Media Governance and Industries Lab Blog

By Heinz Gärtner

*This blog post is part of the Jean Monnet Chair of European Media Governance and Integration series curated by Wagner Piassaroli Mantovaneli

The concept of neutrality has proven time and again that it can adapt to new situations. What are the big new challenges after the end of the Cold War? They are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; terrorism, which potentially holds new dangerous dimensions in combination with proliferation; fragile and dysfunctional states, which can be breeding grounds for terrorism, a source of uncontrolled immigration, and a source for the development and dissemination of organized crime. They also contribute to the loss of important economic areas. Small neutral states are well suited (in many ways better than other states) for making an important contribution to the fight against these new dangers. Small neutral states sometimes show higher acceptance than members of alliances. Assistance for reconstruction and humanitarian aid efforts in war-torn countries can happen within the framework of the UN, the EU, the OSCE, or the NATO-Partnerships. The possibility for participation in the foreign policy and crisis management of the EU is explicitly permitted. Neutral states are also part of robust deployments such as these within the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP).

From 1975 until the end of the Cold War, small neutral states offered mediation and good offices and fought against the stagnation of the détente policy, especially in the framework of the CSCE. After the end of the Cold War, the small neutral states became active in peace operations outside of military alliances. In many ways, neutral states have more room for maneuvering than members of alliances or big powers. They enjoy more recognition and have fewer geopolitical interests. Neutral small states in the twenty-first century do not encompass evading conflict but much rather engaging in it. In contrast to disengagement and evasion, engaged neutrality entails active participation of small states in international security policy in general and in international peace operations in particular. Small states’ engaged neutrality means involvement whenever possible and staying out only if necessary. It goes without saying that there always has to be a balance between engagement and disengagement. When and how much should a neutral small state be involved in or keep distance of a conflict? What is too much and what is too little? These questions are always difficult to address in a complex and volatile security environment. It has to be said, however, that the issue of engagement is not unique to neutral states per se, but rather relates to deeper philosophical and moral questions about issues such as state sovereignty and the use of force. Neutral and non-aligned small states may possess more normative power, however, than the military and economic powers that otherwise dominate the international relations of Europe and the North Atlantic area.

The case of Austria

As the Cold War was about building blocks in Europe and military alliances, neutrality represented the anomaly. Austria managed to stay out of the spheres of influence created by the two military superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. As a neutral state, Austria is well suited for making an important contribution to address the new challenges after the end of the Cold War. Within the spectrum of missions, Austria is developing important niche capability regarding evacuation, support for catastrophes and humanitarian crises (e.g. the construction of field hospitals), peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts (e.g. pioneers), ABC-defense, rescue and security deployments, as well as prevention, stabilization and combat missions. Austria’s “Engaged Neutrality” means active participation in the international security policy in general, and in international peace operations in particular.

Austria as a non-NATO-state could participate in those missions and cooperate with NATO while retaining its current defense profile. Naturally, the fundamental priority of a neutral security policy during security deployments and deployments abroad does not consist of alliance obligations. However, modern neutrality does not exclude cooperation with alliance members or alliances, as long as they can agree on the key issues. Austria shares the basic threat analyses and goals with NATO within the framework of the partnerships, which are not necessarily limited to the institution of “Partnership for Peace” (PfP). In this partnership-context, peace operations are well compatible with neutrality. For Austria the concept of cooperative security provides a framework for political dialogue and regional cooperation, increase military interoperability and prepare for operations and missions.