Since the day Russian soldiers crossed the border into Ukraine, Austria’s neutrality has once again transformed into a highly controversial political topic. Given the increased threat emanating from the Russian Federation, some even contend the Republic’s military non-alignment to represent an expression of cowardice and immorality. Indeed, confronted with a devastating armed conflict, the opinion has been formed across the liberal intelligentsia that relinquishing Austria’s neutral posture does not only amount to a strategic necessity but ultimately a moral imperative. An imperative that until recently only few seemed to care about with regards to the Palestinian people. Alas! Enough of that Whataboutism.
Notwithstanding the prominence of moral judgements, whether real or imaginary, within the neutrality discourse, the relevance thereof for the formulation of successful foreign policy has been questioned for centuries. As has long been established in Realist conceptions of international politics from Machiavelli to Mearsheimer, “principles” alone should never determine policy decisions. Indeed, Kissinger famously argued that “a country that demands moral perfection of itself as a test of its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security”. Yet, Austria’s military non-alignment has not only raised contention due to its moral implications, but also due to its dubious contribution to the country’s national security. Setting aside morality for the meantime, it is important to comprehensively dissect the viability of neutrality from the perspective of national security interests. For such endeavors, Realist conceptions of international politics usually provide a sound theoretical basis. Unfortunately, in most accounts, neutrality is conceived an anomaly, not least to Realism’s intrinsic bias towards Great Power politics. Indeed, small countries that are incapable of providing for their own, are supposed to ally by either bandwagoning or balancing in order to survive.
Yet, throughout history, maintaining a neutral posture likewise emerged as a political strategy to not become involved in wars either directly or indirectly. For instance, Switzerland, despite its limited size and strategically exposed central position, succeeded in avoiding entanglement in the two world wars. In the “Swiss Case” neutrality was widely regarded as the manifestation of security. By insulating a state from superpower rivalry, neutrality may, in fact, offer a policy option that might yield not only greater autonomy but also enhanced national security, though this is always contingent upon external acceptance.
This proved to be particularly valid for the Cold War period. Yet, following the dissolution of the bipolar confrontation, neutrality has again substantially lost significance. Henceforth, particularly in light of increased European integration, neutrality has, for many, come to be perceived as an obstacle to cohesion and collective security. While this issue was not particularly pressing in the overall peaceful European environment of the last decades, it has emerged as a matter of utmost importance for security considerations today, not only for Europe as a whole, but especially for Austria as an individual state.
Security analysts and policy-makers alike have advanced the opinion that neutrality constitutes an inadequate response to confront today’s strategic environment; and given Austria’s poor defence capabilities, it might actually compromise national security. Indeed, many, among them the current foreign minister, suggest that “neutrality alone does not protect”. While this is certainly true (as exemplified by the invasion of Belgium in the Second World War), it intrinsically leads to the flawed conclusion that alliances would do so in all cases. Yet this flip side of alliances is largely omitted from the current security discourse.
The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics provides a comprehensive theoretical framework to evaluate such claims. Indeed, in forming and maintaining alliances, states are confronted perpetually with the necessity to balance between abandonment and entrapment. The former refers to the risk in which an ally is left unsupported in the event of an armed attack, while the latter captures the danger of being drawn into a war to one’s own detriment. Enhancing commitment to allies conversely reduces the risk of abandonment, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of entrapment, and vice versa.
To apply these assumptions in order to dissect the viability of Austrian neutrality and infer implications for alliance commitments, it is necessary to evaluate whether increased security provision by means of an alliance would outweigh the cost of entrapment. In tautological terms, whether Austria is more likely to be attacked and abandoned, or dragged into a war, which we assume to occur between NATO and Russia. Taking into account Austria’s geostrategic position, it is assumed that the former appears highly improbable. Indeed, being confined with NATO members on all sides, it is unlikely that there would be an invasion such as the Ukrainian one by Russia. The risk of hybrid threats (e.g., cyber-attacks) prevails irrespective of geographical proximity. Yet, it remains questionable whether countering such threats seriously demands alliance commitment.
However, security experts repeatedly propose that the scenario of an armed aggression on Austrian soil lies within the realm of possibility. With regard to a potential conflict between Russia and NATO, military expert Franz-Stefan Gady recently remarked that Austria’s neutrality “would be over, the moment the first shot is fired”. Gady argues that, in the event of an armed confrontation, NATO would rely on Austrian infrastructure, which would inevitably transform Austrian territory into legitimate targets for Moscow. Although he ironically advances the argument to portray neutrality as an anachronism or as an illustration of Austria’s vulnerability, in fact, it merely confirms the potential dangers of entanglement.
Thus, a potential attack on Austrian soil would occur not in spite of neutrality but precisely because of a lack thereof.
However, this should not imply that continuing to free-ride on an external defence apparatus without membership amounts to a viable long-term strategy for national security. Indeed, upon closer examination, such attempts can without doubt be considered misguided. Maintaining neutrality, in fact, demands to be protected by a healthy military corpus. The “Swiss Case” illustrates that an armed and internationally recognised deterrent stance represents an imperative in perpetuating neutrality. Given the pitiful state of the Austrian army, it will hence be advisable to prioritise a policy of military capability enhancement not in spite of non-alignment, but precisely because of it, ultimately to provide for an extensive deterrence strategy of comprehensive armed neutrality.
Written by Elias Ritter, Edited by Leo Hirnschrodt
Photo Credit: Sgt. Patrik Orcutt (Uploaded September 20, 2021) on Wikimedia Commons
