Another European Problem

Another European Problem
by Josh London

I sit staring at my computer screen wondering, wildly, what I shall write about while longing, mildly, for another scotch. The immediate slew of "current events" that come to mind involve idiocies of a rudimentary type: American politics. McCain is doing better than expected, Bush is worried. Gore is doing as well as expected, Bradley is worried. Hilary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for the New York Senate seat, all New Yorkers are worried? or, at least, they ought to be. Still, none of this strikes me as at all interesting -- not without more scotch.

And so I turn to foreign affairs or, excuse me, very foreign affairs. Austria: February, 2000.

Austria's "Freedom Party" leader, Jörg Haider, has said that Waffen SS veterans deserve "honor and respect," that the Third Reich had "an orderly employment policy," and that the Nazi concentration camps were "punishment camps." As one might expect, the nations of the civilized world were less than amused. His statements alone ought to make him only slightly less respectable than Pat Buchanan, but, unlike Buchanan, Haider has apologized for the remarks. He made public relations visits to Israel, Washington (where he visited the Holocaust Museum and met with the Congress on Racial Equality), and New York (where he appeared on stage at a Martin Luther King Day dinner).

But Haider, unlike Buchanan -- very likely to Buchanan's chagrin -- is an Austrian, as was Adolf Hitler. This makes his shows of sympathy for the Nazis especially upsetting. What makes it worse is that he is the leader of his country's Freedom Party, which calls for an immediate ban on immigration and an end to the European Union's expansion (which would make it easier for eastern Europeans to enter Austria). These party positions are deemed compatible, though not exactly equivalent, with racism. As the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, who accused the Freedom Party and Haider, of racism, put it: "We are full of worry for Europe."

Haider's party came in second in recent elections, and is now part of a governing coalition. And this, of course, is worrying the bejabbers out of everyone.

"Why?", you might be wondering. Well, an Austrian government adopting Haider's policies would end the official EU consensus on expansion, and violate the prevailing rhetoric on immigration.

Austria's 14 European Union partners froze bilateral contacts with the new government yesterday in a gesture of disapproval unprecedented -- yawn -- in EU history. As Vienna faced a fresh wave of international condemnation over the inclusion of the right-wing Freedom Party in its government, our government recalled its ambassador and said it would scale back its contacts with the coalition. Earlier, Israel recalled its ambassador in protest and the Supreme Commander of NATO, Wesley Clark, called off a visit to Vienna, apparently after pressure from the main NATO allies.

These latest moves mean that, among other things, no Austrian minister will be received in London, Washington, Paris or Berlin, and no EU or US ministers will visit Vienna. Contacts will, however, continue in Brussels.

The practical effect of protest is, however, quite limited; most government business with the Austrians is conducted at the symbolic level. The EU countries have, however, sent an unusual and, perhaps, powerful political signal of their distaste for Mr. Haider and his party. The strength of it is, it must be pointed out, without precedent in post-war Europe. Its principal points:

"Governments of the 14 member states will not promote or accept any bilateral official contacts at the political level with an Austrian government integrating the FPO (Freedom Party)."

"There will be no support in favor of Austrian candidates seeking positions in international organizations."

"Austrian ambassadors in E.U. capitals will only be received at a technical level."

Yet there remains a serious worry that Austria may retaliate by using its power of veto to paralyze important parts of EU decision-making, and there is also considerable ambiguity about what constitutes EU business, and what is purely bilateral. Though most decisions are taken by majority vote, unanimous agreement is required for decisions on tax, foreign policy, and constitutional issues.

Of course, tensions are flaring up. Austria's ambassador to the EU, Gregor Woschnagg -- the son of anti-Nazi activists who fled Austria when Hitler seized power -- has already issued a veiled warning that Austrian acquiescence cannot be taken for granted. As he put it: "the severing of bilateral relations is very dangerous because it can lead to escalation."

The most likely casualty, however, is this year's Inter-governmental Conference, the grand scheme to redesign Europe's institutions for the inclusion of 12 new states. In other words, the EU runs the risk of derailing EU expansion by interfering in the internal political landscape of the sovereign state of Austria (which may or may not wish to embrace the Freedom Party's desire to curb EU expansion).

For years, skeptics of the EU, myself included, have been warning about the costs to sovereignty that membership in the EU could entail. I think it safe to assume that few of them, myself included, imagined that the EU would engage in so early and so blunt an attempt to direct one country's political process. Even the leader of the Austrian Green Party, who has as much love of Haider as I have of Buchanan, is supremely irked. Other left-wing and centrist politicians in Europe will surely join him, once they realize what this could imply for their agendas. If, after all, the EU can gang up on Austria, what about some other small country that wants to diverge from EU policy on interest rates, exchange rates, tariffs or regulations? What if they take exception to, say, some piddling Brussels directive regarding the length of condoms, or the contents of sausage meat?

Some have argued cogently that the EU could increase the possibility of war within Europe. Smaller countries are apt to feel especially frustrated by the loss of sovereignty to an organization in which they have a negligible voice. If so, there will be no way for them to leave. Short, perhaps, of secession; just ask any US southerner what they think of this option.

Why should Americans care? I mean, besides the "humanitarian grounds" type of crap.

Quite simply, because unless and until Europe develops a common defense force totally independent of NATO, the US is inextricably involved in matters of war and peace on the continent. So, in the meantime, if a dispute between the EU and a recalcitrant member should come down to the use of force -- and the stakes have gotten so high, this is not hard to imagine -- America will have to take sides. Don't forget, after all, that the Balkans were supposed to be a European problem too.

So what exactly, you impertinently ask, do I have against the EU? Well, as I see it, nothing so artificial as the Maastricht universe can long endure; it simply cuts against the grain of true allegiance and of real geography. The "idealism" of the sponsors of United Europe has all the frequent faults of idealism: excessive devotion to an aim, disregard of legitimate public feelings, implicit falsification of particular moves. A supra-natural -- though in this case non-universal -- ideology cannot really be a substitute for a progressive, balanced pragmatism. Besides, the French are far to involved for my liking.

The Haider controversy will not, in and of itself, pose such a dilemma. The EU leaders have handled it so ham-fistedly, I'm certain they will back down. It is, however, a good indication of how things are likely to proceed with the EU.