishing the “Great Bulgaria” greatly threatened interests of all European powers, and they tried to revise such an agreement. “Return” of the Ottoman Empire to the Balkans was to become their key interests, since it was better to have the “Patient on the Bosphorus” with the weakening tendency in Southeast Europe than the Russian Empire. Thus, after many secret negotiations between European powers, the Congress of Berlin was convened on 13 June 1878, aimed at revising the Treaty of San Stefano, i.e. at driving Russia away from “warm seas”, which was achieved at the Congress of Berlin.

“Greater Bulgaria” was bisected to the autonomous principality in the north, while the remaining part was again given to the Ottoman Empire. Pursuant to Article XXV of the Treaty of Berlin, Austro-Hungary got the mandate to occupy Bosnia with the right to keep troops in the area of the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. Russians kept Bessarabia, which they had lost in 1856, and parts of the eastern coast of the Black Sea, and the Congress of Berlin was thus their big defeat, because they could have gained it back even without a war. Although the Congress of Berlin implied the defeat of Russia and disappearance of “Great Bulgaria”, it was not a great victory of Austro-Hungary and Great Britain either.

Fall of three great empires (Austro-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire) was only postponed, since they would have no representatives on the following big congress of European powers (in Paris in 1918). Indeed, all the three would “burn down” in the fire of the First World War.

Pursuant to Article XXV of the Congress of Berlin of 1878, European powers gave Austro-Hungary the mandate to occupy Bosnia. Most discussion of the legal position of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Austro-Hungarian occupation was caused by the issue of its status, since legally it was under sultan's sovereignty, and factually under Austro-Hungarian occupation. Still, it could be claimed that legally (de iure) the sovereignty was indeed sultan's, though the actual exercise of the authority (de facto) belonged to Austro-Hungary. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Austro-Hungary only had the right to exercise interior sovereignty; however, at the international level, Austro-Hungary had to comply with the fact of sultan's sovereignty over Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such sovereignty of the sultan was named “naked right” (nudum ius).

When the Austro-Hungarian troops, after three-month long battles, entered Bosnia, in this previously westernmost province of the Ottoman Empire a distinctive state position within the dual monarchy was established, essentially defined by three separate, mutually connected factors: international circumstances under which the occupation was completed, the complex constitutional system of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the interior structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly its social, confessional and ethnic structure. Bosnia and Herzegovina belonged neither to Austria (Cislajtanija) nor to Hungary (Translajtanija), but was a corpus separatum administrated from the joint ministry of finance in Vienna.  

Multi-confessionalism of Bosnia and Herzegovina required the obligatory need for regulating relations with all the religious communities. The basic aim of regulating these relations was strengthening of the occupation and therefore the attitude of Austro-Hungarian authorities toward religious communities was crucially determined by political motives. The basic aim was to make use of them and adjust them to the needs of the occupying authorities as much as possible. 

The Congress of Berlin definitely established a new balance of European powers and a new political configuration in the southeast Europe. It legalized the previous, secretly achieved solutions and a triumph of secret diplomacy of great European powers. Pursuant to the decisions of the Congress, Serbia expanded by four boroughs (Pirot, Niš, Vranj and Toplice) and obtained independence. Montenegro also gained independence and expanded significantly at the expense of Bosnia (Bosnian Vilayet), i.e. the Ottoman Empire, while Bosnia and Herzegovina would be put under Austro-Hungarian authority and, after 415 years, shift from Oriental-Islamic to Western-European civilization.

References:

1. Banac, Ivo (1995), Nacionalno pitanje u Jugoslaviji, Zagreb: Durieux.

2. Ekmečić, Milorad, “Karakteristike Berlinskog kongresa 1878. godineˮ, Prilozi Instituta za istoriju, XVII, 18/81, Sarajevo, 1981.

3. Imamović, Mustafa, “Berlinski kongres i južnoslavenski prostorˮ, Pregled, no. 10-11, Sarajevo, 1978.

4. Imamović, Mustafa (1977), Bosna između Osmanske i Habsburške carevine u istočnoj krizi 1875-1878. godine, Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovne, Volume XXX.

5. Kapidžić, Hamdija (1973), Hercegovački ustanak, 1882. godine, Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.

6. Popović, Vasilj (1996), Istočno pitanje, Beograd: Balkanološki institut SANU.

7. Tejlor, Alan Dž. (1968), Borba za prevlast u Evropi, Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša.