Univerzita Karlova v Praze

Faculty of Social Sciences

Captured in Neutrality?
Austria′s Policy of Neutrality and its implications on its relationship with the
European Union

Written down for the MA course "West European Politics and Society"
Winter Term 2005/06

Name: Julia Scheffler

Field of Study: European Studies (B.A.)
Erasmus Student
Semester: 5th semester

Date: 06.12.2005

CONTENTS

1. Austria′s Policy of Neutrality ­ what does that denote? 3
2. What did the neutrality of Austria mean for its foreign policy? 3
3. Austria′s final accession to European Union ­ the absence of Principle of Neutrality 5
4. Why is the Principle of Neutrality still today so important for Austria? 6
5. Austria′s neutrality policy today: their opinion towards the Constitution of Europe with regard to the Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP) 7
6. Conclusion: Why does Austria still need the principle of neutrality? The future of Austria′s neutrality policy 9

This essay is going to examine Austria′s policy of neutrality especially in the light of its implications for the relationship to the European Union. What was once enforced became an important part of national identity and seemed also after the Cold War hindering an accession of Austria to the European Community. Over the past years Austria tried to adapt its principle of neutrality and thereby finally became a full member of the European Union 1995. However, the policy of neutrality is still on the agenda especially concerning the Constitution for Europe. The questions which will be addressed in that paper are: What is the meaning of Austria′s policy of neutrality in general? What did this implied for Austria′s foreign policy and its relationship to European Community? How comes, that this principle is still so important and how does Austria evaluate the Constitution for Europe in terms of neutrality?

2

1. Austria′s Policy of Neutrality ­ what does that denote?

According to definitions, a neutral country is one that takes no side for other parties in case of war hoping to avoid being attacked by some other country. Neutral countries thus therefore do not take part in any confederation or alliance and do not participate in wars except in the case of self-defence, otherwise loosing their status of neutrality. Austria is not the only neutral country in Europe: Switzerland, Norway and the European Union member states Sweden, Finland and Ireland also declared themselves being neutral although because of different reasons.1

For Austria, it is also part of their constitutional law: 50 years ago, on the 26th of October 1955, Austria declared itself sempiternal independent.2 This law was the condition for the approval of the Soviet Union to the so-called "Österreichischer Staatsvertrag", that led Austria again into independence and that, in contrast to other states, led to a withdrawal of all former Allies of the 2nd World War from its territory. This law meant that Austria obliges itself to conduct neutrality similar as Switzerland, which implied that it must not accede to a military alliance and that it is only allowed to defend itself by all necessary measures. No other military basis can be established on its territory. Being in times of Cold War and threatened to be invaded by both the Western and the Eastern powers, it always accomplished a relative active neutrality policy. One proof for this is its early membership in the United Nations (since 1955) as well as in the Council of Europe (since 1956) and also its active engagement in the conference of OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe). The Austrian government successfully established itself as a neutral country and therefore became registered office for OSCE, organisations of United Nations and also 19 other international organisations plus other non-governmental organisations that have their seat in Vienna.

However, for the Soviet Union the neutrality of Austria and also of Switzerland represented a prospective disadvantage for the NATO and therefore it always reminded Austria to keep to its principle. This resulted in the times of Cold War to the interpretation that Austria′s status of neutrality forbade a full accession to the European Community. Thus, only after the decay of the Eastern bloc, Austria had the opportunity to join the European Union.

2. What did the neutrality of Austria mean for its foreign policy?

Generally speaking, the foreign policy of Austria after its declaration of neutrality strived to keep a friendly relationship to the signing powers of the "Staatsvertrag" and was not really

^{1 See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country (3.12.05) and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Neutralit%C3%A4t (3.12.05)
2 See: ,,Bundesverfassungsgesetz vom 26. Oktober 1955 über die Neutralität Österreichs" article 1}

3

registered by other countries as well as by its own population. The importance of the foreign policy did not change elementary before the change of government in 1970. By the very active and internationally eminently respectable social democratic chancellor Bruno Kreisky Austria′s foreign policy became more visible and part of public interest but thereby also more part of controversial debates also internationally. This development not only entailed the renunciation of the technocratic style of foreign policy of the 50s and 60s, but also the recognition of the obligation to change the situation of the missing of programmatic principles for foreign policy. Up to that point, foreign policy was rarely a part of party programmes. Unfortunately, the problem was that the whole development was nearly completely only connected with the person of Bruno Kreisky. However, it took eight years more, until 1978, to change this situation when this lack became apparent by a speech of conservative politician Alois Mock, who stated that without long-term conceptions, Austria will loose internationally weigh and that thereby, the credibility of Austria′s neutrality will suffer. He together with his party of conservative ÖVP and shortly later the SPÖ formulated applications for the parliament, which influenced the Austrian foreign policy in the 80s by stating general principles of foreign policy the first time.

Nonetheless, the first wide range of political and scientific discussions about neutrality arouse primal in connection with Austria′s accession to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the beginning of the endeavours to establish a better relationship with the European Community (EC). In an official report about neutrality suggested by Austrian government, experts and appointees supported the political opinion, that a full membership of Austria in the EC was not possible with regard to the principle of neutrality. Overall the approach of the conservative party of ÖVP (Österreichische Volkspartei) towards a prospective membership of Austria in the EC was always more in favour whereas social democratic party SPÖ (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs) always emphasized the policy of neutrality in front of the whole world.

Growing of economic difficulties after 1970 resulted in more and more voices claiming that it is more advantageous to take part in the dynamic developments of the EC. Although there was still a strong scepticism towards limited possibilities in the field of prospective foreign policy in an EC because of being a neutral country, many people uttered that European integration becomes more and more important economically. These aspects were even more emphasized by the free trade associations with the EC of that time. Though only in the 80s became the number of supporters of an accession of Austria to the EC bigger than the number of opponents. Parts of this development were also the declarations of several interests groups

4

in the middle of the 80s claiming their positive opinion about a full membership of Austria in the EC, e.g. the industrials and also the agriculturists. The supporters argued mostly that the feared loss of sovereignty will not be great because nearly all decisions in the European Council are made by unanimous vote and that they could keep their principle of neutrality as having on the one hand already a country inside the EC that shows that it is possible to be a member of the EC and at the same time keeping neutrality (Ireland), and on the other hand as there were no duties to fulfil concerning foreign or military policy. Within the most popular report in this regard that tried to clarify the compatibility of the principle of neutrality and the accession of Austria to the EC, the Hummer/Schweitzer report 1987, it was claimed to refer to the principle of neutrality in an accession treaty in order to keep to the freedom of not being part of any military alliance and to thereby remove this obstacle. Always highlighting Austria′s independence the concerns of Austrian people should thereby be mollified. This was especially important as after the adoption of the Single European Act (SEA), the trend towards a closer union between EU member states became visible. The statement of several interest groups entailed the opinion that the principle of neutrality became an end in itself for Austria. However, discussions in Austria became more factually and two options arouse: strengthening of cooperation with EC in the framework of EFTA and bilateral contracts or the full accession under conditions of contractual caveat of a neutral state with all advantages of a common internal market and the disadvantages of common agricultural policy or necessary structural adoptions. On the one hand the EC of course did not judge that good and had especially in the 80s not a strong interest in negotiating with neutral countries but on the other hand Austria did not want to offend Soviet Union.

3. Austria′s final accession to European Union ­ the absence of Principle of Neutrality

The first real step towards the possibility of accession of Austria towards European Union was made under the new government of great coalition of the both leading parties 1986. The still existing discrepancy between both parties was solved by on the one hand commitment to EFTA and on the other hand gentle dynamic sampling of the contacts to the EC. In order to therefore finding a coherent strategy towards Europe in the following years, the government undertook several measures, e.g. it established a working group. The other partners of EFTA reacted with scepticism first referring to the results on neutrality policy of this step to access European Union. They expected Austria to come quickly back to them.

However, it was really difficult to get the population of Austrian pro-European. Especially the ÖVP under Minister of Foreign Affairs Alois Mock still made efforts in this time around 1990

5

to persuade people from the necessity of a EC-membership in order to stabilize Europe and emphasised that especially this would strengthen the traditional role of Austria as a "broker" between states and as standing between EC and its Eastern equivalent COMECON. One argumentation went to the direction that the EC is not a military alliance because there exist therefore NATO and WEU and that Austria has to adapt to pressure from outside. In 1988 the foreign ministry stated that Austria shall decide itself about accession according to its specific interests which implied an adopted version of the principle of neutrality. In 1989 when deciding on conditions of accession, Austrian government included the Austrian principle of neutrality between others and still sticked to this principle after some first talks with EC whereas leaving other behind. The official application for EC therefore contained both ambiguously: on the one hand the perpetual neutrality and on the other hands its confirmation to European integration. However, at the beginning of official accession negotiations in 1993, Austria realized that its neutrality could not be fixed in the accession treaty because it would have become EC primary right and thereby an enforceable special ascertainment. Therefore, this principle was never really a topic during the negotiations about the accession and was no longer an obstacle for joining the EC. But already after Sweden and Finland applied for membership 1991/2 the public opinion in Austria noticed that and also criticized this "compromise".

4. Why is the Principle of Neutrality still today so important for Austria?

Concerning the population in Austria, the foreign policy was quite only popular if it had direct implications on internal affairs. For them the principle of neutrality especially after the experience of the world wars and the former "Anschluss" (annexation) to Germany became part of their national identity. The most important thing firstly after the 2nd world war was therefore just to regain their state independence and they also knew that their possibilities and resources were only limited as being a small country that actually lost in both wars. To establish the principle of neutrality was therefore just a logical result of their situation.

The first dilemma already aroused in the 60s when the EEC experienced an economic boom and when over 50% of imports and exports of Austria′s goods were conducted with countries of the EEC. Thus for improving its own position in negotiations and for open up new markets, Austria seeked to accomplish an aggregation of different non-EEC member countries which resulted into the accession of Austria in the EFTA where it always was an active member. They saw it as a good way of an interim solution for economic reconciliation of Europe as there where no perspective of becoming a member of EC. In fact, the Soviet Union threatened

6

Austria with prospective upcoming economic and political sanctions in case it conducts an association with the EC. EFTA therefore represented a kind of compromise and regarding other EC members, they tended to seek to establish bilateral direct relationships. In general, you can estimate Austria′s approach towards European Integration as pragmatic and mostly based on economic expectations. To sum up, the principle of neutrality fitted well to the mentality of Austrians that felt always in a difficult situation lying in the middle of Europe and between both blocs in the Cold War. Thus the main concern during those times was not to interfere in this conflict with any taking side for anyone because otherwise, it would have been clashed between the two blocs.3

5. Austria′s neutrality policy today: their opinion towards the Constitution of Europe with regard to the Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP)

Generally speaking, elites in Austria welcome the development in the field of military policy throughout Europe. Even Austrian social democrats though being officially against any militarization of European Union strive for the principle of a "comprehensive" security police concerning CFSP. In this horizon neutrality still has to play an important role and means for them to conduct a policy based on the "thought of solidarity" with active cooperation and conflict prevention. The ÖVP shows also special interest in CFSP and would like make CFSP more efficient and to introduce QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) at European Council′s decisions in this field in order to speed up the process. Furthermore, they propose that WEU (West European Union) should became an integrational part of EU with tasks to fulfil written down in the Petersberg declaration and Austria should participate in WEU which implies to become a member of NATO. In fact, there was already an important move towards it: 1998 Austrian parliament came down with a decision that changed article 23f of their constitution in order to allow Austria the participation in all tasks mentioned in the Petersberg declaration under a mandate of UN which included also the possibility of using military force. However, you see a huge difference between the opinion of the population and the government of Austria concerning not only the Constitution for Europe as population still wants to uphold strongly the principle of neutrality. One problem for them is represented by an article in the Constitution for Europe containing the duty of military assistance in case of an armed attack in the territory of one member state. To solve this problem EU included a sentence that the special character of the foreign and security police of some member states will be left untouched which can be interpreted in a way that the EU has no intention to ado

^{3 see Nonhoff, Stephan (1995), page 61.}

7

the neutrality of some of its member states and the commission themselves stated this. Thus, people in Austria only fear that the government would not use this special clause. Another change which was actually welcomed was that the European Parliament will be listened to on a regular base concerning CFSP and the provisions of the "solidarity clause" of article 43 as a reaction on the terror in Madrid in March 2004. Aims are cooperation and coordination as well as also collective military measures in case of terrorist attacks or other catastrophes. Also the establishment of a foreign minister for EU, which represents it outwards, was seen in a positive way as actually strengthening the position of EU in the world what is especially regarded important for small member states. Resolutions of EU concerning common foreign and security policy still shall be made on basis of unanimous vote and shall lead to a common defence whenever the European Council decides on it unanimously what was disappointing for Austrian foreign minister Ferrero-Waldner.4 A new thing will be the opportunity of a "structured" and more "closer" cooperation of member states in the field of mutual defence that implies that without a vote of European Council some member states can guarantee military assistance. Most people in Austria oppose to this opportunity for Austria.

To put it into a nutshell, the Convention of Europe represents advancement but not a big step towards a close union in the field of CFSP. For Austrian government that would wish to see the European Union as a global player the compromise made in the Convention is still not far enough. Because of the principle of neutrality it is still strange that Austria is perhaps the country which is the strongest supporter of a CFSP. For public opinion, the statements of important politicians like Caspar Einem and Peter Pilz which expressed their favour of an Austrian participation in a military alliance between EU member states left the principle of neutrality and are still heavily criticised. Despite this, many people oppose the Constitution regarding these aspects as thinking a neutral state can strengthen European Union and be even better in cases of missions of United Nations as an arbitrator and an authentic broker of international law and human rights. However, the parliament in Austria approved the Constitution of Europe on May 11th 2005 with only one vote against it.

6. Conclusion: Why does Austria still need the principle of neutrality? The future of Austria′s neutrality policy

In evaluating the principle of neutrality as conducted by Austria you should take into account several facts. Austria never really strived for autonomous capability of defence but mostly

^{4Ferrero-Waldner, Dr. Benita (24. September 2005)}

8

because of pragmatic reasons: financial limitations. Although everybody can see the connection between the declaration of neutrality and the "Staatsvertrag" Austria always emphasized the autonomous character of its decision. In times of cold war, to stick to the principle was very welcomed because on the one hand they could distinguish themselves especially from Germany and on the other hand the main advantage of its political position lied in economic gains. It could conduct trade with countries of both sides. Since the beginning of European integration Austria was always forced to react, sometimes precipitous, sometimes hesitating. Their interest towards European Community was visible through their presence in Brussels. The foreign policy developed over decades, but first it concentrated on acting within UNO and cooperation with countries neither belonging to West nor to Eastern bloc. However, the Cold War is over and Austria accessed European Union 10 years ago. You can thereby see that some changes already have been taken place. Austria stated itself that it changed its position towards a "policy of solidarity". One reason for that lied in the conflicts and crisis next to them concerning Bosnia-Hercegovina. In principle, neglecting the support of the citizens, Austria could easily abolish the principle of neutrality because no guaranteeing powers are involved and, if you see it in a view of international law, there exists no real basis according to law except some provisions laid down in the Hague Conventions 1899 and 1907 that routed in 19th century statehood. The principle to not support any conflicting party only became part of the customary law!

Main problem is therefore, that it is a pragmatic egoistic measure for national self-maintenance of little countries which in the shadow of confrontations of powers did limit their efforts on the societal and economic reconstruction of their own territory mostly successfully. Today we only have seldom classical wars which make the principle of neutrality stand in another light. Because of a changed international system the isolationalist concept of neutrality seems to be antediluvian as being always in a dilemma between neutrality, sovereignty and solidarity. The principle should adapt to today′s situation. Considering the Constitution of Europe with this stronger CFSP it can be regarded as if Austria already decided to loosen this principle as if it is normally not consistent with European capacities of defence. You must pose the question: what are the gains for Austria′s policy of neutrality today? There are today no economic advantages and also no gains in security for Europe by this principle. In the light of the clear perspectives and secure options the EU offers for Austria, it can bee hoped that in future the principle of neutrality will become forgotten in order to accomplish a really unitary Europe.

9

Sources:

Falkner, Gerda/ Müller, Wolfgang C. (edt.): Österreich im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Konsequenzen der EU-Mitgliedschaft für Politiknetzwerke und Entscheidungsprozesse. Wien 1998.

Ferrero-Waldner, Dr. Benita: "Quo vadis, Europa? Interne Modernisierung, globale Verantwortung", speech at the Symposium ,,Eine Verfassung für Europa?". Graz, 24th of September 2005.

Ferrero-Waldner, Dr. Benita: "Verhandlung über EU-Verfassung ist nicht leicht". Außenministerin für ,,Notbremse" in bestimmten Bereichen. Das österreichische Außenministerium. http.// www.bmaa.gv.at (checked on 1.12.05).

Heidegger, Dr. Klaus: Die gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU. http:// zoom.mediaweb.at/zoom_1297//gasp.html (checked on 1.12.05).

Hingst, Dr. Wolfgang: Österreich für unsere Kinder: neutral-demokratisch-eigenständig. http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ARCHIV/ZF_79b/T07.HTM (checked on 30.11.05).

Missing, Dr. Alfred: Europäische Verfassung und Neutralität. Lecture during a symposium on the 4th December 2003. http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/Europa/missong.html (checked on 4.12.05).

Nonhoff, Stephan: In der Neutralität verhungern? Österreich und die Schweiz vor der europäischen Integration, Münster 1995.

Roither, Thomas/ Sykora, Christoph: Friedensmacht Europa? Österreichs Neutralität, die Militarisierung der EU und die Positionen der Gewerkschaften. Published in the magazine ,,Arbeit und Wirtschaft" by ÖGB (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftbund). http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/Europa/roithner2.html (checked on 4.12.05).

Party of Greens in Austria: http://www.ooe.gruene.at/themen.php?tid=28962 (checked on 30.11.05).

Scharsach, Gilbert: EU-Handbuch. Das große Nachschlagewerk der österreichischen EU-Diskussion, Wien/ Salzburg 1996.

Wikipedia: entry "Neutral Country" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country (3.12.05) and entry "Österreichische Neutralität" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Neutralit%C3%A4t (3.12.05).

10