posted on the web on March 28 2003

Country Data

Full Name: Republic of Austria Capital: Vienna Population: 8,169,929(2002 est.) Location: Europe Total area: 83,858 sq km Language: German Ethnic groups: German 88% Religions: Roman Catholic 78%, Protestant 5%, Muslim and other 17% Currency: Euro IGO memberships: EU, UN, WHO, WTO Internet site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Source: CIA World Factbook

There is by far no homogeneity in Europe on the Iraq-issue. The war with Iraq, the 5th poorest country in the world, has split the European Union in an unprecedented manner. Europe was and is deeply divided by political rifts. This political division of Europe is still present and in everyone’s mind and also refers to the EU-candidate countries, all of which support the US. One of the members of this European anti-war camp is Austria, and to its stance on the war I will now turn. This article will conclude by addressing the wider framework of the war by looking at the role of media in foreign policy and the veto-behaviour of the United States in the SC in the years following the end of the Cold War.

Austria always endeavoured to take all measures necessary “to give peace a chance” for war should be used as a last resort only. Its position on the Iraq-war centres on the viewpoint that a “diplomatic window” is still open and that this opportunity deserves utmost attention. But is this stance not naïve, oversimplifying the situation on the ground and the complex realities of international relations? Bringing the UN into the argument, Austria was in favour of a 2nd UN-resolution. Military action in the framework of the war against Iraq would only be justified based on yet another resolution. But, again, doesn’t this highlight the ambivalent and somewhat hypocritical Austrian position considering that they wanted to give diplomacy another chance to avoid war? The universally known formula was in principle a 2nd resolution = war. Austria claimed that all members of the Security Council should support a 2nd US-brokered resolution to save the SC from further criticism and widespread demands for reform. And on the other hand Austria would want to grant the international weapons’ inspectors more. It would only support military action if it was supported by yet another UN-resolution - Austria would certainly not allow the use of Austrian air-space without a resolution, and even if there was one, the use of our air-space for US-UK military purposes would hinge on the wording and the text of this second resolution. Not being a member of the SC, Austria couldn’t have voted on any resolution and sees this as a major difficulty in its diplomatic efforts to reverse a common European position on the war. But with France and Germany occupying one extreme of that diplomatic spectrum, and the UK as well as Spain being firmly in place at the opposite diplomatic end, and the other members “caught in the middle”, a common European position on the war is far from being a realistic option.

When the war finally broke out on March 20th, the 15 largest American news-services have reported a 41% increase in the number of users according to Comscore Media Metrix, a US-based agency providing information on visitor demographics. Reminiscences keep flushing past our experienced eye of the news coverage of key events in the Gulf War and the resulting CNN-effect of the saturation with non-stop news footage provoking major responses from domestic audiences, leading to the inevitable question of whether media footage of distant crises is a factor in causing decisions to intervene in a humanitarian emergency, and, if so, how?

Why, might one ask, does the US not take a similar (strict) position with regards to the human rights violations in Israel as to the brutal military dictatorship of Saddam in Iraq? Moreover, if the US were to refrain from supporting Israeli with the present amount of aid (Israel receives more US-$ in aid p.a. than the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa) and if the US were to decrease its economic and other support given to Israel, this would certainly give a boost to US-Arab relations and be of some benefit to the export of oil to the West. It would also contribute towards moderating the all to negative image in Europe of the political US in the war with Iraq. Looking at now the veto-behaviour of the US in the SC in recent times, 9 resolutions out of 17 were vetoed by the US, and only two 2 by China and Russia respectively. Apart from the 2nd resolution in 1990 (violation of diplomatic immunities in Panama), all the resolutions vetoed by the US concerned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the same note, resolutions that were NOT vetoed by the US, resolutions such as 1441 and the attempted 2nd Iraq-resolution in 2003 come in a long line of other addressing Iraq’s compliance to disarm and that it relinquishes its WMDs. 678, 687, 699, 707, 715, 949, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1194 and 1205 are part of the same process of securing Iraqi disarmament and demand that it complies with the will of the UNSC, whose primary responsibility it is according to the UN-Charter “to maintain international peace and security”.

… the “wind of change” in the Arab world, even though there is little evidence as of now of political reforms or liberalisation, will receive a serious setback by letting the Americans go their own, isolated way … one may wonder if other Arab-states in the fragile state-system in the Middle East will fall like Domino-stones once Iraq has been “liberated” from Saddam Hussein’s regime …

Johanna Weberhofer, an Austrian citizen, is a student at the University of St. Andrews, UK.