Attack on neutrality

On 14 July 1984, the Austrian Foreign Minister Alois Mock (ÖVP) sent a letter to his French counterpart and President-in-Office of the Council of the European Communities, Roland Dumas, in which Austria officially applied to join the European Communities. He writes: “In submitting this application, Austria assumes that its internationally recognised status of perpetual neutrality, which is based on the Federal Constitutional Law of 26 October 1955, will be maintained and that, as a member of the European Communities, it will also be able to fulfil the legal obligations arising from its status as a perpetually neutral state and to continue its policy of neutrality as a specific contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in Europe on the basis of the Accession Treaty.”
  The government of the time headed by Federal Chancellor Fred Sinowatz (SPÖ) and Vice-Chancellor Norbert Steger (FPÖ) had respected the wish of the Austrians to remain neutral even if they joined the then European Communities and attached a reservation of neutrality to the application for membership.
  In 1988 and 1989, the following parties and institutions were in favour of joining the European Communities:

• FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria),¹
• the Austrian Trade Union Federation, although having demands concerning an accession, is not against it,²
• ÖVP (Austrian People’s Party),³
• The Association of Austrian Industrialists.⁴

Those against accession to the European Communities are:

• the Greens,⁵
• the KPÖ (Communist Party of Austria).⁶

On 31 July 1992, the EC Commission responded to Austria’s application for membership, which was submitted in 1989 without a formal reservation of neutrality, with a statement⁷. The EU addressed the compatibility with Austria’s permanent neutrality as follows:
  “Possible solutions to the problems resulting from Austria’s neutrality: The solutions to the legal problems identified above must be worked out in the accession negotiations, namely

1. either through a redefinition of the neutrality status by Austria (which would have to be notified to the partners)
2. or through an exception to the Treaty enshrined in the Act of Accession.”

This statement is revealing. The EC Commission drew Austria’s attention to two possibilities:

1. in the first case, Austria would have had to redefine its neutrality status so that it was compatible with the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the nascent EU and inform all other states of this.
2. in the second case, Austria was shown the way to negotiate exceptions to the “Treaty on European Union” in Austria’s acts of accession.

Formal accession negotiations began on 1 February 19938 and lasted until their conclusion on 12 April 1994.⁹ A time, where Federal Chancellor Franz Vranitzky (SPÖ) and Vice-Chancellor Erhard Busek (ÖVP) were in the Austrian government.¹⁰ At that time, obviously the decision was made not to pursue the second option and not to obtain a derogation. Austria did not obtain an exemption from the treaty, as other countries like Denmark and Great Britain. These countries have shown that it was possible to obtain exemptions from the treaties (UK e.g., “British rebate”, Denmark e. g., “EU defence reservation”, which was abandoned in a referendum in 2022).
  Austria did not achieve this, and most probably did not even try – the negotiations were confidential – because it would have been a de facto agreed reservation of neutrality. However, Alois Mock (ÖVP) decidedly ruled out a reservation of neutrality at the time. The “Irish clause” and “constructive abstention” were options that were granted to neutral states in the EU for independent neutral behaviour. However, these were not “exceptions agreed in the Acts of Accession.”¹¹ It is hard to believe that the Austrian negotiators obviously chose the first option, which was tantamount to giving up neutrality within the EU! Since then, governments have been talking about being neutral – meaning being neutral only outside the EU. This is incompatible with the law of neutrality under international law. Therefore, to this day, everything is done in harmony with the EU. However, this violates the obligations of neutrality under international law. Till today, the Austrian governments do not seriously and honestly fulfil their duties of neutrality.

The neutrality of Austria remains

Even today, 80 % of Austrians agree that they want to maintain neutrality.¹² For them, neutrality is a peacemaking instrument that makes sense for the whole world and has also become part of their own identity.
  As Professor Michael Geistlinger explained at a public lecture in Ansfelden on 28 March 2023, the treaty provisions of the European Union are nothing more than a founding treaty of a regional international organisation:¹³ “The European Union is often seen as a superstar, but in purely legal terms, purely in terms of international law, it is nothing more than a regional international organisation. As a regional international organisation, the European Union is bound by international law. In the EU Treaty, it expressly recognises the principles of the United Nations Charter.” (By the way, it would be better if the EU adhered to the United Nations Charter instead of just its principles). Even if the Austrian Federal President says so, it is not correct to say that the EU’s solidarity obligations take precedence over its obligations under international law. The opposite is true. Prof. Geistlinger continues: “Rather, universal international law takes precedence over the regional international organisation. Our obligation to perpetual neutrality is an obligation under universal international law. If we enter into obligations towards the European Union that are not in line with our universal obligations, we are indeed guilty towards the EU, but universal international law requires us to act against the European Union.” The obligations and rights of the neutral state towards the international community therefore continue to apply. Unfortunately, our governments are undermining neutrality because we do not take the duties of neutrality seriously enough.

Pre-emptive obedience

Instead of obtaining exemptions due to its neutral status during the accession negotiations with the EC/EU, the government of that time chose a different path: the country offered its services to the EU when the Second Gulf War was looming in the run-up to the accession negotiations.
  The Second Gulf War began with the conquest of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990. The staged testimony of a Kuwaiti diplomat’s daughter before the US Congress on 10 October 1990 about the alleged killing of new-born babies by Iraqi soldiers had a considerable influence on American public opinion and led to widespread support for a war mission in the USA. The UN Security Council issued a resolution in which – exceptionally – the use of military force was also authorised: Resolution 678¹⁴ of 29 November 1990 “authorise[d] member states cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, in the event that Iraq does not fully implement […] the above resolutions by 15 January 1991, to use all necessary means to give effect to Resolution 660 (1990)¹⁵ [meaning withdrawal from Kuwait] […] and to restore international security in the area”. From 16 January 1991, a coalition, led by the USA and legitimised by UN Security Council Resolution 678, began combat operations to liberate Kuwait.¹⁶ However, this resolution also stated that all states were requested to “support the […] measures taken in an appropriate manner”. By “appropriate” it was meant that neutral states were exempt from this due to their status under international law.
  Unfortunately, the government at the time, with Federal Chancellor Franz Vranitzky (SPÖ) and Vice-Chancellor Josef Riegler (ÖVP), took a different view and said that we could not participate, but would allow the flights over our federal territory because of the resolution. However, this behaviour is not conforming to neutrality. This is precisely why the Security Council expressly stated: “to support in an appropriate manner”. Respect for Austrian neutrality would have been necessary. At that time, however, not only the overflights but also the transports were approved. The tanks transported by Austria were “armoured recovery vehicles” and not “normal” tanks. The government has offered its services to the EU. Why? Did they want to convince the EU in the run-up to the accession negotiations that they would renounce their neutral status if necessary? Did the transatlantic hegemon demand via the EU structures that Austria renounce its neutrality? Was pressure exerted?

Forced allegiance

A similar process was observed with the eastern enlargement of NATO and the EU. All states of the former military alliance “Warsaw Pact” were first admitted to NATO in stages and then to the EU in a second step. The first eastward enlargement of NATO in the accession round of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary took place on 12 March 1999. The second eastward enlargement of NATO with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia took place in the accession round of 29 March 2004. Only Malta and Cyprus were spared NATO membership.
  When the USA attacked Iraq in spring 2003 in the Third Gulf War in violation of international law, all ten newly admitted countries without exception had to support the USA politically and militarily as a coalition of the willing¹⁷. Only Malta, Austria and Cyprus were spared direct participation in the coalition.
  Only in a later step, on 1 May 2004, did the ten countries achieve that, after fulfilling the “Copenhagen criteria”¹⁸, they now have the “ability to fulfil the obligations of EU membership and, for example, to implement all EU regulations and support the objectives of the EU”. These ten were Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. Finally, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU on 1 January 2007.
  Is it a coincidence that they first joined NATO, thereafter a war mission was enforced and only then did they fulfil the EU’s “Copenhagen criteria”? It would appear that the EU is merely the political arm of NATO. Could this be the reason why Austria was not allowed to honour the three neutrality obligations agreed by the international community in 1955 as part of a “unilateral legal transaction”? The three obligations are the duty of abstinence, the duty of equal treatment and not to make Austrian territory available to belligerents. Is that so difficult?
  We believe that the security of a state decreases in an alliance, as you can no longer decide on war and peace yourself. Alliances always want to become bigger. They are committed to power, not peace. It is high time we honoured our neutrality commitments. Peacemakers are needed.  •

¹ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/entschlie%C3%9Fungsantrag_der_fpo_betreffend_die_aufnahme_von_beitrittsverhandlungen_mit_der_eg_27_november_1987-de-101722dd-877a-4b8c-aa04-0a05e79cae96.html
² https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/europa_memorandum_des_osterreichischen_gewerkschaftsbundes_6_dezember_1988-de-17d7fc58-bc40-4435-b75c-ac8cd04b3f87.html
³ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/europa_manifest_der_osterreichischen_volkspartei_ovp_23_mai_1988-de-30e56e53-2fcb-4ab7-b33d-0fc096b757e1.html 
⁴ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/stellungnahme_der_vereinigung_osterreichischer_industrieller_zur_europaischen_integration_europa_unsere_zukunft_wien_1987-de-51284fca-1239-4766-aba2-fd0ee07c7752.html
⁵ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/europamanifest_der_osterreichischen_grunen_alternative_februar_1989-de-9ad04f3d-2c40-44c1-bb83-944a04e6e5ac.html
⁶ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/denkschrift_der_kommunistischen_partei_osterreichs_hinsichtlich_des_eg_beitritt_osterreichs_1988-de-7e7e8587-8c06-40e2-b83e-ae70e03c9eb9.html 
⁷ https://www.cvce.eu/de/obj/stellungnahme_der_kommission_zum_beitrittsantrag_osterreichs_31_juli_1992-de-e22a3d78-7ef1-46e1-8dbb-f4db7c584fc4.html
⁸ https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/at25eu/hintergrundinfo/oesterreichs-weg-in-die-eu.html
⁹ On 1 November 1993, under the third Delors Commission, the Maastricht Treaty became effective, creating the European Union with its pillar system, including foreign and home affairs alongside the European Community. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union
¹⁰ https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/geschichte/regierungen-seit-1945.html
¹¹ E-Mail of 1 February 2024, 4:00 p.m.
¹² https://exxpress.at/exxpress-umfrage-bestaetigt-eindeutig-80-wollen-neutralitaet-behalten/
¹³ https://nfoe.at/2023/03/28/vortrag-mit-univ-prof-dr-michael-geistlinger-28-3-2023/
¹⁴ https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chap%20VII%20SRES%20678.pdf
¹⁵ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_660 
¹⁶ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
¹⁷ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)
¹⁸ https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/eu-enlargement_en