Principles of the Austrian Security and Defense Policy and current results for the structure of the Armed
Forces
Captain Rudolf LOGOTHETTI, Austrian Armed Forces Reserve, Senior Researcher, Directorate General for
Security Policy, Austrian MOD
Basic remarks
Nineteen of the member states of the EU are taking part in NATO, while Austria belongs to the 6 member states of the EU which are not members of NATO at the same time. The history and the interests of the 6 members (Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Austria) show very different backgrounds and positions to the question of NATO membership. Austria’s policy of neutrality cannot be compared with the Irish or the Finnish one or with the specific situation of Cyprus or Malta. So you can state that there is no common position and no common strategy of the non NATO members in the EU despite some common initiatives and a “common focus” on ESDP.
Very soon after 1955, the year from which the Neutrality Act dates, Austria left the way of the model of modern neutrality – Switzerland and took part actively in UN peacekeeping operations rather early (e.g. in the early
60th in Congo, in the 70th in Cyprus and the Middle East)
Therefore the Austrian neutrality developed much more in the direction of a non-alignment policy instead of a
Pri nci ples of the Au
strian Secu rity an d Def en se P oli cy
and curren t results f
or th e structu
re of the Ar med
For ces
Captain Rudolf L OG OT HETT I, Austrian A rmed
Forc es
Reserve, S eni
or Res earch er, Dire
ctorat e Gene ral for
Securi ty P oli cy, Austri
an MOD
Basi c rem ark s
Ninet een of t
he m em ber stat es of the
EU are tak ing part
in NATO, while Austr ia be
longs to the 6 me mber
state s
of the EU which
are not m em bers of NATO at
the sam
e mbers the 6 me rests of nd the inte history a time. The
(Sweden, Finland, I rela
nd, Ma lta, C
yprus and Austria)
show very dif fer ent backgrounds and position
s to the question of NATO membership. Austria’s po
licy of
neutrality cannot be co
mpared with the Ir ish or the
Finnish one or with the specific situation of C yprus or
Malta . So you ca
n state tha t the re is no c ommon
position NATO mem gy of the non and no common strate
bers in
the EU de spite some
common init iative
s and a “co mmon
focus” on ESDP.
Very soon after 1955, the year from which the N
eutralit y
Act da tes, Austr ia lef
t the way of
the mod el of mode
rn in UN erland and took part actively neutrality – Switz
peacekeepi ng op
erations rather
earl y (e.
g. i n t he ea rly
th 60 in Cong o, in the 70
in C th
yprus and the Middle East)
Therefore the Austrian neutrality dev
eloped mu
ch more y inste n-alignment polic in the direction of a no
ad of a
classical policy of neutrality according to the model of Switzerland.
Particularly after the end of the Cold War the position of neutrality was questioned seriously but because of domestic politics, consensus could not be achieved. Since the Neutrality Act of 1955 has the character of a constitutional act any change of this act requires a majority of 2/3 of the members of parliament which doesn’t seem to be realistic at the moment.
Not being a member of NATO which is the traditional and by many decision makers considered as the most efficient regional organization of collective security Austria relates her security and defense policy primarily to the European Union.
One crucial structural aspect in the question NATO – EU cannot be overseen: While NATO is based on the principles of inter-governmentality and consensual decision making by its nature the European Union particularly her “finality” offers the option of a development from inter-governmentality towards integration even for the “core” of national sovereignty - foreign, security and defense policy. Depending on the development of the European Union after an aspired Constitutional Treaty – in the direction of a kind of federal state or a specific kind of confederation – and taking into account that the principle of subsidiarity which is already part of such a possible constitutional framework requires the “unification” of ESDP rather than other fields of politics the European Union is the “more open” institution compared to NATO.
classi cal pol icy of neutra
lit y acco rding
to t he model of
Switzerland.
Partic ularl y a fter the e nd of the Cold Wa
r the position of
neutrality w as questioned se riously but bec
ause of
domestic politics, c
onsensus c ould not be a
chie ved. Sinc
e 1955 has the character of a ct of the Neutrality A
constitutiona l act
any ch ang e of this ac
t req uir es a
major ity of 2/3 of the me
mbers of parlia
ment which
doesn’t seem to be realistic at the moment.
Not being a me mber of NATO whic
h is the tr aditiona l
and by man y de
cision makers conside red
as the most
efficient regi onal or
ganiz ation of col lect
ive
security rimaril y p ense polic and def ity Austria relates her secur y
to the European Union.
One crucial struct ural as
pect i n t he quest ion NATO – EU
cannot be overseen: W hile NATO is based on the
princi ples of i nte
r-gov ernment
ali ty and co nsensual
decision making b y its nature the Europe
an Union the option ers off lity” “fina y her ularl partic
of a
development from inter-governm entalit
y t owards
integr ation e ven
for the “ cor e” of nationa l sovere
ignt
y - Depending on the fense policy. rity and de foreign, secu
development of the Eu ropean Union afte
r an aspired
Constitutional Tr eat y – in the dir
ection of
a kind of c kind of confederat e or a specifi stat federal
ion – and
taking into a ccount that the principle of subs
idiarity
which is a lre
ady pa rt o f suc h a possible c
onstitutional
framewo rk requi
res the “ unifi
cation” of
ESDP rather than opean Union is the “ s the Eur ds of politic iel other f mor
e
open”
institution compa red to NATO.
Principles of Austrian security policy
Six years after joining the European Union in 1994 and three years before the ESS ‘European Security Structure’
(better known as “Solana Paper”) the Austrian Parliament (Nationalrat) adopted the actual Security and Defense Doctrine (SVD) in December 2001. On the occasion of the membership negotiations with the EU in the early
90th Austria emphasized already her willingness in “full
participation” even in the 2nd pillar of the Treaty of
Maastricht. The former reacting and territorial bound approach towards security policy and defense was replaced by a new comprehensive view of a multinational, active and preventive security policy directed to stabilization of the political (not so much geographic) environment.
General Considerations
Security in all its aspects is a prerequisite for continuance and functioning of a constitutional democracy as well the economic well-being of society and its citizens.
Therefore security policy is a paramount political duty of the state. Under the current circumstances this duty has to be designed and realized as a “comprehensive security policy”. Austria’s effort is aimed at the prevention of violent conflicts. Therefore its security policy is directed at the prevention of war and peaceful coexistence of nations – based on the Charter of the United Nations, on international conventions for the protection of basic- and liberty rights, on the Convention for Protection of Human
Pri nci ples of Austri
an secu rity p
oli cy
Six yea rs a fter joinin g t
he European Union in 1994 and
three years b efor
e t he ESS ‘European S
ecurity Str uct ure’
(better known as
“Solana Paper”
) the Austrian Par
liament and Defens ecurity ual S ed the act ) adopt rat (National
e
Doctrine (SVD) in Dece
mber 2001. On the occas
ion of
the me mbership neg
otiations with the EU in the e
arl
y full s in “ nes her willing ady lre d a phasize em Austria th 90
partic ipation”
ev en in t
nd he 2 pillar of the Treat
y of
Maastricht. The former reacting and ter
ritorial bound
approach towards secu rity polic
y
and defense was ensi compreh a new ed by replac
ve vi ew of a
multinationa l, active
and pr eve
ntive secur
ity policy
direc ted to stabiliza
tion of the politic
al ( not so
much . ) environment graphic geo
General Consi
derati ons
Securi ty in al l it s aspect s is
a prer equisi
te fo r continuance
and f unctioning
of a con stitutional de
mocra cy a s we
ll the itizens. and its c y iet of soc g bein well- economic
Therefore securit
y polic y is a p aramount political
duty o f
the st ate. Under t he curre
nt ci rcumst
ances thi s duty has t
o ty securi prehensive “com ed as a realiz ed and be design
policy”
. Austria’s ef fort is aimed at the preven
tion of
violent conflicts. Therefore its securit y polic
y is
directed tence of exis ful co peace ar and f w evention o he pr at t
nations – based on the C harter o
f the United Nations, on
international conventions for the protection of basic- and
liberty ri ghts, on the Convention for Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The purpose of security policy is to guarantee the security for preferably all fields of a community. The security and defense doctrine represents the guideline of the Austrian security policy.
Protection of the state structures as well of its citizens against all kinds of threats is the nucleus of the security and defense doctrine. The security situation of an European country cannot be examined isolated.
Instabilities and perils in Europe or its periphery affect the security situation of all European countries. The new threats and risks can not be dealt alone but only through international cooperation and solidarity. On a national basis it is imperative to develop a public understanding for security policy issues.
Paradigm Shift in Europe
In Europe a paradigm shift took place. The process which started with the end of the Cold War in 1989 led over from a concept of deterrence to an understanding of a comprehensive and cooperative security. The bipolar order with a relative stable and therefore manageable constellation of powers and threats was replaced by a new complexity of the world order and new security challenges. Geographical distance of conflicts is no longer a satisfactory protection. At the time there are no aggressive political intentions as well enough military potential for strategic-offensive operations in Europe. A responsible security policy has to be prepared for any changes of political intentions and constellations.
Rights and Fundamenta
l F ree doms and the E
uropean
Charter of F undamental Rights. The purpose of
security
polic y is to guar antee t he securi ty for p
ref erably all fiel
ds doctrine and defense y e securit y. Th of a communit
represent s t he gui del ine of the Aust
rian s ecurity
pol icy .
Prote ction of the sta
te s tru ctur es a s we ll of its
citize
ns against all kinds of threats is the nucleus of the securit y
and defense doctrin e. The secu
rity situatio n of an
European countr y c
annot be ex amined isolated.
Insta bilitie s and pe
rils i n Eur ope or
its peri phery af fec
t new s. The trie oun n c ll Europea tion of a situa ity cur the se
threats and risks can not be dealt alone but only through
international cooperatio n and solidarity. On
a national develop a public understanding basis it is imperative to for securi ty pol icy issues.
Par adig m Shift in Europe
In Europ e a paradi
gm shift took place. The process which started with the end o f the Cold W
ar in 1989 l ed over
from a conc ept of deter
rence to an underst
anding of
a
comprehensi ve and
cooperat ive secu rity
. The bi
polar nage ore ma theref and able tive st rela r with a orde
able
constellation of powers and threat
s was replac ed by a
new complexit y of the world order and new securit
y is no cts fli stance of con l di raphica eog nges. G challe
longer a satisfa ctory prot
ection. At the time there are no
aggressive political intentions as well enoug h military
potential for strate gic-o ffensive op
erations in Europe. A has to be prepa cy y poli responsible securit red f
or an y
cha nge s of politic al inte
ntions a nd conste
llations.
A modern and forward-looking security policy rests upon prevention of the becoming of risks and threats. There is a new emphasis of the instruments of security policy.
“New” instruments of cooperation and configuration are used today: political, military, police, intelligence, economic, social, education, culture, information, communication and ecological instruments as well such of internal security. For the future of Europe the development of security policy of EU and NATO will be decisive.
New Risks and Threats are replacing clear Security &
Threat Perceptions
The old threat scenarios from the Cold War times are replaced by a new and complex mixture of risks and menaces with a wide variety of reasons. In unstable European regions and its periphery there is still the menace of war and conflict. In case political and economic measures of stabilization are failing we must expect possible escalation of political disputes to the point of armed conflicts. In case of a fundamental change of political intentions in Europe we must admit that an element of military risk remains. At the time this risk is very low due to the presence of a political intact NATO.
The most important challenges of a global security policy are the proliferation of WMD, international terrorism – supported & guided by states or political lobbies, organized crime, destabilizing armament efforts, totalitarian ideologies, fundamentalist religions, population development and migration, energy and
A modern and forward-l ooking secu
rity polic y r
ests upon
prevention of t he b
ecoming of ri sks and thre
ats.
There is instruments of security polic a new emphasis of the
y.
“New” instruments of c ooperation and
configur ation are
used toda y: politic
al, milita ry, police
, intellig ence
, rmation, ucation, culture, info economic, social, ed
communic ation a
nd eco logica l instrume
nts as we ll such
of int ernal security
. For t he fut ure of Euro
pe the will be and NATO of EU y policy rit secu lopment of deve
decisive.
New Ri sks an d T hreats are r ep
laci ng cl ear Sec
uri
ty & s tion reat Percep Th
The old t hreat scenarios
from t he C old War t im es are
replac ed by
a new and compl
ex m ixt ure of risks and
menaces with
a wi de variet y of reasons.
In unstabl
e is still the there phery its peri ons and egi an r Europe
menace of war and c onflict. In
case political and
economic meas
ure s of sta biliza
tion are failing we must
expe ct possible esca
lation of political
disputes to the ase of a fund point of armed conflicts. In c ament
al change
of politic al inte
ntions in Eur ope we
must admit that a
n
ele ment of military
risk r ema ins. At the time
this
risk is ATO. t N al intac a politic e of presenc low due to the very
The most important challenges of a gl
obal securit y polic
y sm – ori l terr ationa WMD, intern ation of olifer the pr are
supported &
guided b y
states or political lobbies,
orga nized c rime , dest
abilizing arma
ment e ffo rts,
totalitarian ideologies , fundamentalist re
ligions, nd migration, energ population development a
y and
resource shortages, famine and ecological disasters.
Particularly international terrorism in all its characteristics is a main security problem for western civilizations.
A comprehensive understanding of security includes the following basic strategies:
affirmative action
securing and restoration of peace and stability
individual/collective self-defense
The basic principle says: “As much peace encouragement as possible and only so much arbitrary measures respectively sanctions as necessary.” The deployment of military means of coercion is a tool with the character of
“ultima ratio” and should be used only in respect with the Charter of the United Nations. (Nevertheless one should see the relativism of the term “ultima ratio”: in common understanding it means the last measure but the Romans understood it also as ultimate or extreme measure.)
Conclusions
Although the Austrian Security- and Defense Doctrine had been elaborated before the European Security Structure (ESS), objectives and means are rather identically. To a large amount this is due to the fact that the SVD is formulated in a very generalizing manner and on the other hand Austria doesn’t have to obey other international obligations like the NATO Treaty. Austria is interested to be a kind of a “Musterknabe” (model resource shorta
ges, famine and e colog
ical disasters.
Partic ularl y inter natio
nal te rro rism in a ll its
charact eri stic s is a m ain
security problem
for west
ern tions. civiliza
A comprehensive unders tanding of se
curity inclu
des the ies: strateg basic following
affirm ativ e action
secu rin g a nd restor ation of pe ace and sta bilit
y se fen -de self ollective individual/c
The basic pri nci ple sa ys:
“As m uch pe
ace encou rag
ement measures y trar uch arbi e and only so m as possibl
respectiv ely sanct ions as
necessar y.”
The deployment of
military mean s of c oer cion is a tool with the c
har act er o
f ct with the y in respe “ultima ratio” and should be used onl
Charter of the United Nations. (Nev
ertheless one should
see the rela tivism of the
te rm “ultima ratio”
: in c ommon
understanding it means t he last measure but the
Romans re. understood it also as ultimate or extreme measu )
Conclusions Although the Austri an Securi
ty- and Defens
e Doctrine ean S he Europ ated before t had been elabor
ecurity
Structure (ESS), objectives and me ans are rathe
r
identically.
To a la rge am ount this is due to the
fact that
the SVD is f ormula
ted in a ve ry ge nera lizing ma
nner a
nd other on the other hand Austria doesn’t have to obey
intern ationa l obligations like
the NATO Trea
ty.
Austria
is interested to be a ki nd of a “Musterkn
abe”
(model
child) in NATO’s PfP, UN and OSCE and of course in ESDP. Two items of the document have to be mentioned:
the strong commitment for Human Rights and Public
International Law, and
the central role of the UN which is a clear
commitment to multilateralism and that corresponds to the European Security Structure (ESS).
Consequences for the structure of the Armed Forces Following new tasks the structure of the Armed Forces had to be adapted. The so called “Bundesheer Reformkommission” elaborated the cornerstones for the restructuring process.
Phase I (2005) reduction and consolidation
Phase II (2006) establishment of the new strategic
and operational level
Phase III (2007) attainment of the new structure
According to the result of the reform or transformation process the Army Organization AAF 2010 will look like the following structure:
child) in NATO’s P fP , UN and OSC
E and of c ourse in
ESDP. Two items of the document have to be m entioned:
the str ong c ommitme nt for Huma
n Rights a nd Public
Inte rnational Law,
and
the cent
ral rol e of t he UN whi
ch i s a clear
commitme nt to multila
tera lism and tha
t c orr espo nds
to t he European S ecuri
ty Struct ure (ESS
).
Conseq uen ces for th
e structu re of th
e Armed Forces
Following ne w ta
sks the struc ture of the A
rme d F orc es
had to be adapted. The so called “B undesheer
Reform komm
issi on” elaborat
ed the corn erstones
for the cess. restructuring pro
Phase I (2005) reduction and con
solidation (2006) establishment of the new strate Phase II
gic
and operational level
Phase III
(2007) attainment of the new structure
Acco rdin g to the r esult
of the ref orm or tran
sfor mation
process the Army Or ganiz
ation AAF 2010 will look like
the fol lowi ng st ructur e:
Army Organization AAF 2010
•
Directly subordinated units:- 1 unit military police
- 2 command and control support battalions - 1 unit special operation forces
- 1 International Operations Basis (incl.
CIMIC)
•
4 Brigades:- 4 Headquarters battalions - 4 Infantry battalions
- 3 Mountain Infantry battalions - 1 Airborne Infantry battalion - 2 Mechanized infantry battalions - 2 Tank battalions
- 3 Reconnaissance & artillery battalions - 3 Sapper battalions
•
Aviation & Air Defense units: aerial surveillance & aerial support command - 1 Radar battalion- 1 Surveillance squadron - 1 Aerial support squadron - 2 Air defense battalions - Radar & Maintenance units - Imminent units
Arm y Organizat ion A
AF 2010
•
Directly subordinated units:
- 1 un it m ilitary
po lice
- 2 comm
and an d cont
rol suppor
t battal
ions ces on for erati l op pecia 1 unit s -
- 1 Inter
national Oper ations B asi
s (incl .
CIMIC)
•
4 Brigade s:
- 4 Headq uar ter s battal
ions alions y batt 4 Infantr -
- 3 Moun tain In fantry battal ions
- 1 Airbor ne In
fantry ba
ttalion y battal antr ed inf niz 2 Mecha -
ions
- 2 Tank bat
talions
- 3 Reco
nna issan ce &
ar tillery ba ttalio ns
- 3 Sapper
batt alions
•
Avi ati on & A
ir De fens
e uni ts: a eri
al l support command eria surveillance & a
- 1 Radar bat talion
- 1 Survei
llance sq
uadron ort sq supp 1 Aerial -
uadr on
- 2 Air de fense b
attal ions
- Radar & Mai
nten ance uni
ts
- Imminen t units
