Haider reignites debate over EU stance

Date: 02/03/2000

Jörg Haider's decision to resign as Freedom Party leader this week has revived the arguments over whether Union leaders were right to freeze bilateral political contacts with Vienna last month in protest at the far right's entry into government. Simon Taylor assesses the impact of the sanctions on Austrian politics and Union policy-making

Rarely has a policy so divided opinion as the decision by 14 EU governments to give Austria the diplomatic cold-shoulder in protest at the far-right Freedom Party's entry into government in Vienna.

On one side are those who insist that the Union had to act to defend its fundamental principles and that merely warning the new government against flouting the EU's common values was not enough. On the other are those who argue the Union has set a dangerous precedent by seeking to interfere in the domestic political affairs of a member state.

Jörg Haider's decision this week to step down as leader of the Freedom Party has reignited that debate. Those who support the tough stance taken by other EU governments argue that it shows that the decision to isolate Austria is working. Others argue that it is merely a cynical, tactical ploy by Haider to boost his chances of becoming Austrian chancellor one day by distancing himself from the present administration.

So far, the move appears to have had little impact on Union business, beyond souring the atmosphere at ministerial meetings. But Haider underlined the risks inherent in the EU's approach last weekend, before he resigned, when he warned that Austria could block progress on key Union projects such as enlargement if member states continued to ostracise Vienna.

Critics of the move warned from the start that it could backfire: instead of detering Austrian conservative leader Wolfgang Schüssel from entering a coalition with the Freedom Party, it might make him more determined to do so; and instead of discouraging the Austrian people from supporting Haider in future, it could strengthen his position domestically. If ever there was a politician wily enough to convert latent anti-EU sentiment into political advantage, the Carinthian governor is that man.

Since the 14 took their unprecedented decision to take a stand against the new government in Vienna, analysts have been arguing over whether it has achieved any concrete results.

The initiative certainly failed in its first objective - namely, to stop Schüssel from forming a coalition with the Freedom Party - but opinion is divided over whether it has had a significant impact on the new government's policies.

Critics point out that while the declaration which Schüssel and Haider signed before taking office professed noble sentiments about the government's stance towards the Union, it contained little in the way of formal promises. Nor is there much evidence to support claims that international pressure made the coalition's programme for government any more palatable than one the Haiderites might have drawn up without it.

On enlargement - one of the most incendiary issues in Austrian politics - the programme calls for delays after accession before workers from the former Soviet bloc countries are allowed to live and work in existing EU member states. It also argues that environmental and animal hygiene standards in the applicant countries must be brought closer to Union levels before import restrictions are lifted.

But these conditions are not new: the Social Democrats were planning to ask for precisely the same concessions if they had become part of the government at the Ballhaus Platz.

Austria, which has borders with no fewer than four candidate countries, has always been highly sensitive to the impact of taking in new members on its workers, farmers and industry. Vienna had already raised concerns over outdated nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and fought for protection against the polluting effects of higher road freight transport before Armani-clad members of the Freedom Party took office.

Where Haider's party makes its chilly presence felt most is in the stridently nationalist tone of references to the German-speaking minorities in the applicant states and their rights in property disputes going back to the nationalisation of land in the Soviet era.

Such statements highlight the fact that the Haiderites' political philosophy is founded on the assumption of the superiority of ethnic German culture - a stance at odds with the multi-ethnic societies in most EU countries, as British Labour MEP Richard Corbett has pointed out in an analysis of the Freedom Party's own political programme. Corbett highlights worrying statements such as "Austria is not a country of immigration" and "we reject multi-cultural experiments that bear within them social conflicts".

It is impossible to judge at this stage whether the political protests against the inclusion of the Freedom Party in government have reined in its potential extremism - not least because of Haider's oft-repeated trick of saying something outrageous on Monday and denying it on Tuesday - or contributed to his decision to resign.

To date, displays of Union disapproval have been limited to a freeze on ambassadorial contacts in national capitals, walkouts by some social affairs ministers at an informal EU meeting in Portugal, and the French and Belgian finance ministers' decision to wear anti-Schüssel badges at the first Union meeting involving their Freedom Party counterpart this week.

The diplomatic snubs have undoubtedly ruffled feathers within the ranks of the Austrian conservative party, prompting the People's Party's urbane Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner to appeal for normal relations to be restored. "Austrians are European patriots who need the European Union. But the European Union needs Austria too," she said at her first official meeting in Brussels, warning later that cutting off bilateral ties risked depriving Vienna of the information it needed to participate fully in EU decision-making.

But in practice, the decision to ostracise Vienna has not had the knock-on effect on Union business which some feared so far. This is not all that surprising, given that the move was carefully designed to ensure that the day-to-day working of the EU was not disrupted: the Union's consensus-based approach to decision-making means that isolating one country can have disastrous consequences.

The strongest argument for giving Vienna the cold-shoulder is the unconfirmed suggestion that the idea came from Austrian President Thomas Klestil, himself a member of the People's Party, as he sought to dissuade Schüssel from forming a coalition with Haider's party. By giving Schüssel an indication of the international flak he faced, the EU's 14 other member states hoped he would find another solution at the last minute.

The problem they now face is that the pledge they made to freeze bilateral contacts if the Freedom Party joined the government is open ended. This has raised the prospect of years of instability because the 14 have not provided themselves with any kind of 'exit strategy' for ending the sanctions if the Austrian government behaves itself.

Some diplomats insist that abandoning the measures, despite the difficulties continuing them could cause, would give the Freedom Party a political victory to be avoided at all costs. Others say Haider's decision to resign might provide a face-saving way for the other 14 member states to call off their boycott later this year, despite their insistence this week that it would make no difference because Haiderites were still in the government.

Many observers argue that EU governments would have been wiser to follow the European Commission's more cool-headed, even-handed approach to the new government.

Stressing its role as the guardian of the Union treaty, the Commission insisted Schüssel's administration must abide by the EU's "common values of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", but merely pledged to monitor the situation in Austria to ensure that these were not breached.

The tightrope which the Commission has been forced to walk underlines the limits on what can be done if one EU country elects a government expousing policies which are unacceptable to other member states. The existing treaty offers only the 'nuclear' option of suspending a country's voting rights if it is guilty of "serious and persistent" violations of the Union's fundamental values.

Michel Barnier, the Commissioner responsible for the institution's approach to the EU treaty reform talks, has already floated the idea of introducing a formal monitoring procedure in the revised rulebook which would allow the Union to increase peer pressure on countries which failed to comply with its democratic standards. But officials acknowledge the difficulties involved in clearly defining when such action is justified.

It would, in any case, take several years to implement these proposals and they would have to be approved by the new Austrian government itself, as changes to the Union's treaty must be agreed unanimously. Until then, other EU countries will have to steer a careful path between maintaining the pressure on Austria to abide by the Union's principles and preventing the dispute from disrupting EU business.

Major feature. Jörg Haider's decision to resign as Freedom Party leader has revived the arguments over whether Union leaders were right to freeze bilateral political contacts with Vienna in protest at the far right's entry into government. Article assesses the impact of the sanctions on Austrian politics and Union policy-making.