Vienna (PK) – Reaffirming Austria's perpetual neutrality is the central concern of a referendum signed by exactly 116,832 citizens, which was debated today within the scope of a hearing at the State Defense Committee. Austria should therefore declare once again that it will not join any military alliance “in the future” and will not allow the establishment of military bases by foreign states on its territory. Proponents also call for another corresponding constitutional law (2,171 dB).
Peter Bußjäger, constitutional lawyer at the University of Innsbruck, and Marcus Klamert from the Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellery were available to the committee as experts. They spoke out against a renewed and identical anchoring of neutrality in the constitution. This makes little legal sense, says Klamert. According to Bußjäger, Austria's neutrality was severely restricted with EU accession.
There was a cross-party agreement among deputies that neutrality must be maintained. However, there were different opinions regarding its design. While the SPÖ, the Greens and NEOS spoke in favor of a “further development” of Austria's neutrality policy in order to strengthen international cooperation, the FPÖ considered such efforts as a danger to neutrality itself. The ÖVP and Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner emphasized that Austria's neutrality also requires the Federal Army to be able to adequately defend itself.
Referendum representatives: Take the people's decision seriously
Deputy referendum representative Werner Bolek explained to the commission that two referendums with the questions “Austrian neutrality yes” and “Austrian neutrality no” were put to the population for a vote. More than 94% of signatories were in favor of maintaining neutrality in the referendum discussed today. Bolek called on deputies to take “the people's decision” seriously and not “bury neutrality” like other referenda. The Austrian population understands neutrality as it was experienced before joining the EU.
The second deputy plenipotentiary, Anatolij Volk, agreed with this. For a functional democracy, a binding implementation of successful direct democratic instruments is necessary. As regards Austria's neutrality, many question marks have arisen since joining the EU, such as the obligation to provide assistance to other Member States. Co-financing of arms supplies to Ukraine and plans for the Sky Shield air defense system also do not meet neutrality requirements. Instead, Austria should use its neutrality in peace negotiations, Volk said.
Klamert: It is unusual to repeat legal provisions word for word
In his opening statement, Marcus Klamert from the Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellery gave an overview of the development of Austrian neutrality from the underlying Federal Constitutional Law (BVG) of 1955, which resulted in non-participation in wars, to Austria's accession to the EU. Through Article 23j added in this context, Austria participates in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which may also include combat missions for peacebuilding measures and financial sanctions measures. For Klamert, the current form of neutrality is an interaction between the BVG, Article 23j and EU regulations. With regard to the demands made in the referendum, according to the expert, a renewed anchoring of neutrality will not change this interaction. According to Klamert, it is legally unusual to repeat legal provisions word for word.
Bußjäger: Austrian neutrality has been severely restricted since EU accession
Peter Bußjäger, a constitutional lawyer at the University of Innsbruck, also saw no need to repeat the original constitutional law. According to the expert, the content of neutrality was severely restricted by Austria's accession to the EU. Bußjäger sees no possibility of returning to the “old neutrality” in this context. The future form of neutrality is a political question, but an active neutrality policy is needed and must be “more than just a slogan”. Regarding the much-cited comparison with Switzerland, the constitutional lawyer noted that the meaning of neutrality is also discussed there, although the neighboring country is not a member of the EU. Furthermore, Switzerland also joined the economic sanctions against Russia.
Bipartisan agreement on maintaining neutrality; Differences in your design
ÖVP deputy Friedrich Ofenauer thanked the proponents of the referendum, who ensured that parliament could once again address the important issue of neutrality. However, he was “a little irritated” that Austria's defense capability, as contained in the Neutrality Law, did not play a role in the referendum. However, according to Ofenauer, this is an important point, as defense capacity has not been guaranteed in recent years and is only now receiving attention again.
Neutrality is part of the Austrian identity and the “foundation of the republic”, said Robert Laimer (SPÖ). He interpreted the referendum to mean the population's desire for a peaceful future, which was understandable given the numerous global trouble spots. A large proportion of Austrians see neutrality as a guarantee that they will not be drawn into a conflict carelessly. According to Laimer, social democracy represents a more developed and defensive “politics of neutrality 2.0”, which must also be credible through international commitment. He did not consider a “repeat” of the Neutrality Law necessary.
The Greens' David Stögmüller also spoke of further development of neutrality, the meaning of which could change over time. He did not consider that economic sanctions against Russia contradicted this. It is now important to strengthen the resilience of the armed forces and adapt their defense capabilities to the current threat situation. This also requires cooperation with European partners, especially with regard to energy procurement and supply.
In the past, neutrality ensured that Austria was able to build its prosperity on security and peace, said Gerhard Kaniak (FPÖ). The liberal party is even more critical of the fact that the federal government is increasingly taking steps to restrict this. Kaniak referred, for example, to the EU's sanctions policy against Russia or Austria's voting behavior at the United Nations General Assembly in relation to the war in the Gaza Strip.
NEOS deputy Helmut Brandstätter placed security policy considerations at the center of his remarks and emphasized that Austria's neutrality was military and not political. This also gives rise to the possibility of power and duty to show solidarity with other countries. Brandstätter spoke of Russia's new expansion efforts, which would make cooperation necessary, as in the context of the Sky Shield air defense system.
Armed neutrality is part of Austria's obligations under international law, Marcus Klamert responded to MEPs' questions on this topic. This also includes maintaining the military capacity of the Federal Army, as Peter Bußjäger added. Both experts considered that Austria's participation in economic sanctions was not problematic in terms of the neutrality law. Staplet referred to a “dynamic development” regarding the understanding of neutrality. Bußjäger saw international cooperation within the framework of Sky Shield as “close to military alliance”, but still compatible with neutrality, as long as decision-making authority over the use of the defense system rested with Austria.
Tanner: Neutrality must also be defended “with all available means.”
Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner stated in her closing remarks that it was not just Russia's attack on Ukraine that made the issue of neutrality and its conception particularly topical. She thanked the referendum proponents and the invited experts because they reminded us what neutrality fundamentally is. However, it is equally important to make it clear that this neutrality must be defended “with all available means”, as Tanner emphasized. She was pleased that the National Defense Financing Act (LV-FinG) re-equips the Federal Army to fulfill its constitutional mandate. In this way, Austria can be a “credible partner” within the CFSP and not a “parasite”, explained Tanner. (End) doctor/smart
The hearing was broadcast live and is available as a video on demand in the Parliament's media library.