If you want to get a small foretaste of how intellectually open and high-quality the political discourse on fundamental questions of the republic would be in a government of SPÖ and ÖVP after the next elections, you only have to look at how the two parties this week answered the question of Austria, Neutrality and NATO dealt with: with a clear end to the debate long before it had even started.
The now decided accession of the previously non-aligned Swedes and Finns would have been a more than appropriate moment to ask whether Austria’s security would be better guaranteed in the long term through NATO membership than through the status quo of unarmed pseudo-neutrality. A model that does not exist anywhere else in Europe, but which consistently follows the local rascal mentality, where it is possible to live at the expense of others.
There are substantive and ethical arguments in favor of joining NATO. The latter is that it is simply indecent to permanently rely on others – NATO – to defend you in an emergency without making an appropriate financial and personal contribution yourself. But the substantive argument weighs much heavier. To understand it, you have to beam yourself back to the 1980s, when the Soviet Union still seemed to exist with eternity. At the time, nobody, really nobody, could have imagined what Europe would look like just four decades later, without the USSR, with the Warsaw Pact states in NATO and a major war in Ukraine.
Just as little can we get a reliable picture today of what Europe will look like in 20 or 30 years – it is quite possible that this will once again bring completely unforeseeable changes.
Therefore, if not only because of this, the argument that joining NATO is not necessary because we are surrounded by NATO members anyway is just as correct as it is worthless. Because that could change within the next few decades, just like Europe’s geopolitical statics have changed since the 1980s – who knows. Relying on the status quo to last forever and beyond would be a manageably smart security policy.
In addition, the “We are surrounded by NATO” argument also applies to a dozen other NATO members, from France and Germany to Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands to little Luxembourg, which is why none of them would dream of it think of leaving the alliance. What applies to Austria also applies to them: no other way offers anywhere near as much security as the mutual assistance obligation provided for in the NATO treaty, which has led to the fact that in the past six decades no NATO state (apart from the Special case 9/11) was attacked militarily. Swedes and Finns recognized this wisely and drew the necessary conclusions. The fact that Austria refuses to even think about it is a serious strategic mistake.
I guess opinion articles like this is just what we’ll have to deal with for the foreseeable time.
If Austria were to apply for NATO membership, I wonder what bullshit reason Turkey would come up with to veto it.
If I was Austrian, I would be a bit concerned about the eastern border.
i mean it kinda is , your basically getting all the “pros” of the alliance without the commitment in terms of spending goals and going to war
> A model that does not exist anywhere else in Europe,
looks at ireland
Austria was there before long before nato.
All the newspaper hacks are running the same ‘neutrality question’ bait for every European non-nato country since the Finland thing.
What he really means is we dont want to piss off our benefactor.
7 comments
If you want to get a small foretaste of how intellectually open and high-quality the political discourse on fundamental questions of the republic would be in a government of SPÖ and ÖVP after the next elections, you only have to look at how the two parties this week answered the question of Austria, Neutrality and NATO dealt with: with a clear end to the debate long before it had even started.
The now decided accession of the previously non-aligned Swedes and Finns would have been a more than appropriate moment to ask whether Austria’s security would be better guaranteed in the long term through NATO membership than through the status quo of unarmed pseudo-neutrality. A model that does not exist anywhere else in Europe, but which consistently follows the local rascal mentality, where it is possible to live at the expense of others.
There are substantive and ethical arguments in favor of joining NATO. The latter is that it is simply indecent to permanently rely on others – NATO – to defend you in an emergency without making an appropriate financial and personal contribution yourself. But the substantive argument weighs much heavier. To understand it, you have to beam yourself back to the 1980s, when the Soviet Union still seemed to exist with eternity. At the time, nobody, really nobody, could have imagined what Europe would look like just four decades later, without the USSR, with the Warsaw Pact states in NATO and a major war in Ukraine.
Just as little can we get a reliable picture today of what Europe will look like in 20 or 30 years – it is quite possible that this will once again bring completely unforeseeable changes.
Therefore, if not only because of this, the argument that joining NATO is not necessary because we are surrounded by NATO members anyway is just as correct as it is worthless. Because that could change within the next few decades, just like Europe’s geopolitical statics have changed since the 1980s – who knows. Relying on the status quo to last forever and beyond would be a manageably smart security policy.
In addition, the “We are surrounded by NATO” argument also applies to a dozen other NATO members, from France and Germany to Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands to little Luxembourg, which is why none of them would dream of it think of leaving the alliance. What applies to Austria also applies to them: no other way offers anywhere near as much security as the mutual assistance obligation provided for in the NATO treaty, which has led to the fact that in the past six decades no NATO state (apart from the Special case 9/11) was attacked militarily. Swedes and Finns recognized this wisely and drew the necessary conclusions. The fact that Austria refuses to even think about it is a serious strategic mistake.
I guess opinion articles like this is just what we’ll have to deal with for the foreseeable time.
If Austria were to apply for NATO membership, I wonder what bullshit reason Turkey would come up with to veto it.
If I was Austrian, I would be a bit concerned about the eastern border.
i mean it kinda is , your basically getting all the “pros” of the alliance without the commitment in terms of spending goals and going to war
> A model that does not exist anywhere else in Europe,
looks at ireland
Austria was there before long before nato.
All the newspaper hacks are running the same ‘neutrality question’ bait for every European non-nato country since the Finland thing.
What he really means is we dont want to piss off our benefactor.