Humanitarians, Neutrals Or ‘Realpolitiker’? Austria’s Relations With The Greek Military Dictatorship, 1967-1974 (original) (raw)
Related papers
This paper attempts to provide a new explanation on the diplomatic modus operandi of Greece under military rule (1967-1974) in conjunction with the diplomatic capacity of Austria, by contending that each state acted not as per the instructions of a super-power but developed actively its own diplomatic networks, thus enhancing the pericentric view of Cold War Studies; that even the smaller states influenced mutatis mutandis the diplomatic and international dimension of this era. It will be demonstrated that the Greek diplomatic corps proved to a large extent successful in convincing the Austrian statesmen into adopting a favorable position towards the Greek military regime during its early years facilitating also Austria’s own international necessities. The most tangible example of this success was undoubtedly the written assurance provided to Greek diplomats by the Austrian diplomatic corps, that the latter will promote a positive stance towards the Greek regime within the circles of the Council of Europe. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated, that even though the ascension to power of a leftwing government in Austria (SPÖ 1970) could have revised the course of action towards the military regime, on the contrary, the diplomatic effervescence and the significance of high politics (as well as the pressure put on them by the corporate lobbies) in interstate communication led in 1972 to the substantial and most important Austrian investment in Greece ($78 mil.), that of the automobile Steyr-Daimler-Puch-AG Company and its subsidiary company in Greece Steyr-Hellas S.A. Apart though from the favorable stance of the Austrians and the mutual financial benefits between the two countries, the forceful reactions of Austrian politicians and diplomats as regards the delicate issue of Greek political prisoners in more than twelve cases, will be taken into consideration.
European Review of History, 2017
In April 1967, a group of colonels seized power in Greece. Since Greece was a member-state of the Council of Europe and held an association agreement with the European Community, both organizations had to define their positions vis-à-vis the new military regime. Very soon, politicians in the parliamentary assemblies of both organizations started to cooperate with the aim of imposing sanctions on Greece. This article examines the inter-organizational dynamics between the European Community and the Council of Europe on Greece during the colonels’ regime. It argues that the European Community imported concrete policy positions and even normative ideas which had first emerged in the Council of Europe. In so doing, the Community prepared the ground for its future human-rights policies.
[Essay] The Austrian experience in peace missions
2015
After the end of the Second World War, Austria had to redefine itself as a nation state and the adoption of neutrality has not only shaped Austria Foreign Policy but also the collective national identity of the country. Its involvement with the United Nations has a long tradition and various reasons, such as national defence, international reputation and economic reasons. Depending on how one chooses to interpret neutrality in international relations, there might be consideration in regard to taking a role in international conflicts. The main question of this essay is whether Austria´s understanding of neutrality and its participation in UN and EU operations are compatible.
Europe Now , 2022
This is part of a series on the Ukraine Crisis. Austro-Russian historic, political, economic, and cultural bonds Complex cultural relationships between Russia and Austria span hundreds of years, years deeply rooted in rich imperial, political, and cultural interdependence. Unlike many other European countries, these two former imperial powers managed to not wage wars against each other until World War I, when Russia and Austria involuntarily crossed swords for the first time. Even though they fought on the opposite sides, they both experienced a similar end-they lost the war and underwent major transformations of their respective states, governments, and political systems.[1] With numerous tragedies befalling the two royal families, including suicides, assassinations, and executions, both monarchies ceased to exist. In the end, Russia's monarchy was brutally replaced by the Soviet Communist regime, and Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved.[2] 2/15 Since then, according to the Russian ambassador to Austria Dmitriy Lyubinskiy, Russia and Austria have managed to maintain a very special bond and build "constructive relationships" that are mutually beneficial, pragmatic, and substantially dependent on the conscious personal contact and collaboration between the respective heads of the states. [3]Collaborative and mostly amicable relationships involve stable trade, numerous business and political visits, as well as vibrant cultural and scientific cooperation. Many of those bonds, however, have been highly controversial, questioning the ethics of the Austrian political elite and their dubious choice of profit versus patriotism. For example, in 2018, former Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl, who invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to her wedding and curtsied to him during the pompous ceremony in Austrian Gamlitz, was given expensive jewelry-and then a seat on the board of directors at the Russian state-controlled oil industry giant Rosneft.[4] A more recent corruption scandal, associated with Russian oligarchy and a honey-trap video that involved the Freedom Party of Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, or FPÖ), pressured Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz to step down in 2021.[5] Nonetheless, regardless of the scandals and controversies, various bonds remain strong. So is Austrian-Russian interdependency-and in some instances, Austrian dependency on Russia. According to Elisabeth Christen, Senior Economist at the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, WIFO), about 80 percent of Austria's natural gas is imported from Russia.[6]What it means is that the immediate embargo on Russian gas would certainly hurt Austria more than it would hurt Russia, so the Austrian government declared it will continue to import Russian gas and oil.
Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science
After achieving the Vienna State Treaty, Austria had to develop its security policy missing fundamental documents. The first main document was the constitutional law on neutrality, which was passed by the Austrian parliament on 26th October, 1955. Even before that, the Austrian defence law was approved on 5th September, 1955. Although Austria promised in the Moscow Memorandum to pursue a neutrality policy like Switzerland, the Austrian policy left this line by becoming a member of the UN in 1955. So the Austrian security policy started to walk a tightrope between neutrality and international solidarity because of her UN membership and membership in other organisations like EU or NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) later on. This essay emphasizes the steps of amendments, which were made in the Austrian constitution and her policy during almost 60 years with respect to international security policy and Austrian participation in international operations. The aim of this essay is to point ...
Bloomsbury Academic, 2022
Greece and the Cold War examines examines the 1954 crisis within NATO from the novel perspective of critical international theory and exposes the unexplored connections between dependence and nationalism in Greek foreign policy. Drawing on a wide range of American, British and Greek archival sources, it argues that nationalism and compliance with the collective interests of NATO were two irreconcilable objectives in Greek foreign policy after 1952. At the same time, the book tells the story of how the post-Civil War governments of Greece, for a variety of political, cultural and ideological reasons, treated these two objectives as essentially compatible, resulting in the adoption of a dualist policy. This self-contradictory diplomatic doctrine, which the author refers to as “dependent nationalism”, lies at the heart of Greece's post-War failures both to emancipate its politics from US intervention and to peacefully end its regional dispute with Turkey over Cyprus. The book deploys an interdisciplinary approach which brings together the diverse perspectives of diplomatic history, foreign policy analysis and political sociology.
Milletlerarası münasebetler Türk yıllığı, 2008
Greek foreign policy towards the Balkans in the post-Cold War era had two phases. First phase was characterised by the de-Europeanisation (as opposed to the significant process of Europeanisation in 1970s) as hysterical nationalism and irrational, aggressive expressions whereas the second phase was the adequate manifestation of re-Europeanisation as decreasing nationalism, rational redefinition of national interests and of possessed assets, and successful use of economic relations. The relations with Bulgaria have been often smooth although they suffered initially because of irrational Greek reactions to the Bulgarian recognition of Macedonia and Bulgarian-Turkish rapprochement. The relations between the two countries were further deepened during the second phase of Greek foreign policy. In any case, the then unique identity of Greece as a Balkan country in the EU has been manifest in its foreign policy towards the Balkans. The re-Europeanisation of Greek foreign policy contributed significantly to regional stability. One would like to regard this Europeanisation as immutable yet many core issues remain unsolved. The process of the solution of those core issues will show whether Greek foreign policy vacillates in the cycles of Europeanisation and de-Europeanisation or not. This implies that the Europeanisation process is neither immutable nor irreversible.