\Ve now turn from the presentation of neutrality on the national holiday to the wal' neu-trality features during various criscs in foreign policy. Doing so, we move from a context whlch implicitly fosters the prescntation of unity (and thus lack of conRict) to one, in which conRict is present and conRict on various issues is newsworthy and mal' be openJy expressed. In looking at these conRicts, we will analyze (a) whether neutrality was an issue at all, (b) what positions on neutrality were pre ent(ed), (e) who taok whieh stanee on ncutrality, and (d) which paper promoted whieh vision on neutrality.
The investigation comprised a detailed analysis of the reporting of the following ycars/events in foreign policys. Eaeh of these events questioned (or eould have ques-ooncd) Austria's neutral status:
• I956: The uprising in Hungary
• I968: The Praguc Spring (Soviet invasion of Czeehoslovakia in August I968)
• I98I: Poland (Declaration of martiallaw in response to the demands of Solidamosc - the representative organization of the trade unions).
• I989: Request to join the EC (EU)
• I992: Use of Austrian air-spaee by NATO planes
In seleeting the e e\'ents, we intentionally excluded a more in-depth investigation of the dlseourse on Europcan Community membership, beeause of the large amount of
mater-.. One might speculare, whether the elecnon ofThomas Klestil for presldent was also mfluenced by rhis dis-CUISI\'e "gap", wruch he W35 hkely ro bndge (realigrung the posioon of the presldent agam \11th the ongomg pro-EC dlscourse).
5 These events are exanuned m greater detail in Kann uebhan's chaprer (clus volwne - hisroncal o\'ef\,ew), and so the accounr gwen here 15 brief.
Gertraud Benke
ial on this subject and the availabiliry of several excellent studies (e.g. Schaller 1994, Rinderer 1995)'
Once the events had been selected, we looked at reports published in the period of two days before until six days after the key events. Any article that either addressed the event or related to neutrality was included in the analysis. The newspapers investigated were:
Kurier, Die Presse, "Yeue Kronen-Zeitung (from 1968) and Der Standard (from 1989)' The folluwing comprises the results of the investigation in chronological order.
1956
The reforms of the Soviet Communist Party und er Khrushchey gave rise to ho pes for a liberalization in the countries of the eastern bloc. At a demonstration on 2
r
d of October1956, Hungarian students expressed their solidarity with striking Polish workers and at the same time called for greater democratic freedoms and Hungarian independence (the Soviet army had been stationed in Hungary since the end of the Second \-'-'orld \,\Tar).
The demonstration turned into a popular uprising, wruch was joined by parts of the army and police force. Imre ~agy, a reform-Communist, established a new governrnent and demanded the withdrawaJ of Sm-iet troops. He then introduced a multi-party system, left the Y\Tarsa\~ Pact, and declared Hungarian neutrality. Moscow reacted with military force, deplo]-ing tank uruts. The uprising was put dmm after bloody street battles. Imre
~ agy was detained (two years later he was executed) and a Communist govemrnent backed by \10scow was established.
Both of the rwo newspapers wruch we examined ga\'e substantial coverage to the events in the neighboring country. Many of the articles concentrated on the portrayal of events in foreign countries ~-ithout reference to Austria. Other articles concemed the re-actions of Austrian poJiticians and the Austrian public, as weU as the effects of the crisis upon Austria. In the analysis of this event as weIl as of the others, our attention was fo-cused on articles that contained some reference to Austria or related to the Austrian self-image and Austrian foreign policy. \,\'e naturally concentrated on the discussion and rep-resentation of neutrality (whether and where these were present).
Die Presse
21. 10. 21. 10 23. 10 24.10 25. 10 26.10 27. 10 28.10 29.10
Total number of arucles SC I 4 8 12 12 SC
ReportS on foreJgn affaJrS 2 6 - 6
Reference to Ausma 2 2 5 6
="eurra!iry 2 I
Key: SC ... Sunday. ="0 paper appeared.
0."eurrahtpn Austrlan 0."ewspapers in rhe econd Republjc I59
In Die Presse, the number of reportS on forelgn affaIrS only slightly exceeds the number of arti cl es that relate to Austria. :-\eutrality is rarely mentioned.
Articles "relating to Austria" comprise of articles describing the role of Austrians in the events and their offers of assistance (25, 27, 28 October), security measures and other events along the Austrian bord er (25,26,27,28), and the consequences for Austrian Commurusts. On 28& October there are reportS about the demonstrations ofHungari-ans In Austria, a statement by the national organization of Acadernics (Akademikerbund), and a plea for asslstance. ReportS in the newspapers of events as described by Austrians returmng to Austria from Hungary were considered "reportS on foreign affairs" for the purpose of analysIs .• '0 attempt was made to divide these reportS into two groups on the basis of whether they were reportS about e\'ents in Hungary or reportS about the reac-tions of other countries to the events in IIungary).
Two factors are very noticeable in the reportS: first, the low frequency of references to neutrahtJ" and second, at the level of content, expJjcit support for the "freedom-fighters"
in Hungary. In \;ew of the fact that Ausrna had oilly just become "neutral" (in I955), and that there were long discussions in the public domain of what neutrality would imply-wh ether Austria would now have to refrain from voicing any opinion - , the extent to which the newspapers take up positions is highJy surprising. However, most of the nor-mal "pubuc voices" are largely absent in this di cour ei statements by federal chancellor Raab or by other top politicians are rare. \\ 'here the reportS concern Austria, only the
"voice of the people" is made known.
This suggests the folJowi.ng: in I956, neutrality was still not an issue for the general publici ordInary Austrians did not think of themselves as neutral. The silence of the politicians might indicate a feeling on their part ofbeing restricted either by neutrality or by the general world-wide political situation (including the fear that Soviet forces rnight reoccupy Austria). Thus, in this insrance, the discursi\'e location of the politicians is different from that of the people, but no identitJ' discourse on neutrality is present in ei-ther case.
In the follo~;ng, we shalJ brieAy examine three quotations on neutralitJ, as well as a seCDon of text containing the most important positions on the crisis,
I. 27.IO. "Austria'ssympathy"
On the occasitm 01 the Da)' 01 tbe Austrian Flag, a celebration was held b)' the Association 01 Trades' Unions in the Concert Hall. President BOlml declared that the celelTration was a pro-fession 01 luyalf) to the de7710cratic constitlltion. The signifoance oineutrality and the signif-icance 01 the freedom and independence 01 anation, we are experiencing with devastated hearts m these do)'s.
160 Gertraud Henkt
In this quotation, neutrality appears syntagmatically with "dernocratic constitution" and
"freedorn and independence". Inasrnuch as neutrality had no clear political function at this time (the policy of"active neutrality" was practised only at a later stage), one rnay as-surne that the sigruficance of neutrality is restricted to its role in the establishment and rnaintenance of the rnuch-valued freedorn and independence. Given the conflict in Hun-gary, one's own "freedorn" acquires an even greater value, and neutrality also receives a positive evaluation as a successful means to an end. (The situation is very different in the presidential speeches of later years when neutrality appears to be sirnply a price that rnust be paid. Cf. chapter on presidential speeches, this volume)
2.27.10. Archbishop König: Donate for Hungary'
In an appeal, the Archbishop ofVienna, Dr. Fran::. f{jjnig, called upon believers to pra)' and make sacrifoes for the brethren in Hungar)' and Poland. The appeal states that howeve1' the blood)' confiicts are concluded, the suffering that was already present will now increase to an zmbearable level. The neutralit)' of Austria and the links of Austria with these countries through history and geographical proximity i111pose a doubly-grave obligation uponAustria at this hour.
It is possible that assistance from the western countries will not be accepted. Assistance fro?ll12eutraIAustria, howev(!J; which is not tied to any political conditio12S, cannot be turned
down b)' an)' regime. (. . .)
This appeal b)' the Archbishop ofVienna expresses what countless Viennese people have been thinking in these days: the obligation to offer assistance in recognition of a shared part stretch-ing back man)' hundreds of years, the close personal relations that still exist even today be-tween Austrians and Hungarians, and the fare of Hungary, which Austria has been spared."
Interestingly, it seems that neutrality is first used for political purposes by the church and by Archbishop König.
Linguistically, neutrality is seen not as a means to a (past) end, but almost as an end in itself, as something we should strive to be (like). Neutrality (as astate of being) imposes a moral obligation upon "us" to take certain (moral) actions. In this formulation, neutrality takes on the role of agent; as the patient "we" or "Austria" receive a task (as in the presi-dential speeches of 1974). The formulation chosen here connotes neutrality (as such) rather negatively. As has already been described in the chapter on the presidential speeches, this formulation is used to describe an "enforced situation": instead of our do-ing somethdo-ing voluntariJy, we are actually forced to do sornething by a certain external agent (i.e. neutrality). The less than matter-of-fact nature of this responsibility ("Verpflich-tung": here the lexeme "Pflicht" - duty/obligation - indicates the potentially involun-tary character) is also apparent through the subsequent explanation that is considered
:-; eurrallt} m '\usman "ewspapers in the Second Repubhc 161
necessary. If something is obvious, it does not have to be explained. A special status for ustria is established discursively through reference to neutrality, and then a (moral) du!}'
IS denved from this special role6.
Slgruficantly, In the follm.ving extract ("the archbishop expressed what many Austrians are thinlang ") the reference to neutrality is left out. The motivating elements noted now are of a qUlte different nature: personal contacts, emphasis on shared aspects through ref-erence to common history. 1'.'eutrality is not mentioned as a motivating factor - proba-bly just because neutrality has not yet become a motivating factor for the people.
The "moral" appeal is effective (in the representation of the newspaper; it will be men-tioned agam the following dar), because it meets people's emotional needs - even if ther take aCDon for other reasons.
One can see in this "discursive dualism" the foundation stones of a transfiguration whlch is to take place later on: what takes place at first for very personal reasons, is rein-forced morally - even at this earl)' stage - with a reference to neutrality, which in ret-rospect can remain as the single explanatory component.
3. 28tl October: Commentary: help freedom!
(. . .) "rr e
Jollrr",' the events in HU71gary with great ecmcern and anxiet)', kllrrtVing that our rrll/ll fate u'lll be affected as the situation unJo!ds for better 01' for worse. If the brave HUIl-gan'an nat/on were on!)' to break free of the Rllssiall sphere of infiuenee, that w01lld also be a battle won for A1Istria,for we would move a fair wll)fr017l the olltermost =e of the west-ern wO'rld towards the safet)' of the center.(. . .) The tangibl)' eapitalistie 17lethods with whieh ,\1osCO"tV has undertaken the exploita-tion of the "-tVorking dass" zmder the cover of C01ll17lunism ...
(. . .) It is ineu1llbent upon the most powerful military states of the West to stand b)' the HZlIlgariall people through effective intervent/'on in the politieal and diplomatie field. We A1Istrians, hrrll:ever - citi:::.ens of a neutral cozmtry - have eveT) reason to heed the coura-geolls appeal of the Arehbishop ofVienna and prove our feelings of solidarit)' with self -sacri-ficing deeds. AIl1lleans that are O"rJailable to Z/S os a neutral state 71111St be SlI7J177umed, in order
to belp those u'ho toda)' are standing on the front line in the struggle Jor freedum and who risk their lives for this. They a7'e fighting and d)'ingfor Z/S too,for there is on0' (me freedum in this world, and it is indivisible."
Our last example reveals two things: the explicitness of the support for one party to the conRict and another instance of a reference to neutrality. There is little to add to the first
6 For the morallmphcaoons wluch are atrributed ro neurralit}· in the Ausman discourse of nacionalldenot}·
see also the chapter on focus groups, t1us volume.
Gertraud Benke
observation; the passages are so explicit in their rejection of the "Russian might" and of
"Nloscow" that a linguistic analysis is superfluous. An interesting point in this connection is perhaps the identity discourse (which takes place simultaneously) in which Austria is characterized as the "outermost zone of the western world ". Thus, not only is support dedared for the "struggle for freedom in Hungary" but also - in the self-definition of belonging to the V/est - a political position is taken up as early as 1956 that surpasses an)' kind of "neutrality between the bioes", although of course this position is expressed onl)' by the public media and not by the political elite.
In the second pan, Austria is first marked off from the "most powerful military states of the west" (i.e. we do not belong in that group), and then their role in the conflict is cxposed. There follows a discussion of the role of Austrians as "citizens of a neutral
coun-0)''', which is of course a different role. The description "citizens of a neutral country" is made in apposition, that is, in a manner that is unconnected with the semantic structure of the scntcnce (l leim & Kratzer, 1998). Thus, the pragmatic function appears to lie pri-marily in the reference to the speech of the archbishop. However, in reference to the speech, rather than the moral consequences of neutrality, mention is once again made of the solidarity feit by Austrians (which is not linked to such moral consequences), the deeds are again grounded in "direct" emotions feit for "the neighbor" rather than being mediated by "us" being "neutral".
The key point in this dis course is a struggle for the way to deal (discursively) \\>ith neu-trality: Austria has a special role because of neutrality, but what this 'special role' implies is not at all dear.
THEKurier
21. 10. 22. 10. 23. 10. 24.10. 25.10. 26.10. 27.10. 28.10. 29.10.
Total arncles - I - I 3
-
1 -.
11Forelgn reports I 1 1 6 7
.-\usrnan reference 2 I 4
~eurraliry 1 1
• A speCial edlOon war was unobramable
The repons in the IVtrier relating to Austria were similar to those in Die Presse. Here too, we find descriptions of events at the border (25,26 October), the reaction of the Com-munist Party (25th October), an appeal for help (29th October), assistance measures, and a demonstration of solidarity by writers (29th October). In general, there are fewer refer-ences to Austria in this newspaper than in Die Presse. In particular, there are fewer arti-des about events at the bord er (and the securing of the frontier), and there is no
refer-:\eurrall[}" In AustrIan :\'ewspapers In the econd RepubLc
ence to -\rchbishop Kärug's appeal, although this may be because we are missing the spe-cial edIDon of 28 October.
There are only two references to neutrality; one of these has nothing to do with the up-nsmg m I lungary and just happens to feature in the newspaper during the period under invesogaoon. The second reference comes from a statement by the federal govemment.
25. 10. Raab on Hllngary: "State treat)' gave 1'7Se to neu; desire fol' freed017l"
"The sigmng of the State Treaty was a preconditirm for the striving of the peoples of the SllC-cessol' states of the J IonarchJl for freed071l ", said the federal chancellor Raab when asked for his opinion about the events in Hungary at a reception for Allstrians living in Germarry yes-terda;.
(. . .) U'hen asked whether - in vieu; of the nelltralit)' declaration passed by the .Vational Asse71lbly - Alistria wOlild join a Central Ellropean syste'nz of defense, the federal chancel-lor stated that Austria "could not take part in a military pact f01' the time being".
This article shows both the important role as igned to the State Treaty (even in terms of its effect as a model) and a slightly negative attitude towards neutrality,. 0-'eutrality is pre-sented as ahmdrance, i.e. as something that "stops one from doing something " (i.e. as an external factor that prevents Austria from doing omething) that one would (obvi-ously) like to do. This impression is further strengthened through the use of a temporal restricoon "for the time being".
The second passage - from an article appearing some days later - represents the only substantial political statement on the issue to be made public. As already described in the inve ogation of the reporting of Die Presse, the official stance taken is one of restraint.
29. I O. A cOllrageous appeal by the Alistrian govenl171ent
The Austrian govenrment, which, in vierd) of the events in Hzmgary, had been brought to-gethe'r for a special meeting under the chainnanship of federal chancellor Raab, decided to make an e1uouragingly resolute and courageolls appeal to the Soviets yesterday. The text of thc appeal reads as folIows:
"The Allstrian federal goverr1171ent follows with pain and great conCe17/. the bloody events and heavy losses 'which have been taking place in Hungary during the last jive doys. It llr-gentlyl reqllests the l..lSSR to playapart in bringing an end to the military engagements and in preventing all)' fu rth er loss of lift.
Based 01/ the freedm71 and independence ofAustria that is secured by neutrality, the federal gove17lment of Azzstria calls for a normali:.ation of conditi(ms in Hungary with the aim of
Gertraud Benke
st:rengthening and seCllring peace in Europe through the re-establishment 01 freedo7'll in tenns 01 human l'ights." (. . .)
Nowhere in the passage is Moscow blamed directly (unJike in the commentary investi-gated above). The "events" seem to happen by themselves without any active participants.
The government of the USSR is caUed upon to playa part ("mitzuv.irken") in bringing an end to the crisis. Although this would seem to mean that the USSR does have the pm\ er to act, thus indirectly placing some responsibility upon it, the extent of this re-sponsibility is immediately limited by the verb "mitv.irken". The use of this verb implies that the Smiet Union is not the onJy agent capable of acting; it is not the Soviet Union alone that can bring an end to the military engagements.
The foUm~ing section begins \~ith some self-positioning: from which vantage point is the Austrian federal govemment formulating its position; The first point of departure is neutrality, which has played an instrumental role in the establishment of Austrian free-dom and independence. This point of departure is not linked in any meaningful sense to the next statement. Thus, the purpose (or function) of mentioning neutrality also appears to lie outside the context of this passage. This is definitely not an argumentative back-up to a statement on Hungary. Instead, its purpose is probably to prO\ide discursive support for the status of Austria: Austria is neutral and independent, i.e. irrespective of the out-come of the conflict in Hungary, Au tria sees itself a a overeign state pursuing a poliey that is independent of .\loscow. UnJike Hungary, Poland and other states, Austria is guar-anteed this indi,idual existence through the State Treaty and neutrality.
The formulation of a position on the situation in Hungal)' comes onJy after one's own invincibility has been established. Even then, onJy a minimal statement is made: rather than making a demand or an aceusation, the govemment simply "calls for" something, i.e. a normalization of conditions. The term "normalization" leaves open a whole range of
The formulation of a position on the situation in Hungal)' comes onJy after one's own invincibility has been established. Even then, onJy a minimal statement is made: rather than making a demand or an aceusation, the govemment simply "calls for" something, i.e. a normalization of conditions. The term "normalization" leaves open a whole range of