After Stalin's death, during a respite in Cold War tensions in 1955, Austria managed to rid itself of a quadripartite occupation regime and become a neutral state. As the Cold War continued, Austria's policy of neutrality helped make this small country into an important mediator of East-West differences, and neutrality became a crucial part of Austria's postwar identity. In the post-Cold War era Austrian neutrality seems to demand redefinition. The work addresses such issues as what neutrality means when Austria's neighbors are joining NATO? What is the difference between Austrian neutrality in 1955 and 2000? In remaining apart from NATO, do Austrian elites risk their nation's national security? Is Austria a "free rider," too stingy to contribute to Western defense? Has the neutralist mentalit become such a crucial part of Austrian postwar identity that its abandonment will threaten civil society? These questions are addressed in this latest in the prestigious Contemporary Austrian Studies series. The volume emerged from the Wittgenstein Research Center project on "Discourse, Politics, and Identity," an interdisciplinary investigation of the meaning of Austrian neutrality. The first two chapters analyze the current meaning of Austrian neutrality. Karin Liebhart records narrative interviews with former presidents Rudolf Kirchschlger and Kurt Waldheim, both central political actors present at the creation and implementation of Austria's postwar neutrality. Gertraud Benke and Ruth Wodak provide in-depth analysis of a debate on Austrian National Television on "NATO and Neutrality," a microcosm of Austrian popular opinion that exposed all positions and ideological preferences on neutrality. The historian Oliver Rathkolb surveys international perceptions of Austrian neutrality over the past half-century. For comparative contrast David Irwin and John Wilson apply Foucault's theoretical framework to the history and debates on neutrality in Ireland. Political scientists Heinz Grtner and Paul Luif provide examples of how Austrian neutrality has been handled in the past and today. Michael Gehler analyzes Austria's response to the Hungarian crisis of 1956 and Klaus Eisterer reviews the Austrian legation's handling of the 1968 Czechoslovak crisis. Gnter Bischof is professor of history and executive director of Center Austria at the University of New Orleans. Anton Pelinka is professor of political science at the University of Innsbruck and director of the Institute of Conflict Research in Vienna. Ruth Wodak is professor in the linguistics department at the University of Vienna and director of the research center "Discourse, Politics, Identity" at the Austrian Academy of Science.

From the John Holmes Library collection.

Seminar paper from the year 2016 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,7, University of Lisbon, language: English, abstract: In my paper, I want to investigate to which extent Austrian neutrality is still existing. Is it yet more than a romantic picture of our home country? How has this concept been affected by the membership in various International Organizations, especially the EU? And how does a neutral state cope with its security in a globalized world? My hypotheses are that in the course of time, Austria has quietly given up neutrality in favor of the benefits of being part of the international community. Security Policies are coordinated and in a globalized world, that is continuously moving closer together, cannot work independently. Therefore Austria has to participate and cannot hide behind it’s neutrality.

This book opens new perspectives into the Cold War ideological confrontations. Using Austria and Finland as an example, it shows how the Cold War battles for the hearts and minds of the people also influenced policies in countries that wished to stay outside the conflict. Following the model of older European neutrals, Austria and Finland sought to combine neutrality with democracy. The combination was eagerly challenged by ideological Cold Warriors on both sides of the divide and questioned at home too. Was neutrality risking the neutrals’ commitment to democracy, or did the commitment to the western type of democracy threaten their commitment to neutrality? Confronting these doubts grew into an organic part of practicing neutrality in the Cold War world. The neutrals needed to be exceptionally clear regarding the ideological foundations of their neutrality. Successful neutrality required a great deal of conceptual consistence and domestic unanimity. None of this was pre-given in Austria or Finland. However, in the model of Switzerland and Sweden, (armed) neutrality was systematically integrated with the official state ideology and promoted as a part of national identity. Legacies of these policies outlived the end of the Cold War.

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject Politics - Topic: European Union, grade: 1,0, Charles University in Prague, course: West European Politics and Society, language: English, abstract: This essay is going to examine Austria’s policy of neutrality especially in the light of its implications for the relationship to the European Union. What was once enforced became an important part of national identity and seemed also after the Cold War hindering an accession of Austria to the European Community. Over the past years Austria tried to adapt its principle of neutrality and thereby finally became a full member of the European Union 1995. However, the policy of neutrality is still on the agenda especially concerning the Constitution for Europe. The questions which will be addressed in that paper are: What is the meaning of Austria’s policy of neutrality in general? What did this implied for Austria’s foreign policy and its relationship to European Community? How comes, that this principle is still so important and how does Austria evaluate the Constitution for Europe in terms of neutrality?