Parliamentary Assembly

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

The first question was about sanctions against Russia. Austria is fully committed to the position of the European Union and, of course, was also participating in the decision last December on the continuation of the sanctions. The Minsk Agreement does not show any real development towards a conclusion that the sanctions are superfluous. Economically of course, this is not in Austria’s interests: we have a very close relationship with Russia in trade and in direct investment, but we still accept the position of the European Union and try to keep the dialogue open on all possible – I do not want to use the word “fronts” – in all possible ways.

The second question concerned Mr Dugin. I am sorry: I was not in Vienna and I do not know what happened. If what you are saying is true, it is totally unacceptable. That is obvious. I certainly will not defend that in any way. I do not know who invited him or what the context was, but if what you are saying is correct, I can only say that it is unacceptable in every way.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

I know about this opinion, which is not unique to people outside Austria – it is present in Austria too. It is certainly true that, especially among one of the coalition partners, xenophobic tendencies have been present in past, and also critical attitudes towards the European Union and European unity in general. However, that was the rhetoric of an opposition party, and we will see what the Government really does.

When I think back – it was a different situation, but still – in 2000 we had a coalition of the Conservative party and the Freedom party in Austria, and there was strong concern about the new Government, even with the reaction of the EU14, as it was at the time, levelling so-called sanctions or measures against Austria. After six months or so, the situation quietened. Why? Because you can distinguish between rhetoric and the concrete measures and new laws that were proposed in Parliament. It was a centre-right Government, but they did not violate human rights. They took all kinds of actions against – well, I do not want to go into it really – but actions that were directed against the power positions of the Social Democrats, but not human rights as such, even then.

So personally, I will sit and wait, but use all the opportunities available to a federal president to show you and the people in Austria that civil society is still there. In 2015, Austria had almost 100 000 applicants for asylum. The situation was critical, but it was brought under control with the help of civil society – organisations such as the Catholic Church, other churches, the Red Cross, non-governmental organisations of all kinds and ordinary people who helped with apartments, food, railway tickets and so on. That is the other part of Austria that you should not forget when you look with concern at the new government. I understand up to a point, but do not forget that you are talking not about Austria but about some political developments, which should be taken seriously but should not cause you to panic.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

I did not hear the second part of your question. The first was on the co-ordination of asylum policy in the European Union, and the second was –

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

It will not be an easy presidency, that is for sure. The Brexit negotiations are going on – maybe they will come to an end, maybe not. There are certain financial issues relating to the European Union budget, not least because of the Brexit negotiations, and the situation regarding asylum co-ordination is unsatisfactory to say the least. Still, at the moment the situation is under control. It was different in 2015. In Austria, there was a bit of a time lag in people’s reaction to the fact that the situation was out of control, in the sense that at least 1 million people crossed into Austria – some 10% stayed there – without there being border controls or any information about who was coming or going. It was certainly unsatisfactory, to say the least.

On the other hand, I understand – to a degree, at least – the positions of neighbouring countries that have no tradition of accepting refugees in great numbers. Austria has that history. We had a similar situation after the Second World War, we had 1956 with Hungary, we had 1968 with Czechoslovakia, we had the crisis in Poland in the late ’90s, and we had Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each time, large numbers of people – 80 000, 100 000 or 200 000 – came to Austria in a very short time, so we basically know how to deal with it. I understand that countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and Poland do not have that experience. However, if this continues in the long run, it is not acceptable, after decisions are made according to the rules of the European Council by majority voting, for member States that do not agree with the rulings to say, “Well, you made a decision, but we won’t go along with it.” If that happens in other cases, the European Union will break up. That is no way to continue on our path. I take that almost as seriously as the fact that the distribution of refugees and asylum seekers across the Union is very difficult indeed. Breaking the rules is more serious in the long run.

The government, Commissioner Hahn and I are convinced that the Western Balkans should be one of the priorities for the policy of the European Union. All the countries of the Western Balkans must have a prospect of joining the Union. If we do not take that seriously, a kind of political vacuum will develop and other countries will move in. We have already seen that happen in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, and that is not in the European interest. Having said that, I think we should not be naive. We are talking about five, six or seven countries in the Western Balkans. Commissioner Hahn optimistically estimated that we could have an agreement by 2023, meaning that they could join in 2024 or 2025.

This is not just a question of the countries trying to join the European Union doing their homework. It is obvious that they must do that. It is also a question of the homework that we – the old member States – have to do. I do not think that Union’s present institutional framework can cope with six new members, even if the United Kingdom leaves the Union – and I am very sorry about that. It is too many. We have to think about voting rights in the Commission, who will nominate judges and so on. Such questions have to be dealt with in parallel with the application negotiations with those countries. We should take that issue more seriously, because, as someone said, there is a certain Müdigkeit – fatigue – regarding enlargement in the Union. This clearly puts fire in the discussion.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

Language is important, you are right, and I have said so in public, although I think the interpretation of that statement by our new Minister of the Interior was rather far-fetched, but still.

My powers as a federal president are similar to those of other presidents who do not have real executive powers. I have some influence in how I behave: where, when, on which topic and in what manner I make speeches – that is, influencing the public – and talking to the media, obviously. I have to sign new laws, but I do not have a veto power. I have to check whether the laws were passed with a sufficient majority in parliament. It is very rare for the federal president not to sign a law. I can remember only one case in the last 50 years, which was when President Heinz Fischer was convinced that a small point in the law was contrary to the constitution. It was not terribly important, but still, it was unconstitutional, so he did not sign and parliament had to deal with it again.

I could talk about this topic for hours, but to make it short, one of the problems – actually, it is not a problem, but a good thing – is that our constitutional court is an institution that you can really have trust in. I say that even though I was a sort of victim of one of its decisions, when it annulled the result of the May 2016 election, in which I had won, but by only a small margin. In the end, that decision by the constitutional court turned out to be a good thing, because in the subsequent December election I won not by a margin of 50 000 votes, but by 350 000 votes. So as it turned out, it was right again, but that’s another story.

Any law can be challenged before the constitutional court, depending on certain rules – who is allowed to do that, and so on – so even if parliament passes a law that I have my doubts about but I am not sure whether it is really unconstitutional, and that law is then passed, somebody else can fight it before the constitutional court. This is really a serious matter. The constitutional court is not easily open to political influence. It has about 15 members, and this is something that will come across my desk in the next few months, because judges have to leave office when they are 70, and that is the case for three judges at the moment. Again, I have to sign their nominations to the court.

This is Austria, and that means that the government and I will have discussions – about who the possible candidates are, why they are candidates and why they have been put forward – and usually things like that are discussed before it becomes public that we have different opinions. In this way I have some influence. They make a proposal, and by law I may take the liberty not to sign, because it is a proposal. That is the fine Austrian language, which says: “The president cannot do many things by himself; he waits for proposals by the government,” but a proposal is a proposal. I can say, “No. Please, next proposal.” You do not do that very often, but you can do it.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

You can be assured that I have my own opinions about policies towards foreigners, including refugees. Of course, not every man or woman who crosses the border seeking asylum has sufficient grounds to be granted asylum. We all know that. The difficult question is what to do then, but this is not new. We have had this problem for decades, and not only in Austria but in all European countries, where greater numbers are applying for asylum. Personally, I would not wish to make such decisions, I can tell you. We are talking about families being separated and people having to return after living for years in Austria, and it is the same in Italy and Germany.

These are difficult questions. On the European level, we should be aware that we have left Greece alone for a long time – too long. We have also left Italy alone for a long time – too long. Up to a point, I could say that Austria should not complain too much, because we are only worried now that we are having to deal with large numbers, but at present the situation in Austria is – how should I put it? – under control. People have a roof over their heads – they have an apartment; they can live somewhere. Their daily needs are fulfilled and there is practically no violence. Yes, there is bad language – let us call it that – in the so-called media, but there is no actual violence against migrants. Statistically, we have not seen an unreasonable increase in crime, either by foreigners or against foreigners. Still, it will accompany us for years. Even if kids are fully integrated and going to kindergarten and school and so on, we have to integrate the people who are 30 or 40 years old, which will be difficult for the labour market. It will not be easy in any case.

We also have to be careful: when accepting immigrants as refugees, especially from the Near East, we certainly do not want to import anti-Semitism at the same time. I do not want to be naïve: if you grow up in an anti-Israeli environment, which is usually the case for these refugees – and understandable, too – that can easily develop into anti-Semitism, and that is the last thing that we need in Austria or in other countries. The Israelitische Kultusgemeinde in Vienna and in Austria are very careful where they go to commemorate the anniversaries of the liberation of Auschwitz, or the end of the Second World War or the occupation of Austria by Hitler’s Germany. They are very careful about where to show up and where not, and I understand their position.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

Historically, Austria has had a very good position in the Western Balkans. In Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia – everywhere – we are welcome as negotiators, either for firms investing directly there or in trying to further trade between our countries, including Serbia. I am happy to say that President Vucic will visit me in Vienna next week, where we will discuss those things. As I said before, we have a strong interest in European Union enlargement in the Western Balkans. It is in the interest of the countries there and of the countries of the European Union, and it is particularly in the interests of Austria because of our strong historical personal and economic relations with all those countries, without exception.

Still, there are some problems, which you will of course know better than me. There is the issue of Kosovo. I mention that because, after Cyprus and the problems between Slovenia and Croatia, the leaders of the European Union are tired of accepting new members that have border problems with other neighbours. Those have to be dealt with before gaining full membership of the European Union. I hope those issues will be dealt with satisfactorily within a couple of years, especially in the case of Serbia. I am fairly optimistic about that.

Mr van der Bellen, President of the Republic of Austria

On the first question, about right-wing parties and the future of the European Union, when I worry about the future of the European Union, I worry about developments across the countries of the Union, not in Austria alone. In the long election campaign in Austria for the federal presidency – it lasted the whole of 2016 – it was, in a sense, interesting and tragic that, in the six months leading up to the second election, I tried to take up European topics in every speech and interview, and there was zero echo. Nobody was interested. That situation changed dramatically after the error of the majority of the British people in voting for Brexit. People, including me, suddenly woke up to the idea that it is a real possibility that this fine institution, the European Union, might break up. That changed the whole atmosphere.

At the time of Brexit, the Freedom Party made the mistake at first of welcoming the decision of the majority of the British people. After a couple of weeks, they realised that the decision was not popular at all in Austria, so they changed their position. You might call that opportunistic. I am not calling it that. In fact, I think that it is reasonable and laudable. Nevertheless, if I am in a bad mood, I remember an article that was written, I think, by a German journalist at the end of 1933 or the beginning of 1934. The journalist said that Germany had a democracy – Weimar Demokratie – but that it did not have enough democrats. If I have slept badly, I think to myself, “I do not want to wake up one day and say that we had a united Europe, but we did not have enough Europeans.” If this sort of Müdigkeit – tiredness – with and misunderstanding of the necessity of a united Europe exists, this is not just a question of the relative strength of right-wing parties; it concerns us all.

There was a question about people trying to cross the Mediterranean. The situation in the sea between Greece and Turkey is more or less under control. We are talking about very small numbers of people, and that has been the case for a year or so. Even the situation between Italy and Libya has improved considerably. I really admire the Italian authorities, which, in this terribly complicated and difficult situation, did a great job negotiating with Libya. With whom in Libya? There are no real working political or State institutions there, but the Italian authorities somehow managed to get fewer people on the sea, crossing the sea and drowning in the sea. This brings up a new problem: the people staying in Libya under terrible conditions and the people crossing the southern border into Libya. We have to look at the whole northern part of Africa in order to get the situation there under control. That will cost money, but it is in our interest.

Mr Crowe’s question was again about the Freedom Party. I am sort of tired of this subject. We have to take these developments seriously, but also with tongue in cheek. In Austria, over at least 100 years there was always the potential for a clear right-wing party – under different names, of course. That was the case under the monarchy and after the monarchy failed in 1918. I am not here to worry about France, but I was very, very happy that President Macron won the election last year. In German, we would say, “ein Stein fiel mir vom Herzen”; I felt as though a weight had been lifted from my heart. With France, you could worry that father Le Pen got about 20% of the votes against Chirac, and that Madame Le Pen got about 40% of the votes against Macron. What is going on in France? I am happy for you to focus your interest on Austria, but please realise that this political development is not particular to Austria.

I have thought about this issue. When I won the presidential election about a year ago in December 2016, you could say that there was a coalition of centre-left voters. Hardly a year later, the voters made a centre-right coalition possible. But, if you look closer, that included the same people. Of course, people voted for me who were not greens, social democrats or liberals, but who were very conservative. They did not like the other candidate so, gritting their teeth and making a fist, they voted for me. Hardly a year later, there is an absolutely legal and legitimate position in parliament making a centre-right coalition possible. That is normal in a democracy. Within a very short period, we had centre-left and centre-right majorities. C’est la vie.

I will do my best to keep my many promises to my voters. Among them was that I want to be a president for all Austrians. I have to ensure that I really do keep the interests of all Austrians in mind, not only my voters – although they are, of course, in my heart; the others are in my head.