Rapporteaur's report by Katalin Dancsi

Haunted by the Phantom of Austria

Introduction

Since February 4 - when the new coalition government of Austria was established including the "right wing populist party with extremist expressions" - the sign of a new phenomenon has appeared on the horizon of the EU's political discourse (Ahtisaari et al p. 27.). It is the 'Haider phenomenon' that has come ghostly to life to shock all the members of EU and the neighboring countries of Austria.

The aim of this essay is to put the 'Haider phenomenon' into historical context, and to find the reasons why it provoked such condemning reactions on behalf of the EU (diplomatic sanctions by the XIVs). We provide, as the roots of special 'austrianness' an overview of the development of Austrian history in the 19-20^th century focusing on the problematic points until October 1999, when Haider's party scored a second position at the elections with 27% for the major surprise of the European Union. We do this in hope of showing up a valid interpretation of the success of the extreme right. Then we will analyze why the so-called EU sanctions were so controversial that even a more disturbing report had to emerge to give an opportunity to the member states to alleviate them.

Historical Background: The Empire

The formation of the Habsburg empire of Central Europe can be dated back to the 16^th century, however it is very hard to determine the exact year, since the emergence of the empire had various stages. The empire of Charles the Vth in the first half of the 16^th century constrained the majority of the lands in Europe, including the German-Roman Empire plus most of the colonies in Latin America. According to the common expression of that time the lands under his control were so vast that he sun never set over them. After his death the Habsburg line was divided into two. The Spanish and the Vienna line went through a completely different development. Our focus is the latter that dominated the German-speaking territories of Europe.

It was also the 16^th century when the Habsburgs have acquired domination over Bohemia and Hungary (including Transsylvania and present Slovakia). After the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks from the southern part of Hungary (1699) the Habsburg Emperors could exercise full power over these territories and of course Austria, including South Tyrol for almost 220 years. (Croatia was annexed united to the Empire in 1878). It was a heavily centralized German dominated kingdom with 57 millions of people from 17 different ethnic groups, and the capital of this vast Empire was Vienna. In addition to this the Habsburgs also possessed the crown of the holy German-Roman Empire.

The Empire reached its zenith at the dawn of modern diplomacy, after the treaty of Vienna (1815) that had put an end to the Napoleon era in Europe. The treaty consolidated The Habsburg Empire as a major power and put it into a position amongst the four big ones. In fact after Great Britain, Russia and France she became the fourth largest empire in Europe. One of the most intrigues policy makers was Metternich in the 19^th century. He was a major advocate of holy alliance, which serves basicly as a forum of cooperation where the big powers divided Europe into influence zones and each power was free to implement her interest in that part of the map. It worked out well, as long as the four major powers were able to cooperate. For half a century the 'concert' sounded without dissonance.

The first three strokes that contributed heavily to the erosion of Austrian hegemony in Central Europe came from the Italians, the Prussians and Hungarians. When Italy and Germany united its dispersed regions, and established their modern nation-states, Austria did everything she could to prevent it. But she was beaten by the new emerging powers (1859 Solferino, 1865 Königgratz) and new players appeared on the scene of international politics. Especially the German unification was a painful pill Austria had to swallow. Until a certain point Austria's hope to be a leader of the unification did not lack any basis. But the unification took place against Austria's interests. The irreversible decline in the Austrian ability to determine her raison d'etat began. Austria has started to loose her former grandness.

The Hungarians were an 'inside' threat to the empire. The effect the forced Germanization produced on the kingdom gave birth to the ethnic national movements in the second half of the 19^th century. Hungarians went first to (re-)achieve sovereignty, but failed. Until 1867 all the ethnic groups were against the German speaking Austrians. They were united, but when the two leading nations (Austrians made 20%, Hungarians made another 20% of the country) signed a reconciliation treaty and compromised the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy was established. The whole administration was split except for the common ministry of defense, foreign affairs and finance. Hungarians became the new oppressors and the ethnic groups started to fight against them also. The heritage of the reconciliation involving only the two major nations caused the ethnic groups to think in terms of creating their own nation states. The historical moment to do this came after World War One when the Monarchy was defeated.

Before the peace treaties were signed the international committee had two opinions about the future of the Monarchy. (1) Austro-marxism contained the idea of a federal welfare state based socialist values instead of going on the national way. (2) The French driven idea (that has finally won) was about the elimination of one geopolitical player (Ferenc Fejtõ). This idea was supported on the one hand by the national groups of the region and on the other hand by President Wilson. It looked like as if his famous 14 points could match with the French idea, Regardless of the fact the principle of self-determination is almost impossible to be implemented to a multicultural context. But the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919, and Austria lost her empire and became a small nation state.

Austrian consciousness

The legacy of the Empire was the double orientation of the country and a disturbed Austrian national consciousness. On one side Austria became extremely wired politically, economically and historically also to the East Central European nations. Simply because she integrated them into Empire. On the other side Austria was able to play the leader's role towards the German speaking territories until the 1860's. That wired her to Western Europe in a cultural and economic sense.

Immediately after the Versailles peace treaty was signed the vital issue discussed by the Austrian elites was the feasibility of a small (8 million inhabitants) nation. Is a country so tiny possible at all? It is clear that there was no Austrian consciousness without the Empire. But once the monarchy was dissolute, Austria was not able to act a s a major power anymore.

Austria is a German speaking and ethnically German country, but the locus of 'Germanness is outside the country. They were excluded from the German (Prussian) national identity. Moreover, the German language itself is very dispersed. There is a high-German, there are several dialects (including the Austrian) and the Swiss German. (The spell checker in Microsoft Word differentiates Austrian, Liechtenstein, Swiss, Luxembourg and standard German.) Theoretically they are all varieties of the same language, but they can cause severe communication problems to users. Besides the language religion also divides the country and the potentially united German consciousness. Bavaria and regions south to it are catholic, thus the northern parts are Lutheran. Austrians were looked down upon by the Germans without their empire. The name "Österreich" (Eastern Empire) proves Germany's condescension towards them.

Post 1918 era: The Tiny Country

The first period of separate and small nationhood did not last for more than twenty years. In 1938 the Anshluss took place. The country literally joined Germany and became a part of it. (Public administration was united.) Austria prefers to victimize herself despite the fact that there was an influential pro-German public opinion at that time. This was a new and unconventional way for Austria to find an Empire for herself again (or the Empire found her).

In 1945 the allies gained victory over 'enlarged' Germany, and Austria regained her sovereignty in 1955 with the ratification of the state treaty. The treaty entered into force as the constitution of Austria. It proclaims perpetual neutrality of the country, the withdrawal of soviet groups and it prohibits joining to Germany.

Austria takes advantage on her geographical location and found a new role, perfectly fitting a small nation. The role had three components. (1) Being geopolitically on the border of two opposite blocks, Austria was able to secure her independence and neutrality guaranteed by both sides. (This act seemed an unreachable desire for neighboring countries further East) (2) The country took the favourable position of the inter-block mediator, acted as a bridge using her traditional ties to ECE and Western Europe. Austria was admired for bearing the confidentiality of both super-powers in political sense. (The international community rewarded her with the establishment with a UN Headquarters in Vienna.) (3) Economically Austria became the appendage of Germany. Besides Finland, Austria produced one of the most spectacular economic growths during the cold war. Its GDP was 23.400 USD/capita in 1999 with 4.4% unemployment (CIA World Factbook, http://www.cia.gov).

Tourism is a key economic factor in Austria's success. Austria is the number 10 on world top list (see table 1). If we look at the table, we see that the countries ahead of Austria are larger, so compared to the size of the country the importance of tourism is really high. The number of tourists in Austria is higher than in Germany.

1. Table: The World's Top Tourism Destinations, International tourist arrivals. Source: http://www.infoplease.com

The Austrian corporate economic system was widely praised by the world, because the government, the chamber of commerce, the chamber of employers together figured out the basic numbers (unemployment, inflation rate) of the country every year. This system resulted in a high social harmony with incredibly low protest. The favourable status quo collapsed in 1989 when the iron curtain was eliminated.

Recent Developments: The Success of FPÖ

The advantageous position was gone after 1989, the Austrian dream was over. The country had to face to a completely new political and geostrategic situation. The basis of the 35 year old "post-war dream identity" were about to collapse. The mediator status moved to countries further east, the neutrality started to lose its crucial importance as the military threat of the Soviet Union disappeared, only the economic ties to Germany seemed to flourish. Austria had to find a new role again. Joining to the European Union looked to be the solution to overcome the difficulties.

Austria applied for membership in 1989 and gained full access in January 1995. The two forces that opposed the accession were the extreme left and the extreme right (FPÖ). Opposite to the official government rhetoric which labelled the negotiation process as accession (Beitrit ?) they used the word joining (Anschluss) to express their contrary opinion by using the negative connotation of this word.

In the political sphere one could witnessed the change of people's preferences. The traditional government coalition of the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the conservative People Party (ÖPV) controlled the country for 17 years. Workers were taken granted to vote for the Social Democrats. But the biggest looser of the election in 1999 was exactly these Social Democrats, however they still got the largest percentage of votes (33%), but it was not enough to form a government alone. 47% of workers voted for the Freedom Party (FPÖ). (www.ce-review.org/00/13/essay13.htm p.4). The FPÖ became the second largest party in Austria, by attracting people from the lower-middle class. Mr. Jörg Haider emerged to the top position of FPÖ in 1986 and since that his party has succeeded in gravitating mainly 'blue-collar' voters.

What happened? The disenchanted voters went for the only party that talked about social issues and pointed to a group (foreigners) as the source of all social problems. How could a xenophobic party achieve 27% of the votes? According to the logic of the 'three wise men' report Austria has received one of the largest influx of immigrants and refugees since the end of the war. (Ahtisaari Frowien Oreja /2000/) However the report doesn't say this, but implies that the immigrant were unable to assimilate, this caused problems.

"In the aftermath of the crisis in Hungary (1956) in Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1980/1981) about 375.000 refugees were granted asylum in Austria. Following the civil war on the territory of the former Yugoslavia 115.000 refugees were admitted to the country. Austria has in fact received the highest per capita number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia of any EU Member State. The Austrian Government estimates that since 1945 more than two million refugees have come to the country, 650.000 of whom have stayed there permanently, making up about 9% of the total population. Located at the external boarder of the European Union, Austria is among the countries in Europe which receive the highest number of application for asylum in proportion to the size of their population. According to the statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) more than 20.000 application were lodged in Austria in 1999. In EU perspective Austria ranks sixth in total numbers (after Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium and France). Viewed in relation to the population of each country this puts Austria together with the Netherlands with the third highest rate (after Luxembourg and Belgium). The EU average in 1999 was 0.98 application for asylum per 1000 inhabitants; the Austrian rate 2.49." (Ahtisaari et al p.10-11)

It's clear that the figures are alarmingly high in Austria's case. However we wish to indicate that the situation is more complex with immigrants. The report doesn't take into consideration the large amount of undocumented workers coming mostly from the post-socialist country for economic reasons. The discourse on them has some sort of similarity to that in US with the Mexicans. But what is the problem with illegal workers. Certainly not the quality of their labour. In tourism and construction industry they have been present for 30 years as maids, cleaning personnel in Bed and Breakfast motels or road workers. Moreover Austria is among the main investors to East-Central European countries. Austrian enterprises prefer this area precisely for its skilled and still cheap workforce. The problem with them is their large number that is hard to neglect and they are represented as threat to the community. The only prospective they are perceived is the labour status, they are not treated equally. They are excluded from political rights and basic social security. If the undocumented labour force were to be pulled out of the country, the Austrian the economy (especially tourism) would face to serious difficulties. But a populist and demagogue party (FPÖ) still can channel the fears of disappointed inhabitants against the weakest group of society, the foreigners.

The same logic works in connection of the enlargement of EU. Not surprising the Freedom Party opposed it when the election took place. This is the modern version of the 19^th century colonialist attitude: let the poor foreign people work for us without recognizing their equality.

The 'EU Sanctions' and the Report by the 'Three Wise Men'

On February the 4 the 14 member of EU froze bilateral contacts with the new Austrian government in a gesture of disapproval. In addition the partner countries decided to deny any support for Austrian candidacy in international organization. The measures were purely bilateral, on EU or supranational level contacts continued in Brussels. That is way 'EU sanctions' are in quotes. It's not surprising that France and Belgium were the two states who demanded the toughest 'sanctions' to achieve the withdrawal of Freedom Party from the coalition because in these two countries the far-right is strengthening also. The boycott, which was rather symbolic than practical was contradictory from the first moment because it was the first time EU member states questioned the right of another member state to form her government based on democratic elections.

Eight months later the EU member states found a 'face-saving' formula for lifting the diplomatic 'sanctions'. The establishment of the panel of the 'three wise men' was the compromise. Their job was to monitor the work of the new government in terms of the rights of ethic minorities, refugees and immigrants and to examine the evolution of the political nature of FPÖ. Melinda Kovacs carried out an analysis on the report and her reading of it can be summed up the following way. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/)

She started her remarks with the common name applied to the writers of the report. The phrase 'wise men' alludes to the Magi especially specially because there are three of them. In a really warped extension either Austria or the FPÖ or Mr. Haider himself would be a baby-Christ-like figure.

She points out that the three wise men spent a total of three days in Vienna to assess the situation and to write up their report. This is quite a speedy procedure by EU standards - in case of the applicant countries several years are required to see what the attitudes are in a place. While in the case of a member three days were enough.

The report also defines Europe as a bunch of values -she argues- but the three wise men at least attempt to define those. The list of fundamental rights and freedoms as the common heritage of Europeanness is an evolutionary category. It started with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status". The meaning of color is unclear, its difference from race even more so, and ethnicity is missing from the list. By the year 2000 sexual orientation made it to be on the list of prohibited basis of discrimination. So did ethnicity. The convention itself is relevant, because it is lifted into the Austrian constitution n its entirety. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.4.)

Constitutionality and law on the books is the general framework of the report. This is significant in the context of what we know about the EU communicating about (with) applicants. (Kovacs /2000/, Kabachnic /2000/) If a country wants to become a member than its population's attitudes are measured against European norms. While in the case of a member only the legal system is scrutinized.

She notes that in discussing Austria's commitment to the rights of minorities the list of national minorities includes the Roma - which raises the question of who or what they are supposed the be the nationals of, as Roma. There are two disturbing sources of estimated numbers of minority communities in Austria. The first is based on language use reported on a census. The numbers from that are very low. The other set of numbers is quoted without saying where they come from. Again, the approach is solely law on the books - the attitudes of Austrians towards minorities do not enter the picture, however that is what would be revealing to us. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.7.)

She remarks that a striking distortion happens when the report quotes the constitution. The report talks about the commitments of Austria to minority group rights in stronger terms than the constitution does. The report says that a "specific constitutional obligation to promote the existence and activities of the national minority groups became part of the Austrian constitutional law". (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.9.)

On the other hand the Austrian legal system does not have provision for the "new minorities" of migrants, but that does not trouble the wise men since other European countries also do not have those provisions. According to her explanation this is why the achievements of the EU members' count: they are the basis of comparison. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.9-10)

She explains that the discussion of the FPÖ is framed in such a way that only its departures from the European norms matter. There is a legal prohibition in Austria on national socialist organizations. And the constitutional court has not questioned the legality of the freedom party, so it is legal, it is not a national socialist. The logic is based on the assumption that if the legal system has not pointed something out, then it does not exist. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.21.)

In the report the thing the FPÖ is guilty of is language-states Kovacs. They use it ambiguously and although there are other groups in the EU with similar language, they are guilty because they are the second biggest party in Austria. The ministers of FPÖ have not restored to problematic language, but the party has remained the same in the government as it was before. According to her observance language use should be a minor problem in the framework where the main focus is formal and legal positivism. It would not be a minor problem in a discursive analysis based framework, but this report is clearly not that. The FPÖ has been suing everyone critical of it for libel. Of course libel is linguistic behavior bumped up into the court framework, and therefore it becomes a problem for wise men. The only domain that is relevant is still the legal one. It must also be pointed out, that what the FPÖ and the writers of the report are doing is the same thing: taking into consideration the legal system only. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.27.)

The discussion of libel procedures prompts the wise men to use the US Supreme Court as an example. So Europeanness is a set of norms and values that is really not geographically restricted, and even the US makes sense as an illustration of how courts find that suits to protect politicians. (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.29.)

Finally Kovacs recognize the evaluation of the FPÖ to end with the type of language that the EU often engages when discussing applicants: wait and see. The evolution to responsible governing force is a possibility for the FPÖ, but "such an evolution is not clear from the comparatively short record available so far". (Ahtisaari et al /2000/ p.31.) The wait and see language comes back in the conclusion of the report. It nevertheless recommends that the XIV end their sanctions. The wise men also recommend that a value test be established for members. In what seems quite an impossible idea, they suggest that members ought to be monitored for their ongoing commitment to European values.

Th e Phantom of a 21^st century Nazi Party

The problem with Haider - as Peter Schwarz suggests- is not that EU government are offended by his personality. As the minister of the Carinthia state he has been working in Brussels in the regional committee without anybody worrying about it. Nor its xenophobic nature is the intolerable about him, because to a certain extent every country is persecuting discrimination against foreigners in everyday life. He is dangerous because he is a sign that the establishment controlled by the traditional parties (Social Democrats and conservative Christen Democrats) is shaking. EU governments see their future is Austria. Social tension is rising, the challenge of globalization is becoming more and more complex and the influence of the traditional ruling elites is falling. Which country will be the next? It might be Belgium with the Vlaams Blok (which has recorded some success on local government elections on 9 October 2000 in Antwerpen) or France with Le Pen's National Front. And there are more options: Denmark's xenophobic People's Party, the Swiss People's Party, not to mention those extremist parties which are member of the government (Umberto Bossi's Northern League and the Norwegian Progress Party). (www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/haid-f22.shtml)

The trouble with Haider is that he explicitly and openly says things what people only dare to think and politicians do without naming it. (Tamás, Gáspár Miklós /2000/) He does nothing else just consequently addresses those specific issues other politicians were not willing even to talk about because those are too hard to solve or don't want them to be solved. This is the case with the illegal workers and the EU's eastern enlargement process. Regardless what people want to happen in these spheres, for some economic reasons cheap labor force is vital to an economy and the enlargement is also vital to gain control over new resources and a market. The EU is the project of the elites. Mr. Haider is not allowed to prevent these interests from winning. However in the long run Mr. Haider will disappoint his voters because he addresses social issues only for gaining more votes, as a real demagogue but these problems are beyond his capacity of solving them.

The EU government were in trouble if a Haider sort of coalition would work out well. The 'sanctions' were introduced because they were scared that a proto-nazi coalition could run the country just fine. What would the Socialist look like then? If we brainstorm for a minute about the question how a 21^st century, modern pro-nazi phantom (person organization or state) could be like if we take out anti-Semitism and extermination from the characteristics of Nazism we have to conclude that there are several current examples matching the description. Even the 'fortress building' EU, whose major characteristic is the exclusion of others has some similarity to a nazi state except for the important fact that the EU is not a state yet and EU has no own military force which would be essential feature of (nazi or not) statehood. However it is still alarming that a Haider sort of government would work successfully within EU framework.