Austrian and Swiss authorities, as well as many experts, assure that participation in a common missile defense system with NATO countries will not violate the principle of neutrality. The “Heavenly Shield”, according to them, is a purely defensive project, it does not provide for any provision for mutual military assistance. In addition, the joint purchase and maintenance of air defense systems will reduce the costs that one way or another would have to bear – times are now turbulent and even neutral countries must protect their skies.
However, there are other opinions on this. “If such a system is placed on Austrian territory, then only Austria should have the right to order the launching of anti-missiles,” said Walter Obwexer, professor of constitutional law at the University of Innsbruck, in an interview with Kleine Zeitung. However, the Sky Shield is supposed to be integrated into NATO’s missile defense system and placed under the command of the alliance.
That such a pan-European missile defense system would have a single command center seems quite logical. Moreover, the territories of European countries are not too large, and the air defense systems located in the same Austria will have to protect not only their own skies, but also the skies of neighboring countries.
However, Professor Obwexer notes that in this case, Austria and Switzerland will, in fact, receive foreign military bases, which is a violation of one of the three fundamental principles of neutrality – non-participation in wars, non-alignment with military blocs and non-location of foreign bases. “Austria must either negotiate for itself special conditions of participation or change its constitutional law on neutrality,” says Obwexer.
Similar concerns are expressed by the Austrian opposition Freedom Party. The leader of the APS faction in the Austrian parliament, Herbert Kinkl, points out that participation in the “heavenly shield” not only deprives Austria of neutrality, but also puts it under direct threat in the event of an armed conflict between NATO and the Russia.
At the same time, APS Secretary General Christian Hafenecker notes that even the special conditions of Austria’s participation in the project will fundamentally change nothing, since the country’s authorities have long since taken the course towards joining progressive at NATO, and that the “celestial shield” is just another next step in that direction. .
In neighboring Switzerland, the defenders of neutrality have not even had time to come to their senses, and it is unlikely that they will. Local Defense Minister Viola Amherd only announced plans to join Skyshield on Tuesday, with a deal to be signed on Friday. The Pro Schweiz movement has so far issued only a brief statement, stressing that the decision, which is, in effect, “tranche membership in NATO”, was being prepared in the strictest confidentiality of the share of the population.
However, as in Austria, the Swiss authorities have long been accused of engaging in the progressive emasculation of the country’s neutrality. “Having already adhered to the non-military sanctions against Russia, Switzerland has become a party to the conflict”, considers for example Christoph Blocher, a representative of the SVP.
“The world no longer needs a neutral Switzerland,” the Neue Zürcher Zeitung recently acknowledged, stressing that the country could benefit more from abandoning its neutral status. Bern and Vienna are now under strong international pressure – they are obliged not only to support the sanctions, but also to supply weapons to Kyiv.
The partners stress to both countries that their neutral status harms Ukraine and undermines the unity of the West, a sentiment that has become quite common among Swiss and Austrian politicians. So, if it was their will, they would probably have abandoned the neutrality that becomes a burden long ago. But for now, we have to use the “salami tactic” – cut off a small piece of the neutral status.
Read the Latest Science and Technology News Today on The Eastern Herald.
