Reject Neutrality but Not Officially, Please
Mr. Brigadier, how do you feel as an Austrian soldier in the German Federal Armed Forces?” the German lieutenant colonel and journalist Leo Mayerhöfer asked the Austrian brigadier Anton Oschep. “Basically very good: perfectly integrated and supported” answered Oschep.
Since early 2007 the European Union has its own battle groups. Since August 2006 Austria takes part in them, currently only with few officers on the management level. In the second half of 2012 Austria is supposed to contribute with its on troops. A “worldwide” deployment of a troop of 1500-2000 is to take place no later than 10 days after the Council resolution. The range of the deployment tasks of the EU battle groups comprise the whole spectrum of the Petersberg tasks, including combat operations.
Yet, Austria’s participation is incompatible with the constitutional principle of neutrality. It excludes not only the stationing of foreign military bases on the Austrian territory but also Austria’s involvement in military alliances and wars.
But the “newspeak” has conquered Europe long time ago. Concepts are being re-invented. There are currently humanitarian wars and peace keeping missions conducted by peacekeeping troops. So peace turns into war and war turns into peace. According to the government program “peace making operations abroad are peace making operation for Austria”. The neutrality is thus being sailed around and degraded to pretence.
At the very beginning of its introduction on April 15. 1954, when the Moscow Memorandum was signed, neutrality was for many parties not a goal but first of all an instrument to the desired aim of the State Treaty.2 Since then neutrality has been perceived neither as a chance nor as a normative model to be followed. It was simply a useful instrument that served the identity building of a young nation.
Soon after the end of World War II the Austrian Federal Armed Forces were reformed with the help of the American capital; monitoring stations were installed on the eastern boarder of the country. A “partnership for peace” with the NATO was the next step. Based on the membership treaty Austria pledged itself in a declaration to a complete and unreserved adoption of the goals and regulations of the Treaty of the European Union. Austria also declared its readiness and ability to take part in the Common Foreign Security Policy with an active commitment. The Austrian Constitution was therefore amended. Article 23f paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates that Austria takes part in the Petersburg-tasks.
How about the present? Neutrality is considered to be a burden and a sign of a missing sense of responsibility. This is how politicians interpret it when there are no cameras around. Therefore it is not surprising that nobody protests against the obligation of the Member States to provide (military?) assistance to each other anchored in the Lisbon Treaty. Nothing happened even after the propositions of the 4 neutral member states were submitted and rejected during the conference of the governments. This leads directly to the erosion of the concept of neutrality.
The obligation among the Member States to provide (military?) assistance to each other turns the EU into a “defence alliance“ which is not compatible with the status of everlasting neutrality anchored in the international law. According to Dr. Manfred Ratter, an expert of international law at the University of Linz “every attempt to combine the everlasting neutrality with a membership in a defence alliance exceeds the principle of neutrality”.
Why don’t the Austrian politicians (take an example from their Danish colleagues? The Danes made sure that neutrality was anchored in a protocol in 1997 according to which “Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of the EU resolutions that are related with defence policy”. Denmark is still an equal and modern partner of the European Union. Austria could do this too.
