Picture an industry-wide, international meeting of fifteen CEOs, during which one of the participants is sent away from the table to sit in the corner for alleged misbehavior. This is roughly what happened to the Federal Republic of Austria on February 4, 2000, when the other fourteen member states of the European Union (EU) imposed diplomatic sanctions on their little Alpine neighbor.

The making of an outcast
How did Austria, which had maintained neutrality for decades and was instrumental in bringing about East-West détente, suddenly become a pariah? Its democratically-elected representatives formed a new governing coalition comprising the People’s Party (ÖVP) and the Freedom Party (FPÖ), displacing the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ). Critics protested that the EU sanctions amounted to interference in domestic affairs, violating international law and the Union’s own rules.

The European Union considers itself the guardian of democratic values, entrusted with sustaining the peace that has prevailed in Western Europe since World War II ended. In a February 3 resolution signed by 14 member states, the European Parliament condemned the provocative (and, many say, corrosive) rhetoric of Jörg Haider, then chairman of Austria’s Freedom Party. The resolution also said that to form a new government including such a party “legitimizes the extreme right in Europe.” The signatories imposed sanctions that isolated Austria diplomatically and put the new government in Vienna “under observation.” (see CWR, April, 2000, “Rise of a Party, Passing of a Generation”)

Few, it seems, recalled that for forty-five years Austria had been a constitutional democracy noted for its political stability. Furthermore its neutral status made it a haven for political refugees and an important dialogue partner on human rights issues.

In February, Haider recanted his offensive statements of yore. When the coalition was one month old, he stepped down as Freedom Party chairman, while keeping his post as governor of Carinthia. The sanctions continued, despite repeated assurances from the new government that all the political parties in Austria pledged to uphold European democratic values.

The sanctions were diplomatic and largely symbolic, intended to inoculate the European Union against harmful influences emanating from a member-state that had veered to the right. In the popular mind, however, sanctions are equated with economic reprisals, and soon the boycotts began. Austrian-based travel agencies, language schools, and suppliers reported a decline in business, particularly sharp in Belgium, after reckless public statements by several government officials.

Austria promptly responded. In late February its permanent delegation to the EU in Brussels solicited the legal opinion of an international lawyer about eventual commercial consequences of the EU sanctions and the possibility of Austrian firms suing for damages. Common Market and EU rules forbid economic discrimination, so you can’t fight exclusionary ideas with exclusion.

These examples give only the faintest impression of the political passions that were enkindled throughout much of Western Europe. The war of words escalated from day to day, and it seemed that inflammatory political speech, instead of being banished to the province of Carinthia, had become the universal currency.

Dr. Günther Nenning, former head of the Austrian journalists’ union, observed, “Fighting fascism in places where it does not exist is an old anti-fascist specialty.” He added that it too easily becomes a club that can strike anyone. Young voices in the Austrian press asked why the EU ignored far more serious international human rights violations. EU Agricultural Commissioner Franz Fischler admitted that in imposing sanctions, the 14 EU members had violated the principle of audiatur et altera pars—”let the other side be heard.”

Grounds for “suspension”?
Syndicated reports in February showed photos of demonstrations in Vienna against the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition. The fact remains that in Austria’s 1999 elections, the Freedom Party won more than 25 percent of the votes nationwide.

For years the FPÖ has thrived on controversy. After seizing control of the party in 1986, Haider wooed disillusioned voters by attacking unresponsive government bureaucracy and abuses in the welfare state. His strategy was to destabilize the Grand Coalition (Social Democrats — People’s Party), shift public opinion to the right, and thus create a conservative block as an alternative to centralist compromise. Haider’s irresponsible rhetoric and chameleon views made him a thorn in the side for the political establishment. His well-organized party, geared to the young “new middle class,” grew steadily.

Their campaign strategy paid off, but can they cooperate and govern? In his contribution to the Austrian Political Yearbook, Prof. Paul Zulehner says that, in forming the new coalition, the People’s Party meant to “convert” the Freedom Party to democratic European values. He recommends giving them a chance. The rapid modernization of Austrian society has made the government’s social programs more and more difficult to finance; it might take a new coalition to restructure them.

The new Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel of the People’s Party, a strongly pro-life Catholic, has reassured the European Union that his government supports their political project of an open, tolerant Europe. Speaking to the press in Madrid in May, Schüssel insisted that the rights of small EU countries be safeguarded against “the dominance of a few large states.” There must be a clear division of tasks between the European and the national levels. “We cannot accept a Franco-German board of management. . . . They cannot tell us what the Austrian government should be like.”

Statistics show that Catholics belong to all Austrian political parties. Almost 50 percent of those who attend Mass weekly voted for the traditional People’s Party. Less frequent church-goers were more likely to vote for the Social Democrats or the Freedom Party.

The Catholic Church continues to stay out of Austrian politics, while reserving the right to speak on social issues. At their April meeting, the Austrian Bishops’ Conference published a “Statement on Austria and Europe.” The bishops recalled that, except for tiny fringe groups, Austrians are not racists. “Respect for human rights and willingness to help people in need are deeply rooted in Austria.” The Catholic Church supports European unification: “Austria, as a country in the heart of Europe, has a special task to accomplish in this historical development.”

While rejecting “sweeping indictments and also unfair judgments,” the bishops emphasized that Austria “is especially obliged to oppose decisively all symptoms of xenophobia, exclusivity, and political extremism, from any quarter whatsoever.” The statement ended with a call for “verbal disarmament” and dialogue within the European Union.

On several occasions Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna has voiced the Church’s concern about a “decline of the political culture.” He has used his contacts with high-ranking personages in Europe to help bring Austria’s diplomatic isolation to a close. The bishops of France and Italy invited Cardinal Schönborn to participate this summer in pilgrimages at Lourdes and Friuli-Venezia Giulia.

Resolving the impasse
Imposing the EU sanctions was the work of a weekend. Discovering an “exit strategy” has proved to be considerably more complex. On the agenda for the June EU summit in Feira, Portugal, were measures for renewing and restructuring the Union to prepare for the admission of new member-states. Such reforms, however, must be approved unanimously by all fifteen members.

Cynics murmured about Austria’s “potential for blackmail.” Chancellor Schüssel went to Feira, though not to cut deals, but to demand “fairness” for Austria. Interviewed in July, Schüssel stated that the young Freedom Party leaders in the governing coalition, having distanced themselves from Jörg Haider, are now part of Europe’s political mainstream. After five terrible months of sanctions, 71 percent of Austrian citizens still favored EU membership (more than the number that voted in 1994 to join).

In late June the European Union approved a strategy for lifting the diplomatic sanctions against Austria, “unlocking” the door without opening it. A commission of three persons, to be chosen by a Swiss judge, was to prepare a report on the treatment of minorities, refugees, and immigrants in Austria and evaluate the policies of the Freedom Party. Based on the report, the fourteen countries would “re-examine” bilateral relations with Austria.

Chancellor Schüssel assured the EU of his administration’s willingness to co-operate with the commissioners (whom the Austrians dubbed “The Three Wise Men”). Criticizing the lack of a timetable, he urged the other 14 EU states to revoke their sanctions by mid-October warning that, if the situation was not resolved by then, Austria might hold a popular referendum on restructuring the EU.

The Wise Men spent three days in Vienna (July 28-30) meeting with Austria’s chancellor, foreign minister, and president, representatives of the political parties, church leaders, and members of charities that work with refugees and immigrants. The EU Commission declined an invitation to visit Carinthia. On September 8 they delivered their report to President Jacques Chirac of France, who immediately made copies available to leaders of the other 14 EU member states.

The Wise Men’s report recommends lifting the EU sanctions against Austria (while making no legal judgment as to their appropriateness in the first place). The present Austrian government receives a clean bill of health; in general, FPÖ ministers have exercised their duties in accordance with European democratic values. At the same time, the report severely criticizes the use of ambiguous language by high-level Freedom Party officials over a long period of time and its chilling effect on Austrian freedoms: “The FPÖ has exploited and enforced xenophobic sentiments” during political campaigns; “The FPÖ has also tried to suppress criticism by the continuous use of libel procedures.”

On September 12, the leaders of the 14 EU member states decided to lift the sanctions against Austria.

A more inclusive Europe
On August 4, on the eve of taking office, Hungarian President Ferinc Madl spoke in favor of close ties with Austria, strengthening hopes for Hungary’s entry into the EU in the near future. Despite traditional tensions in the region, Hungary enjoys internal, political, and economic stability and, as an EU member, could help create a peaceful zone in Eastern Europe.

A few days later, Austrian Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner announced that Austria seeks a “strategic partnership” with Central and Eastern European candidates for admission to the EU. She remarked that smaller nations can best further their interests within the larger community through alliances. This policy reflects the geographic, historic, and traditional ties that Austria has with other countries along the Danube. It also represents an effort to offset centralizing forces in the EU with bilateral diplomacy that is more responsive to regional concerns.

At a press conference in Italy last summer, Cardinal Schönborn observed that the issue is not so much “extending the European Union to the East” as it is “making the Union more fully European.” From a Catholic perspective, countries like Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have belonged to Europe for ages. The present EU Charter of Fundamental Rights tends to stress secular, market considerations; it is also important to realize that the subject of human rights is created in the image and likeness of God. Recalling the horrible lessons of 20th-century history, Cardinal Schönborn cautioned, “When the secular authorities become the sole judge of deeds and omissions, even a democratic society can become a pack of wolves.”

The Viennese prelate called for more “transparency” in European Union procedures. Confusion in setting EU norms has produced the spectacle of “lobbyists” attempting to influence the central authorities. This aggravates the mistrust of the authorities in Brussels that is common in broad sectors of the Austrian population. He also noted that behind populist movements lie problems common to all European countries: rapid changes in society and the workplace, unemployment, and increased immigration. He insisted that conflicting interest groups must rely on dialogue, not barriers.

After much soul-searching, Austria voted to join the EU in June 1994. Economic and national security concerns finally outweighed fears of exchanging sovereignty for a freer flow of capital. The break-up of Yugoslavia to the South was a major consideration. Nevertheless, Austria heroically opened its borders to waves of refugees during the Balkan conflicts.

Its refugee policy, in fact, received a better evaluation this year than most other EU nations. In a March 1999 statement on peace, the EU Bishops’ Commission (COMECE) had declared it “obvious” that, despite talk about integrating Europe, the political will to take common action in the area of international migrations was lacking. Franz Küberl, president of Caritas Austria, recently noted that the EU has “become practically a fortress” when it comes to laws regulating political asylum, while little Austria has welcomed 2,000 refugees from Afghanistan.

Preserving democratic values requires vigilance, but evidently there was more sound than substance to the charge that Austria is becoming dangerously “xenophobic”. Most observers concede that the EU decision to impose diplomatic sanctions was hasty, legally unfounded, and counterproductive, having more effect on the reform and enlargement of the Union itself than on Austria’s political scene. Now that diplomatic relations with Austria have been restored, one hopes that this small but strategically positioned nation will participate fully in planning Europe’s future.