Author: Fawad

The Old West of the United States is one of the very fascinating part of the American History. It originated, grew, matured and declined through distinct phases of evolution. It offers some valuable insights into the American character and thus offers an interesting subject of learnings in American Studies.

The presidency of the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) provided the foundational settings for the birth of ‘the West’ in the US. He bought a large swath of land to the West of the thirteen colonies in the US from the French under Napoleon Bonaparte. The deal that came to be called the Louisiana Purchase was struck on December 20th, 1803. The US territory doubled after the purchase of the Louisiana territory. It included the Mississippi river which was to provide a vital artery for valuable trade and transport after that date. The new territory had to be explored and mapped before it could be settled and utilized for economic, political and military purposes. President Jefferson authorized a special expedition of expert explorer for this purpose. Through the years 1804-6 the Lewis and Clark expedition explored and mapped the Louisiana purchase territory.

Next the Americans started settling and building proper legal and constitutional claims to their new territory. This was the time when the new state of Mexico gained independence from the Spanish Empire in 1821. The American shared boundaries with this new state of Mexico and the earlier European powers such as Spain, Britain and the French. They had to assert their power in the Western Hemisphere vis-a-vis all of them. One big aim of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine was to secure the Westward expansion of the US against the old World powers such as the Spanish, the French and the English.

The Americans did not expand and settle into empty lands in the West. Their expansion came at the expense of the native Americans who had lived in these places for more than a millennium. They suffered a terrible fate during the course of the expansion of the white settlement into the West of the United States. Despite the moral wrong of their forceful occupation, the Americans, however, created a legal basis for their expansion. The Supreme Court took one of the earliest step in that direction. In the 1823 Johnson vs. McIntosh Case, the Supreme Court ruled that the European explorers had sovereignty over the land held by the native Americans. This disregarded the territorial claims by the native Americans. By this interpretation, the native Americans, were the subjects but not citizens of the US government. The 1830 Indian Removal Act was a legislative measure of dispossession of the Indians.  Due to the expansion of the white settlements on the Indian frontiers, violent armed conflict with the native Americans was inevitable and continued thorough much of the nineteenth century. Developments on the American frontiers with the European powers and Mexico too were not peaceful, quiet and calm during this time. After years of Yankee settlements in the region, the Texas region declared independence from Mexico in 1836. The issue was to lead to a war between the two countries a decade later.

The Americans noted their Westward expansion with hope and excitement in the age. The term Manifest Destiny was coined by John O’ Sullivan in the year 1845. The idea of the Manifest Destiney asserted that the people of the US, specially the white Americans, were destined by God to expand to the West, all the way to the Pacific Ocean, spreading Democracy, capitalism and Christianity.

Conflict and war was inevitable wherever the American expansion into its Western territories collided with the territorial and cultural claims of other nations The 1846-8 Mexican-American War was a consequence of one such collision. The Mexicans fought bravely but were no match for the American strategy and vigor. They lost the war and the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo added 525000 Square Miles to the territory of the US. This included the present day states of California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. In the north the 1846 Oregon Treaty between the US and Britain set the 49th parallel as the boundary between America and the British Canada. The broad cartographic contours of the country we know as the United States were established by the middle of the nineteenth century.

The early phase for an extensive settlement of the West by the white settlers was set as America experienced a considerable demographic growth due to both immigration and natural growth of population through the first half of the nineteenth century. The Population of the US rose from 5 million in 1800 to 23 million in 1850. As population pressures triggered social and economic tensions on the East coast of the US, Both the hard pressed and the enterprising Americans headed westwards in search of greener pastures.

The journey to the West involved unusual hardship and a difficult travel in wagon trains. Wagon trains and the journey to the West often started at Independence, Missouri and headed West along various trails. The Santa Fe trail, the Oregon Trail, the California Trail and the Old Spanish Trail being the most famous ones among them. The explorers traveling West had different motives ranging from the search for better prospects, escaping the hand of the law after committing crimes, escaping debt collectors after going broke economically to attaining glory, experiencing adventure and exploring the West. The grit and endurance of the West-bound travelers was very remarkable given the harsh travails they had to endure during the course of their journeys. The travelers would often form proper governing bodies for the journey assigning responsibilities and tasks to various people. There would be rules and codes of conduct to follow to ensure a safe and sound journey. The journey would still, be not safe as the risk of running into bandits, robbers and hostile Indian tribes was always there. The trains had to take all precautionary measures against these hazards.

 The westward transport and communication in the American West was dependent on the animal and human muscle power through almost all of the first half of the twentieth century. There were no good roads and means of water transport either. This meant that it would be years before a very large scale settlement of the West, common in the second half of the nineteenth century, could take place. Enterprise, technology and innovation was to change that all as we shall see in our study and analysis of the fascinating old American West in our forthcoming blogs.

For most of the past eight decades after the WW II, Austria has remained a good intermediary between the East and the West in the International Affairs. Its geographical location in the center of Europe; its historic, cultural heritage, position of neutrality in global security and political affairs and its respectable espousal of disarmament and humanitarian positions in the global arena have enabled it well to be a bridge-builder in the International relations.

Nestled in the Alps, peaceful, prosperous and highly cultured Austria has   remained a good model of a responsible democracy through the latter half of the twentieth century. Pope Paul VI called Austria “an island of the fortunate” (“Insel Der Glucklichen”) in 1971. Its reputation has been that of a stable democracy that contributes towards international peace and reconciliation.  Its earlier occupation by the Nazis under Adolf Hitler made it ‘the first among the victims’ of the Euro-Fascism after its Anschluss with Germany in 1938. It has always successfully defended its position during the age of the Nazi atrocities by correctly pointing out its difficult plight and situation during the occupation years. An advocate of peace and reconciliation is what best describes Austria’s role in the International system since the end of the WWII.

This role of peace maker and a good go-between among the nations of the world was enhanced when Austria joined the EU in 1995. It, however, also became a more complex enterprise for the country as Austria now had to surrender some of its foreign policy sovereignty to a supranational body of a European and global stature whose foreign policy positions would not always be shared by Austria. For decades, this kind of surrender has rankled with the rightest opinion in Austria. The EU also demanded a say in the country’s domestic policies. This became most evident in 1999 when the far right Freedom Party of Austria, the FPO won 26.9% of the vote under its controversial leader, Jorge Haider, to become the second most popular party of the country. When the Austrian People’s Party, the OVP, formed a coalition government with the FPO in February 2000, Wolfgang Shussel of the OVP became the Chancellor of the country. Susanne Reiss-Passer of the FPO became the Vice Chancellor of the country. The far right party FPO and its controversial head, Jorge Haider, seemed to have disturbing Neo-Nazi proclivities.  The EU countries did not approve of this coalition government. Earlier, in January 2000, fourteen EU countries had threatened to sanction Austria, in case the OVP formed a coalition government with the FPO.  They did that after the coalition government was formed on February 4, 2000. Earlier, Austria had experienced a similar international censor during the Kurt Waldheim presidency (1986-92) for Waldheim’s pro-Wehrmacht pronouncements and positions. The EU sanctions were, however, lifted soon.

Through the first quarter of the twenty-first century, Austria has successfully negotiated its historical tradition of neutrality in foreign policy with its EU obligations. Even though it did not quite measure up to the expectations of the European Union in its contribution towards the enlargement of the Union in the former communist countries in the Eastern Europe, Austria’s efforts towards promotion of democracy in the former Warsaw Pact countries cannot be underestimated. It has often played a supportive role in encouraging the transition of the former communist Eastern European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia towards a more democratic and open path.

Austria has been a significant contributor towards the efforts of the global multilateral organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It hosts one of the four major offices of the UN in Vienna. The headquarters of the IAEA too are based in Vienna. The headquarters of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are also located in Vienna.

The diverse crises of the first quarter of the twenty-first century have challenged the Austrian foreign policy in a number of ways. The global economic crisis of the 20007-8, the Corona epidemic breakout in 2019-20 and the eruption of the Russia-Ukraine War in 2022 have all tested the Austrian foreign policy. Austria has maintained a principled position, well in keeping with its historic traditions and in harmony with the EU values and international norms, through all of these crises. Over decades, Austria’s conduct and posture of peace promotion, support for reconciliation and contributions towards disarmament have endeared it to most of the International Community.

The US power in the Middle East has declined. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, the Arab-Iranian equation or Pakistan and Afghanistan; American influence has witnessed a palpable decline in places across the whole of the region. American allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the sheikhdoms of the Arabian Gulf are sceptic about America’s ability to be a very good arbiter or guarantor of last resort in the region.

America’s inability to come to the rescue of Saudi Arabia when the Iranian proxies in Yemen attacked its key installations in 2019 was an early wake up call for the Saudis and the Arab Sheikhdoms. The one clear lesson they drew form the Houthi attacks on the Saudi soil was that they shall have to fend for their security by themselves. America’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was a spectacle of a defeated super power to most of its enemies in the region. The lesson of Afghanistan was not lost on the Iranians and their proxies. The Iranian logic went, if the Americans retreated in defeat from Afghanistan, their allies and power can be successfully challenged in other contest zones of the region as well.

The constant inability of the Arabs to contain or control the Houthis in Yemen or convince the Americans to come to their rescue left them with no other choice but to come to a detente with the Iranians at the region level on, mostly, the Iranian terms. That the Arab-Iranian rapprochement came about under the diplomatic aegis of China should have been a clear signal to the Americans that their relative power in the region was eroding fast. This was exactly the time when the Biden Administration was becoming increasingly ambivalent in its dealings with the Arabs as it increasingly got more engaged in the Russian-Ukrainian tensions leading to a war.  

The Russo-Ukraine war was a Godsend to America’s enemies in the Middle East. Regional foes of the US in the Middle East, such as Iran, used the Russo-Ukraine war to the maximum to cultivate very close ties with the Russians at the expense of the US. The fact that the Russians had successfully rescued its ally, the Al-Asad regime in its war against the Islamic State in Syria in 2015 was neither lost on Americas enemies nor its allies. The whole of the Middle East noted with approval that Bashar Al Asad, the Syrian president, successfully got protection and asylum in Russia when the Sunni extremists toppled his government in Syria in December 2024. To the tribal imagination in the chancelleries in the Arab World, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Russia was a more reliable friend than the US. “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal,” Henry Kissinger’s words were recalled in many discussions during this time.

The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back came in when Hamas attacked Israel on October 6, 2023 with clear Iranian backing and support. Despite unequivocal American support and solidarity with Israel on the occasion, friends and foes alike noted that the American aid and assistance to Israel did not include the whole gamut of taking the Iranian bull by the horns. The visible feature of America’s Israel policy is one where it gives generous military and civilian aid to the Israelis against the hostile Non-State actors such as the Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis but gets the cold foot when it comes dealing with their baker, the Iranian state.

America’s foes in the region sees this nervousness vis-à-vis Iran as a sign and display of weakness at its best and cowardice at its worst Both are cardinal sins for any security strategy in the region stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean Sea. America’s allies and enemies see it as a clear evidence of the decline of its power in the whole region, a sight that does not augur well for the security of the whole region.

The February 2025 federal elections in Germany led to the victory of conservative and rightest parties to the German Bundestag. The center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian associate Christian Socialist Union (CSU) were the top winners with 28.5 percent of the votes. The hard right Alternative for Germany (AFD) came second with 20.8 percent of the votes The erstwhile ruling party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) came third with 16.4 percent votes. It was the SPD’s worst result in the federal elections since 1887.

Friedrich Merz, the head of the CDU has successfully negotiated the formation of a CDU-CSU coalition government with the SPD. It shall be a centrist coalition known as a grand coalition in Germany. Negotiations for coalition government normally take quite a long time in Germany. This coalition, however, was formed in 45 days. Merz was more comfortable with a two party coalition expecting it to be more stable and manageable. His selection of the SPD as a partner as also a pragmatic choice. The SPD’s pro-European center-left platform is a good bonding option for the CDU. Germany has a history of having sound coalition governments.  Between 2005 and 2021 Angela Markel remained the chancellor of Germany. As a head of the CDU party she formed three grand coalition governments with the SPD during this time.

On the 9th of April 2025 Germany’s new government published its coalition agreement called the Responsibility for Germany. Under this coalition government agreement, the CDU has taken the Chancellorship and six ministries, the CSU has taken three ministries and the SPD has taken seven ministries. This coalition government has been formed against the backdrop of some very complex challenges facing Germany and the EU in the domestic affairs as well as the international arena.

The difficult antecedents to the formation of the current coalition government in Germany are the US pivot to Russia and President Trump’s tariffs on Europe. President Trump’s phone call with the Russian president Putin and the US Vice President JD Vance critical estimate of the European democracy has been noted in Germany. On February 14th, 2025, at the occasion of the Munich Security Conference, the American vice president observed,

“For years we have been told everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others we ought to ask ourselves if we are holding ourselves to an appropriately high standards.”

Earlier the US suspended and then resumed all military aid to Ukraine which it resumed later. Germany and the EU have mostly viewed the American volte-face on the Russia-Ukraine War as a betrayal. They realize that the long standing security partnership with the US is coming to an end. In the newer world they shall mostly have to take charge of their security.

 Domestically, the coalition plans to spend more. The defense spending planned by the government shall give a boost to manufacturing especially the arms industries. The government hopes to encourage investments and enhance competitiveness. It also plans to increase skilled labor migration to Germany.

The German grand coalition wants to enhance relations with the US despite the early setbacks. It wants to avoid trade war with the US. It has claimed that it shall cooperate with China where it serves German and the EU interests. It has also pledged to confront China where it is needed.

At home the proposed coalition government has faced harsh estimates from its detractors. The left-wing Die Linke Party has called it the “Coalition of ignorance and hopelessness.” The far-right AFD blamed the CDU for lying to the voters. It claimed that it was a coalition impacted by the election losers SDP.

On the whole the Grand coalition government that shall take power in May 2025 has been welcomed internationally. The Economists called it “blandly reassuring.” Europe has welcomed the coalition hoping that improvements in the German economy would have a positive impact on the European economies at large. The EU also appreciates its stability and pro-EU position. Let us hope that it lives up to most of its vows and promises.

The debates on migration and immigration have often held an important place in the Austrian politics and society. A number of factors determine Austria’s attitude towards the immigrants and the subject of migration. Austria is a small country with a population of 9.13 million people only. It has historically attached a huge importance to its identity. For ages Austrians have prided themselves for being” better German Kulturnation,” a German nation with a great cultural history. The Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburgs, the Austro-Hungarian dual empire have all gone into the formation of the historic cultural identity of modern day Austria. The subject of migration and immigrants in Austria is closely intertwined with the subject of its identity.

While the rest of the world mostly sees Austria as a land of music or a setting of the iconic 1965 movie Sound of the Music, the identity of Austria is far more fascinating and complex than just being home of Mozart and the land of music. A beautiful Alpine landscape, high culture based on achievements in literature, art, music, Psychology and sciences and a neutral posture in the modern global affairs, are some of the important elements of the Austrian identity. The Austrians also celebrate sports successes and attach importance to physical fitness. Similarly, the Catholic faith stays an important element of the Austrian cultural life.

Austrians are not a xenophobic people. They have extended a generous help to immigrants over the past century. During the Cold War they welcomed immigrants from the Eastern Europe on the occasions of the Hungarian revolution 1956, the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia 1968 and the Polish crisis of 1980-81. During the Balkan Wars in the 1990s Austria allowed 150000 refugees from the crisis hit areas to enter its territories. Austria has also been a generous aid donor to other crises-hit nations. This charity is in keeping with Catholic tradition of ‘poor relief.’

It is another fact that Austria has remained more of a transit point for immigration to the Western European countries rather than a final destination for the refugees and migrants. This has been the case with the flow of refugees during the refugee crises during the Cold War and the Balkan War of the 1990s. The more recent episode of the refugees’ inflow into Austria after the 2015 upheaval also illustrates a pattern of Austria serving as a clearing house for refugees travel to the Western Europe.

During the summer of 2015 and Spring of 2016 Austria became a hot spot of migration and asylum seekers as well as transit bridge into Germany.  Austrians welcomed them as long as they moved on to the rest of Europe. Refugees from the Conflict zones in the Middle East and North Africa shuttled through Austria on the buses and trains from Hungary on to Germany. 63000 people arrived in Munich during the first two weeks of September 2015.Under a tacit agreement between Austria and Germany 430000 people moved to Germany via Austria during the refugee influx to Europe following the Syrian Civil War. The Austrians restricted this refugee inflow only when the Germans started controlling and restricting the entry of more refugees into their country.

A small country, Austria can afford to host a limited number of immigrants before its economy and social fabric starts feeling unbearable stresses and strains. More than that, the immigrants are viewed as a challenge to their cultural identity by the Austrians. Austrians are very sensitive to the influx of foreign immigrants who bring in cultural practices that might challenge the historic, Austrian cultural identity. Austria’s experience with the Muslims, in recent years, is an example of this attitude. The OVP governor of Lower Austria, Erwin Proll, commented in an interview with Austrian Public Television (ORF) on 4th September, 2007, “ Minarets are something foreign [artfrremd], and foreign stuff is not good for a culture in the long run.” Similarly, In 2008 Jorg Haider combined the BZO, OVP and FPO to pronounce a construction ban on mosques in Carinthia. They declared that they wanted the ban for the protection of heritage. Again, on April 14th, 2016, a group of right-wing extremist ‘Identitarians’ disrupted a performance of Elfreide Jelinek’s play Die Shutzbefohlene (The Ward) at the main lecture hall of the University of Vienna. This was a protest against the inflow of refugees who were seen as a threat to the Austrian identity.

Some cultural and social analysts blame Austria for solipsism and self-obsession. The charge misses the point of Austria’s small demographics and the scale and nature of threats which globalization brings to the traditional and cultural identities of countries such as Austria. Austrians cherish their beautiful culture like any other nation. One of their most cosmopolitan and progressive founding fathers was Karl Rennere. (1870-1950). He was a classic example of the generation of Austrians in whose life the old Austria met with the new republic. Rennere was a Social Democrat in politics. Culturally he too was a Dual-Monarchy, German-nationalist. Most Austrians, such as him, value their culture immensely despite their cosmopolitan and normal internationalist world views. Their instinct to cultural protectionism has been determining their attitude towards the subjects of migration and immigration through the closing decade of the first quarter of the twenty-first century.

Six weeks into the White House, President Trump is already getting harsh judgements from his detractors. This hostility is not affecting his support among his base. The swing voters who might alternate their support across elections and the two main political parties are already buying into this critique. The president’s supporters believe that the scale of the change he is bringing about in the American politics and society inevitably attracts such hostility. They also believe that once the results of the president’s new course in the domestic politics and the foreign policy start bringing good results all of these detractors shall be silenced.

The typical charge sheet against the very recently elected president runs that he is an authoritarian by instinct. His admiration for authoritarian regimes led by strongmen around the world is presented as an evidence for it. He likes Putin of Russia, the Saudis and the Turkish president Erdogan more than the ex- Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or the German Chancellor Olaf Sholz.

President Trump’s domestic policies are also getting harsh criticism for being autocratic. He is undermining the checks and balances that have always existed in the American political system and statecraft since its inception. He is blamed for packing the bureaucracy with his supporters. There is a trend to scare people out of the civil services and then pack the offices with loyalists. The constitutional checks on the presidential power are crumbling, the argument goes, because he uses the public opinion, his popularity, to undermine the constitution. Early on, he has built some unusual democratic control on most of the federal levers of power. His detractors fear that If this trend continues, there might not be even free elections in the US in the very near future.

The critique of the new American president and his followers says that they all live in an unreal alternative reality constructed by the social media. Social media platforms with captured followers that exist in the echo-chambers of their wishful opinions keep the president and his followers detached form the reality of political and social lives in the US and the world at large. This happens to most of the people who are not adequately educated. The president’s critics refer to the relatively poorer educational background of his followers. They distinguish between the often educated Americans who read and the lesser educated Republican followers of the president who get most of their news and information from unreliable social media platforms.

President Trump’s detractors claim that the American electoral system has proved to be inadequate to shield politics against misguided, uneducated and opportunistic populism spawned and fed by big businesses and money run mass media. The death of control on campaign finance, millionaire senators and political opportunism where political personalities come to be controlled by the opinions of the crowds rather than leading them have all led to the rise of unbridled authoritarianism backed by uneducated hordes and crowds.

On his part, president Trump loves those uneducated Americans who voted him to power twice. His supporters claim that democracy, at the end of the day, is about a respect for the majority of the popular opinion. They claim that a Washington based cultural and political elite ensconced in the Democratic Party has led America astray. Under these elite the American political system had become rotten and lost touch with the pulse of the public opinion. They defend the president and his policies for attempting to clean the Augean stables of the Democratic elite led political system underwritten by woke leftism that has been a cause of subversion, corruption and perversion in the American society and culture.

The president’s followers also claim that the American foreign policy has long been caught in the time warp of the Cold War that ended in the last century. They defend the president’s radical reset in the American foreign policy as a need for ensuing a due and correct place and status for the US in the twenty-first century. President Trump’s association with Russia dates back to July 1987 when he first visited that country. Even then he had hoped for a newer and better understanding with the Russians. His recalibration of the American foreign policy towards the Russians, the Chinese, the EU, and the world at large, has yet to bear results. The same holds for his domestic policies. The proof of the pudding, as the old English adage says, is in the eating. In the short to medium term, it would be a good idea to wait and see the consequences of President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies, before jumping on to assail him harshly, barely six weeks into the start of his second administration.

The US War against Iraq in 2003 was an important milestone and a turning point in the German-American relations. It came closely in the heels of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan. The US President, George W. Bush, wanted to use the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to remake the Middle East. He attempted to connect the Al-Qaeda attacks and the regime of the military dictator Saddam Hussain, He also claimed that Saddam Hussain was developing nuclear weapons that posed an imminent threat to the civilized world. Both of these claims were unfounded and the US did not have any convincing evidence to prove them. German-US relations became strained over these issues. Earlier the President Bush administration had repudiated the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. It had also broken a number of conventions on limiting Biological and nuclear weapons. These acts by the US were not liked in Germany.

The Foreign Policy tradition of Germany since 1949 rested on not participating in any aggressive wars. To most Germans, the War which president Bush suggested to wage, in 2001, against Iraq was an aggressive war. The German Gerhard Schroder faced an election in fall 2002. His poll ratings were not good. Both, principles and political necessities forced the German Chancellor to refuse to support the US war in Iraq. This refusal not only saved his Red-Green coalition but he also managed to win the federal elections held in Germany on September 22, 2002.

German refusal to support the US war in Iraq marked an unprecedented break in the relations between the two countries. The ties deteriorated further in the fall of 2002. Germany refused to accept any of the arguments the US put up for waging a war against Iraq. By February 2003, the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer was to tell the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, “You have to make your case. Sorry, you have not convinced me.’ Donald Rumsfeld responded by labelling Germany and France as “Old Europe” distinguishing them from the new Eastern European members of the NATO whom he called the “New Europe.”

The Iraq War 2003 marked a low point and a new chapter in the German-US relations. Germany asserted its independence from a transatlantic partnership that had pressurized its foreign policy since its coming into being. Pragmatic pursuit of German national interests rather than a multilateral foreign policy determined by Germany ties with the US and EU was the new course for the German foreign policy practitioners now. Realpolitik rather than moral imperatives were going to be the chief drivers of the German foreign policy after those years.

An international concern with peacekeeping and a foreign policy posture of a civilian power continued. German avoided militarization. It defended its opposition to the Iraq war on moral grounds; a position that was in keeping with its foreign policy aims since the end of the WW II. Both, German and the EU, proved to be correct in their estimates of the Iraq War of 2003 as a strategic, political and moral mistake by the US. Germany’s opposition to that war was in keeping with its diplomatic traditions of supporting only the Just wars. The episode was a point of a big transition in the relations between Germany and the US. Germany had successfully conveyed to the Americans that in the future diplomatic and international affairs they had to have strong moral and rational arguments to carry their points with the Germans. The era of unconditional German support to most of the foreign policy and military steps of the US in the international arena came to an end with that American war in the Middle East.

An Alpine, prosperous state with a rich cultural heritage that espouses some of the best causes in the European Union and around the world is how we see Austria today. This, however, was not how Austria figured in the World at the time of its inception in the second decade of the twentieth century. It is a fact that for the first few years of its life the economic and political viability of the mini state was doubted by analysts. This was despite the fact that the new Austrian republic claimed a huge part of the cultural heritage of the Austro-Hungarian and Holy Roman Empires, strong and powerful monarchies whose history of a millennia stretched back to the medieval times.

Despite the cosmopolitan character of the multicultural Austria-Hungry, its successor, the First Austrian Republic was essentially German in both culture and ethnicity.  It was a German nation of a very high culture. It adopted and practiced republicanism and democracy of the early twentieth century. The exigencies of the post-World War I meant that the new republic struggled with both; its economy and politics. It is a fact that the country was described as ‘the state nobody wanted’ by the architects of the European order following the treaty of Versailles.

The new republic had a population of seven million only. Most of the citizens of the new state wanted an ‘Anschluss’ with the new German Weimer republic that was born in 1918.  This union was, however, not allowed by the Allied Powers that drafted the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Support for a union with scions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was lukewarm in the Weimar German that was struggling with political and economic challenges of its own.

The decade and half after the inception of the First Austrian Republic, on September 10 th,1919, was marked by a prolonged economic and social strife. This strife, inevitably, bore on and determined the course of the politics in the new republic. The new republic lasted for fifteen years only. Karl Renner (1870-1950), the first Chancellor of the Austrian Republic had to contend with some of the most trying challenges in the history of modern Austria. As a result of the Treaty of St. Germaine large parts of the German speaking areas of the former Austro-Hungarian empire were separated from the new republic. Sudetenland was given to Czechoslovakia; parts of southern Tyrol went to Italy. The loss of large agricultural an industrial areas meant that the new republic was born economically hamstrung. The border disputes with its neighborhood would linger on throughout the life of the new republic.

Karrl Renner was a Social Democrat. The first Chancellor of the Republic, he lasted in office only till July 1920. The Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Austria lost parliament majority after the October 17, 1920 legislative elections. After that the first Austrian Republic was ruled by coalition governments of the Christian Social Party and the Greater German People’s Party. The later party was to regress into Austrian Nazism in the 1930s. The Social Democrats remained a big political force in the country, nevertheless. Karl Seitz (1869-1950) of the Social Democratic Workers’ Party, however, remained the mayor of Vienna from 1923 to 1934.

The First Austrian republic remained mired in political strife through most of its life. It could barely manage the economic and social challenges facing it. A constant confrontation between the conservatives and the leftists slipped into violent clashes between paramilitary groups representing the two. A July 1927 controversial court verdict acquitting the alleged killers of two civilians led to a violent protest by the leftists which resulted in police shooting claiming 89 deaths and over half a thousand injuries. This has come to be known as the July Revolt of 1927.

The ultimate culmination of this militarization of politics and radicalization of political conflicts was a civil war. The Christian Social Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss ended on the banning of the SDAP (Social Democratic Workers’ Party) on February 12th,1933. After that he became increasingly more authoritarian. The political disputes turned into an open Civil War after February 1934, Chancellor Dollfuss ended the First Austrian republic on May 1st, 1934 by making Austria a state ruled by a single party.

The story of the First Austrian Republic is that of economic and social distress that spawned social and political strife. This strife led to violence and civil war which ended on a dictatorship.

For most of the past eight decades after the WW II, Austria has remained a good intermediary between the East and the West in the International Affairs. Its geographical location in the center of Europe; its historic, cultural heritage, position of neutrality in global security and political affairs and its respectable espousal of disarmament and humanitarian positions in the global arena have enabled it well to be a bridge-builder in the International relations.

Nestled in the Alps, peaceful, prosperous and highly cultured Austria has   remained a good model of a responsible democracy through the latter half of the twentieth century. Pope Paul VI called Austria “an island of the fortunate” (“Insel Der Glucklichen”) in 1971. Its reputation has been that of a stable democracy that contributes towards international peace and reconciliation.  Its earlier occupation by the Nazis under Adolf Hitler made it ‘the first among the victims’ of the Euro-Fascism after its Anschluss with Germany in 1938. It has always successfully defended its position during the age of the Nazi atrocities by correctly pointing out its difficult plight and situation during the occupation years. An advocate of peace and reconciliation is what best describes Austria’s role in the International system since the end of the WWII.

This role of peace maker and a good go-between among the nations of the world was enhanced when Austria joined the EU in 1995. It, however, also became a more complex enterprise for the country as Austria now had to surrender some of its foreign policy sovereignty to a supranational body of a European and global stature whose foreign policy positions would not always be shared by Austria. For decades, this kind of surrender has rankled with the rightest opinion in Austria. The EU also demanded a say in the country’s domestic policies. This became most evident in 1999 when the far right Freedom Party of Austria, the FPO won 26.9% of the vote under its controversial leader, Jorge Haider, to become the second most popular party of the country. When the Austrian People’s Party, the OVP, formed a coalition government with the FPO in February 2000, Wolfgang Shussel of the OVP became the Chancellor of the country. Susanne Reiss-Passer of the FPO became the Vice Chancellor of the country. The far right party FPO and its controversial head, Jorge Haider, seemed to have disturbing Neo-Nazi proclivities.  The EU countries did not approve of this coalition government. Earlier, in January 2000, fourteen EU countries had threatened to sanction Austria, in case the OVP formed a coalition government with the FPO.  They did that after the coalition government was formed on February 4, 2000. Earlier, Austria had experienced a similar international censor during the Kurt Waldheim presidency (1986-92) for Waldheim’s pro-Wehrmacht pronouncements and positions. The EU sanctions were, however, lifted soon.

Through the first quarter of the twenty-first century, Austria has successfully negotiated its historical tradition of neutrality in foreign policy with its EU obligations. Even though it did not quite measure up to the expectations of the European Union in its contribution towards the enlargement of the Union in the former communist countries in the Eastern Europe, Austria’s efforts towards promotion of democracy in the former Warsaw Pact countries cannot be underestimated. It has often played a supportive role in encouraging the transition of the former communist Eastern European countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia towards a more democratic and open path.

Austria has been a significant contributor towards the efforts of the global multilateral organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It hosts one of the four major offices of the UN in Vienna. The headquarters of the IAEA too are based in Vienna. The headquarters of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are also located in Vienna.

The diverse crises of the first quarter of the twenty-first century have challenged the Austrian foreign policy in a number of ways. The global economic crisis of the 20007-8, the Corona epidemic breakout in 2019-20 and the eruption of the Russia-Ukraine War in 2022 have all tested the Austrian foreign policy. Austria has maintained a principled position, well in keeping with its historic traditions and in harmony with the EU values and international norms, through all of these crises. Over decades, Austria’s conduct and posture of peace promotion, support for reconciliation and contributions towards disarmament have endeared it to most of the International Community.