When Finland and Sweden consider NATO membership, Austria maintains its neutrality
Russia has proposed in peace talks that Ukraine commit itself to neutrality, just as the war has led other European states to question its merits. Majorities in Finland and Sweden now support NATO membership. “There is no way back to a past of illusory neutrality,” former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has argued. “The choice now is between staying in a slightly uncertain middle ground or realizing a new reality and taking the step fully [Nato] membership. “Even Austrians are thinking about their neutrality in a Europe that has been forever changed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Austrian neutrality, like Finland’s, is a product of the Cold War. When a delegation led by Chancellor Julius Raab flew to Moscow in April 1955 to negotiate an end to the Allied occupation of Austria, neutrality was the price his government had to pay. On October 25, 1955, the last Allied troops left Austrian territory; a day later, the country’s parliament adopted the declaration of neutrality, which committed Austria to “eternal neutrality” and prevented the country from joining “military alliances”.
Ten years later, October 26 was proclaimed Austria’s National Day. Neutrality became an integral part of Austria’s perception of itself as an “island of bliss” – as Pope Paul VI described it to Austrian President Franz Jonas in 1971 – and a bridge between East and West. After the Cold War, Austria joined the EU along with Sweden and Finland in 1995. While these two countries are now NATO’s “improved opportunities” – the closest relationship after membership – Austria remains on the periphery of the alliance as part of the larger, looser Partnership for peace. Austrian military operations abroad have been limited to peacekeeping missions in the Golan Heights, Lebanon and the Balkans.
[See also: Nato needs a new strategy fast]
NATO membership has its supporters in Austria, especially in the center-right, and their position has been strengthened by Russia’s war against Ukraine. Andreas Khol, a great leader of the Conservative People’s Party and its presidential candidate in 2016, claimed in a recently published commentary that the Ukrainian case showed how “a neutral or non-aligned state stands alone when attacked. No one should rush to its aid”. Only those included in a military alliance would ultimately be protected, he said. Austria “must choose between NATO membership or cooperation with an EU army”.
But even in a changing Europe, Khol’s support for NATO membership remains a niche concept. Three quarters of Austrians support neutrality, and over 80 percent are against NATO membership. Austria has spoken out in support of Ukraine and against the Russian invasion, but in contrast to Sweden and Finland, its leadership has been quick to put down all discussion of abandoning neutrality. The People’s Party Chancellor Karl Nehammer recently put it this way: “Austria was neutral, Austria is neutral and Austria will also remain neutral.”
[See also: Security politics is energy politics, as Germany’s Greens understand]
Support for neutrality spans the political spectrum. “Neutrality has no expiration date,” wrote Pamela Rendi-Wagner, leader of the Social Democratic Party, in response to Khol, “and it has offered Austria security for 67 years.” Rendi-Wagner challenged Khol’s view that staying out of NATO leaves neutral states vulnerable, Rendi-Wagner argued that neutrality prevented countries like Austria from being sucked into conflicts between military alliances as the United States, Russia and China compete to preserve or expand their spheres of influence . “Neutral states do not pose a threat to great powers,” she concluded, “and it strengthens our security.”
Content from our partners
NATO membership is still a non-starter in Austrian politics. The Declaration of Neutrality is enshrined in the Constitution; Repealing it would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which does not currently exist. The Austrian military is also embarrassingly weak; Defense spending accounts for only 0.74 percent of its GDP. Even if the government plans to raise it to 1 percent, it would still be well below the 2 percent target set for NATO members, let alone the 2.5 percent analysts believe would be required to build the Austrian military to the point where it could actually defend the country in the event of an invasion. Austria’s armed forces are little more than a unit for natural disasters.
With an end to neutrality off the table, the debate in Austria is more about meaning: the distinction between military and political, as well as active and passive neutrality. Vienna is the UN’s third home and yet Austria has not put forward a single initiative that could end the war or bring about a ceasefire in Ukraine, wrote historian Oliver Rathkolb (who is close to the Social Democrats) recently. Rathkolb accused Austria of “hiding behind the EU” and abandoning the kind of “active policy of neutrality” that characterized the Bruno Kreisky era in the 1970s, when Vienna hosted East-West arms embargo talks, challenging the Soviet Union on its human violations of rights and served as a channel between the West and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
The fact that Vienna is hosting talks on Iran’s nuclear deal contradicts the claim that Austria, after Kreisky, withdrew from the world. It wears its neutrality like a pair of comfortable but worn shoes that are difficult to discard. Although the war in Ukraine will force Finland and Sweden to join NATO, there is little prospect that Austria would do the same. Giving up neutrality would require a fundamental rethinking of the Austrian national identity for which the country is ill-prepared. The question is rather whether Austria can do something about being a neutral state in the heart of Europe again.
[See also: Finlandisation is not an option for Ukraine]