Austrian 'Neutrality' after EU Accession
Turns out that the gaslighting continues to this day, and I hope that those responsible will, before too long, face the consequences of their treasonous deeds
Editorial prelim: this is a quite long, two-part posting that originally appeared on TKP.at (part 1, part 2). For part 1, click on the link below:
Today, we’ll cover what happened since Austrian EU accession.
Note that these are long postings, and that it is advisable to read them in the app or online.
A Swan Song for Austrian Neutrality after 1995
Austria’s ‘perpetual neutrality’ ended, technically speaking, with the accession to the EU in 1995. This isn’t hyperbole, but a fact whose discussion isn’t ‘just’ a contribution to contemporary history, which is often factually problematic and/or highly distorted, which becomes quite clear once one takes into account the security policy developments that immediately followed Austria’s—and Sweden’s as well as Finland’s—EU accession.
As explained the other day, the Austrian federal government under Franz Vranitzky (SPÖ) and Alois Mock (ÖVP) did not ‘just’ submit an application for EC/EU membership but after an appeasement visit to Moscow (1988) submitted what is referred to in the relevant literature as a ‘second application for membership’ in 1989. There was also a speaking note for Foreign Minister Mock, his oral interpretation, and the unconditional commitment to take part in the emerging Common Foreign and Security Policy together with then-also ‘neutral’ Finland and Sweden.
As Manfred Schaich noted in his essay ‘Waypoints on Austria's Path to EU Accession: The Resolution of the Neutrality Problem’, which was published on the tenth anniversary of Austria's accession to the EU. Back then, the Austrian federal government had made ‘a suggestive commitment to European unification process and the objectives of the EC Treaties [formulated]’. At its core was ‘the dynamic, i.e., future-reaching concept of solidarity’, which was made ‘the solution formula for the question of neutrality’ in the accession negotiations—and since then.
At the end of the negotiations, the neutrality complex had been mastered, on the basis that we had long and gradually laid out of reducing neutrality to its (military) core combined with an express commitment to the goals of the CFSP and the willingness to work on them to participate actively and in solidarity in future developments. [here and in the following, emphases mine]
On the Austrian EU Referendum (1994)
After joining the EU, the Austrian government continued its ‘creative’ accounting of these events and the increasingly problematic constitutional status of neutrality. To remind you of the initial situation, here is a brief quote from the Neutrality Act :
Article I. (1) For the purpose of permanently asserting its external independence and for the purpose of ensuring the inviolability of its territory, Austria voluntarily declares its perpetual neutrality. Austria will maintain and defend this with all means at its disposal.
(2) To secure these purposes, Austria will not join any military alliances in the future and will not allow the establishment of military bases by foreign states on its territory.
Article II. The Federal Government is entrusted with the enforcement of this Federal Constitutional Law.
As MP Peter Schieder (SPÖ) said in the parliamentary session on 4/5 May 1994, it was assumed in all places ‘that Austria had applied for membership of the European Communities on July 17, 1989’. The ‘first’ application from 1987 was—clearly—irrelevant to Austria’s path to EU membership.
Mr. Schieder then referred to the interrelated questions of security and neutrality as ‘central’ and quoted the then Federal Minister for National Defence Werner Fasslabend (ÖVP) and his ‘unambguous’ choice of words:
In my opinion, a significant improvement in Austria’s security needs can be expected through joining the European Union…which undoubtedly cannot be borne by one state, but only by a majority of states together.
Schieder subsequently pointed out neutrality in no less explicit ways (my emphasis):
On the question of neutrality, as I pointed out at the beginning of the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 April, from the parliamentary side it was to be welcomed what the Federal Government had already stated it in its decision on 26 Jan. 1993 on the fundamental Austrian negotiating position. The goal of the [accession] negotiations was defined that Austria will join the European Union as a neutral state. This was made clear to the European Union during the negotiations.
And Schaich has just as clearly stated that this is a thoroughly dubious statement.
The Federal Government has always emphasised in the domestic Austrian debate that…[it] is therefore of essential interest to adapt Austria's security interests to these changed framework conditions. A key emerging factor in these framework conditions is undisputedly the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. This is precisely why Austria has followed the development of the European Union's CFSP with interest from the outset and has also made it clear to the European Union that Austria will actively and in solidarity participate in the further development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.—This is also clearly expressed in the resolution of the National Council of 12 Nov. 1992.
In this context, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to expressly state that…the repeal of the Federal Constitutional Law of 26 Oct. 1955 on the neutrality of Austria is not, and will not be, necessary prior to EU accession. However, in order to give Austria's active and solidarity-based participation in the Common Foreign and Security Policy outside the core of Austrian neutrality a secure legal basis, clear federal constitutional provisions will have to be made in this regard
We note that these words were spoken in Parliament on 4/5 May 1994 before the referendum on EU accession on 12 June 1994.
As is known, around 2/3 of Austrians voted in favour of joining the EU at the time; how the referendum would have turned out if the circumstances described and documented by Schaich had been known by the electorate is speculative, but it seems plausible that the referendum would have been significantly closer, if not against EU accession.
Retroactive Normalisation (2001/02)
Less than a decade after joining the EU, these facts were subsequently ‘normalised’—albeit in the legally prescribed manner. The then ÖVP-FPÖ government under Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) created an updated security and defence doctrine that took into account the changed strategic framework conditions since joining the EU.
The relevant documents can be viewed on the homepage of the Austrian Parliament.
Of particular interest here are the minutes of the National Defence Committee (as printed on 7 Jan. 2002), which contain the following relevant passages:
On 24 Jan. 2001, the Federal Government presented the report on security and defence doctrine to the National Council; Analysis part (III-87 of the appendices) were submitted for due process.
The National Defence Committee discussed the report at its meeting on 19 April 2001…
Austria joined the EU without reservations about neutrality. When the Austrian Accession Treaty was ratified, Article 23f was inserted into the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that participation in the CFSP is not constitutionally restricted by the Neutrality Act .
For the sake of completeness, here is Article 23f of the Austrian Constitution:
(1) The National Council and the Federal Council exercise the responsibilities of the national parliaments as provided for in the Treaty on European Union, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the protocols attached to these treaties in the currently valid version.
(2) Each Federal Minister reports to the National Council and the Bundesrat [Federal Council, Austria’s upper chamber] at the beginning of each year about the projects of the European Council and the European Commission that are expected that year as well as about the anticipated Austrian position on these projects.
(3) Further information obligations must be provided for by federal law.
(4) The National Council and the Federal Council can express their wishes regarding European Union projects in communications to the bodies of the European Union.
Article 23f in question was inserted into the Austrian Federal Constitution in 1995 and has been changed a total of seven (!) times since then; the original version was definitely ‘different’, which read as follows::
(1) Austria participates in the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union on the basis of Title V of the Treaty on European Union. This includes participation in measures that suspend, restrict, or completely terminate economic relations with one or more third countries.
(2) Article 23e applies to decisions within the framework of the CFSP of the European Union based on Title V and to decisions within the framework of cooperation in the areas of justice and home affairs based on Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.
We therefore note that the corresponding constitutional amendment is no longer the same version as it was when it was introduced. All federal governments since joining the EU (1995) and all parties—with the exception of the no-longer existing Liberales Forum and NEOS—are jointly responsible for these changes, which can at best be described as ‘mission creep’, but in reality these changes are a drastic change to constitutional reality.
If you are now thinking and wondering when such fundamental changes to the Federal Constitution have been widely discussed in or with the public since joining the EU, then you are not alone. The SPÖ, ÖVP, FPÖ, and the Greens implemented this ‘on their own initiative’ and ‘bypassing the sovereign’.
Here’s a passage from the National Defence Committee meeting from 7 Jan. 2002 that supports my allegation—accusation—that these parties all broke the constitution:
Austria supports the dynamic development of the GESDP with full conviction. Austria is thus demonstrating its determination to participate in all areas of European Security and Defence on an equal basis and in solidarity. Austria will make an adequate contribution to the EU’s military and civilian capabilities. Europe's security depends primarily on the functioning of the EU and NATO .
Today, NATO presents itself not as just a classic military alliance, but as a comprehensive security community that is based on democratic values and makes a decisive contribution to peace and security worldwide through its stability-oriented policies. Austria supports close and trusting cooperation between the EU and NATO.
I’m not going to comment on this kind of clap-trap here; if you’re interested in a more recent take on the symbiotic relationship between the EU and NATO, please see this:
‘From Neutrality to Solidarity’
Again, from the same source, i.e., the National Defence Committee dated 7 Jan. 2002:
When the Austrian National Council passed the Federal Constitutional Law on the Neutrality of Austria on 26 Oct. 1955, it was clear that Austrian neutrality was modelled on that of Switzerland…
In its relationship with the United Nations, Austria assumed until 1990 that the international community was obliged to respect Austria's permanent neutrality and would therefore never demand of Austria to take coercive measures in a military conflict between third countries. However, in the wake of the Gulf War of 1991, the legal opinion prevailed in Austria that the obligations arising from the statutes of the United Nations take precedence over the obligations of neutrality. This means that the classic neutrality modelled on Switzerland no longer exists.
So we learn that the two Alpine republics have not been ‘equal’ since 1990/91.
When Austria joined the European Union in 1995, it adopted all of its legal and political statutes, which at that time already included the Maastricht Treaty and its provisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Article J.4 of this Treaty opened the prospect of a common defence policy which could, in due course, lead to a common defence. A provision (Article 23f) was included in the Federal Constitution so that participation in the CFSP is not restricted by the Neutrality Act. The Neutrality Act was thus further limited in its effectiveness.
However, joining the EU was merely the retroactive justification for the re-interpretation of—actually: the breaking of the constitutional—Neutrality Act begun by Vranitzky and Mock in 1989/90. We also note that what the National Defence Committee states here is somewhere between misinformation and the falsification of history.
After the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the National Council passed a further constitutional amendment in 1998, according to which Austria can participate in the entire spectrum of the so-called Petersberg missions, which also include combat missions in crisis management, including peace-building measures. Such participation is possible due to an EU decision.
This development shows that Austria has permanently changed its status of permanent neutrality under international law at the latest through its unreserved participation in the EU's common foreign and security policy. In an international comparison, Austria's status under international law does not correspond to that of a neutral state, but of an not-allied state.
Since these words were printed in 2002, only one thing has changed in these considerations: Austria has moved ever closer to the USA and NATO, although a formal association is most likely—so far and from the perspective of successive Austrian governments—to ‘fail’ primarily because a stable majority of around 80% of people in Austria continue to express their pro-neutrality statements every time they are asked.
The legal situation and the documents discussed here underline that this is not the case ‘at the latest’ with the ‘second Austrian application for EU accession’ in 1989.
Epilogue, Written in Late 2023
So what can—should—be done?
Having reached this point, we note:
In Austria, only part of the FPÖ is relatively clearly in favour of Austrian neutrality, and whether this attitude should (can) be maintained if, as polling intimates, the Freedom Party will be part of the next government after next year’s federal elections is another matter.
In this regard, the other parliamentary parties—SPÖ, ÖVP, Greens, and NEOS—can only be expected to continue manoeuvring, or waiting, in the best case scenario uneasily. That is, if we're lucky.
There was no debate about any of these issues among the Austrian people; the governments always assumed their tacit consent.
And yet, in view of the world spinning increasingly out of control, a moment of reflection is certainly a good idea.
Personally, I would like to see a new commitment to neutrality and a departure from the wayward paths of the more recent past, not least because these have been implemented by governments since 1986 in a way that is extra-constitutional and has ignored the sovereign people.