Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, a grandson of the last Austrian Emperor Charles I and the current head of the house of Habsburg, is an interesting person. He currently holds the position of the president of the Association of National Committees of the Blue Shield, that is, the cultural Red Cross societies which deal with the protection of cultural heritage when it is threatened by war and natural disasters. Talking to him, one can feel that he is a true aristocrat, a polite, but also highly educated man with a deep knowledge of the history of Europe and of course, above all, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, once ruled by the Habsburgs.
In his Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger wrote that “the Habsburg rulers were principled people.” In an exclusive interview for The Day, a descendant of the Habsburgs reveals who he can name as principled people when dealing with the current crop of European political elite...
Our conversation with Karl Habsburg-Lothringen took place via Skype on October 14. He apologized for postponing the interview, which was planned for October 13, to the next day. Since Habsburg-Lothringen specially flew to The Hague to hear firsthand the report prepared by the Dutch Safety Board on the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, the conversation started with his impressions of the just-released document.
“As a former military pilot, I have been reading a lot of reports on accidents, and it cannot be clearer than the report actually is, when it talks about the location from which the plane was targeted, about the choice of weapons, all of this.
“The report is very clear, and the report in itself, as far as I could see, is correcting a lot of the things that were alleged in the morning, in the press conference, from the Russian side, it kind of dissolves them.
“When I’m looking at the Russian reaction about it, and the Russian presentation in the morning, it is – I don’t know if this saying exists in other languages, not only in German: ‘Words are cheap.’ When I say ‘nope’ to everything, and I say ‘it was not me,’ although all the evidence is against me, but I just keep on saying, ‘it was not me,’ and think this is okay. Well, there is not much you can do from the international side. But all the evidence is very clear.”
By the way, American journalist Paul Sonne tweeted: “Two worlds. BBC showing Dutch Safety Board results. Russian state television showing Almaz Antey press conference,” which denied Russian involvement in this terrorist attack. How should the West in general and Europe in particular act in this situation?
“It’s a very complicated question because of course we have seen that, based on the actions taken by the Russian side, be it the military intervention in Ukraine or further interventions in Syria or other places, the West has taken certain steps that were not very efficient in this way. I think the measures that were taken against individuals in Russia, like banning them from traveling and doing this sort of thing, that is something that’s very efficient. I am not sure that the economic measures are very efficient, because I don’t think they are really hitting home in Russia. I think the personal measures are absolutely correct. I think it would be very advisable if we want to enforce law or enforce legal principles that the West would enhance a little bit their steps that we take against obviously guilty persons in Russia. I’m talking not only about Malaysian Airlines, I’m talking about general measures that are taken in Ukraine or in Syria, although Syria is another story...”
So, you think that economic sanctions do not affect Russia?
“That’s right. I don’t see the effect. I only see the negative effect on the European side, for example, but I don’t really see a strong effect. I think other measures are more efficient.
“I can only urge those people that I know to consider taking measures that are more efficient. And we have seen that the measures that were more efficient, are measures taken against individuals, instead of taking measures against the entire state.”
But American politicians usually say that economic sanctions had an impact on Iran, making this year’s nuclear agreement possible. What do you think of this?
“And how long did it take? About 30 years! They really think that they want to wait 30 years with Russia in order to see if there is any efficiency there? I just think that’s not entirely true. The sanctions that were taken against Iran, were much more all-encompassing than any sanctions that were taken against Russia. With Iran, it was a complete ban on technology transfer, it was a complete economic ban, it was a currency ban, there were so many measures that were taken on Iran. We cannot even compare the two measures. And Iran, definitely, has changed, and I’m personally very glad there’s an agreement now between Iran and the United States, and I really hope it gets enacted.”
What about the West imposing restrictive measures on Russia’s energy sector?
“I think it is something that depends very much on the oil price. With the current oil price Americans are not in such a bad situation. I think the original American calculation was, that with the oil price around 60, 70, or 80 dollars a barrel, then for them fracking really makes sense. And the system of fracking would have led, and is probably leading, the United States within the next five years into a situation where they are independent of gas and oil. They are not anymore dependent on import, they become exporters in both terms. And that was the American calculation at the oil price of the time. Of course, the oil price has changed radically, there is also a change in American policy, a little bit. But the fact that they thought they’d be independent was driving them (it is my conviction) to change policy, or not have really any policy anymore, when it comes to the Middle East. They were not dependent any more on the energy coming out of this area, and therefore their interest in this area was kind of going down. And it was leaving a lot of leeway for other forces to move in, and try and take some of the role that the Americans have played in the past there. And of course, there are several players: there’s Russia playing its role in Iran; Iran wants to play one of the pivotal roles there. And it plays a certain role, I’m all for it; I’m not quite sure I want it to be the player there, that’s another question. There’s of course China moving in, because they are very much interested in the energy resources coming from that area, so we are seeing quite a bit of a change in the entire game in that area.”
As we know, by supplying energy resources to Europe, Russia gains some influence on the policies of these countries. On the other hand, Europe could definitely influence the policy of the Kremlin by refusing to buy Russian gas and oil. What do you think of this?
“Yes of course it has. Anybody who has sensible thinking would say that if you have a possibility to organize your energy imports, you should not be depending on one source. Currently, especially in the gas area, we are dependent on one source, we are dependent on Russia exporting. But we should not forget one thing: Russia is also dependent on it (laughs). But we are buying the material because without the financial resources they are getting through the energy export they cannot, they haven’t got a good situation. In some way, it’s affecting both sides, definitely. But I think if there’s a possibility to diversify energy import a little bit, yes, it would be necessary, and it has not happened to a satisfactory degree in Europe at all.”
In his Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger wrote that “the Habsburg rulers were principled people.” What can you say in this context of the current European leaders? Do they have principles and follow them in their relations with Russia?
“I think we have to see this in two different areas. I do not doubt the European conviction, let’s put it this way. They are all passionate Europeans, no question about that. I don’t think that the European leaders currently have a policy on what their role is towards Russia. I think that starts on the point that there are totally different opinions within the European Union on how enlargement, for example, should be treated, and that’s something that is affecting Russia where Russia wants to play a specific role in it. I mean there’s an old historic wisdom that even a bad policy will always beat no policy.
MEP KARL HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN IN PLENARY SESSION AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN STRASBOURG, 1997 / Photo courtesy of Karl HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN
“I don’t see, currently, that the European Union really has a policy in this field. You can see this in the deal of sanctions, you can see this in many other ways, but we are really lacking policies. We are actually lacking leadership in the European Union, currently. We are definitely lacking, you know, a person that is in the leading position in the European Union and can very clearly take a position in foreign politics and internal politics. Ms. Merkel has some decision-making power, no doubt about that, but she isn’t that person, the leader, I don’t see that.”
What can you say about the US’s role, particularly that of Barack Obama?
“We should not forget one thing: America is for the next year and a half to two years out of any question. We have the election campaign. I am sure that Russia is banking on it. With the activities they are setting in Syria, I’m sure they are banking on the fact that America is basically out of any calculation for the upcoming months or one or two years. That’s a sad truth when you look into American history there was always a certain period of time before and after the elections that America was not acting, specifically not acting in foreign politics. I mean, with one very small exception that was Ronald Reagan. Obama is so far away from being a Ronald Reagan; I don’t even know what a comparison to make here. There’s no policy. America, currently, is not a factor. In economy, definitely, but not in politics.”
Is there truly no other way for Europe to stand up to Russia?
“It’s unfair to say that there’s no leadership and no policy, but much too little, and not forceful enough. Everybody is currently saying, oh this Merkel is basically calling the shots in Europe, which I don’t think is something she feels comfortable with. She says, yes of course, she’s happy to do this for Germany, but not for all of Europe. Just the mere fact that she happens to be at the helm of the richest country of Europe does not automatically put her in a position where she’s calling the shots.
“In the economic conflict with Greece, it was always Greece against Germany. And I’m sorry, that’s not the case, it was Greece with their own problems in relationship to Europe, and Germany was just another factor in it.”
At the Paris meeting of the Normandy Quartet, Angela Merkel said that “now we have Paris guarantees instead of Minsk guarantees.” Do you see any solutions to the so-called Ukrainian crisis, which is actually the Russian aggression in the Donbas? Will Russia honor the Minsk Accords?
“I’m sure you were watching yesterday the presentation in Russia, on the MH17 accident. I didn’t see it, but I was told that there was a question asked by a young Chilean lady journalist who was there. She was saying basically, ok, this is accident version number 23 or 24 that we are seeing. Is anybody coming up with version 26, 27, and 28? To some degree, that is also how I see it in the other role. Ok, we have Minsk agreements, I know we have Paris agreements, and next thing we might have I-don’t-know-what agreements. I’m sorry, as long as we don’t force the agreements, we can take as many agreements as is possible.”
Ukraine had high hopes for the Budapest Memorandum, which, as it turned out, offered non-binding assurances rather than guarantees of territorial integrity of our country. Some experts believe that Ukraine should sign an agreement with the US and UK, similar to the mutual defense pact existing between the US and Japan. What do you think about this?
“To be very honest, I don’t think new agreements would be good when the last 27 agreements have not been honored. Why don’t we just go back and take those agreements that we have, and see that they get honored, instead of getting into the idea that we have to have new agreements and new systems there. Especially when we talk about the situation in Ukraine, it’s a legally completely clear case, we have an occupied territory in Crimea, we have an armed conflict in eastern Ukraine in the Donbas area, we have a military influence there, the OSCE is taking all the evidence – although I would wish to see that the OSCE would be publishing much more of their findings than they are actually doing. I’m pretty sure they are able people, they must have much more findings than they are actually publishing. It’s all there! It just needs to be implemented, it’s not a question of making new agreements.
“On the other side, as long as people are talking, at least sometimes it’s avoiding worse situations. Currently, it’s really up to implementing what has been agreed upon earlier – not necessarily a question of creating plenty of new agreement, treaties, god-knows-what! I mean, the situation is so clear! It’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel.”
Are the steps already taken by NATO, as it increases its military presence in the Baltic States and Poland, enough to deter Vladimir Putin?
“This is very simple. I think what has been done, is like putting on makeup. But one has to admit that in some cases makeup can make somebody look much nice than they usually look. But does makeup really change the personality? No, it doesn’t. So, I am very glad about deployment in the Baltic States. I am very glad and grateful for every NATO soldier or plane that goes there and sits there, because yes, of course, they are also a guarantor of our freedom in Central and Western Europe
“Is it something that is really deterring somebody from marching in that direction? Militarily, definitely not. It’s really much more makeup and – how should I put that? It raises the level of difficulty to undertake something against those countries. A real deterrent? I don’t think it is. So you know, it is makeup, and makeup can be a good thing.”
What are the Ukrainians to do in such circumstances, how are we to confront Russia?
“I think in many ways they are doing the right thing anyway. I think one front on which a lot of work has to be done is the information front. Because the disinformation that is currently coming out of Russia on the situation in Ukraine and the situation in Donbas is absolutely mind-boggling. I mean, in the morning, if I want to put myself in a bad mood, I put on RT, with all the lies there, and it puts me immediately in a bad mood. There have been a lot of discussions, people saying ‘Oh my God, we should have a Western type of Russia Today.’ I’d say this is not possible, because there you need unlimited funds; well, maybe you find it; but what you don’t have in the West is the unlimited willingness to lie. And it is there [on RT]. So, I’m looking at the information coming out from that direction, and a lot of it is blatantly not saying the truth! And I think this would be a very, very valid front to become much stronger, by basically working on an international information level of basically providing the truth, and really checking on the facts that get distributed all the time by Russia, and just show when they are wrong or when they are right. I just think really on that information front it’s very important, because when it boils down it’s the information that also influences politicians, influences politics. So, I think this is an area with a lot of possibilities still there.”
Well-known American analyst Stephen Blank of the American Foreign Policy Council recently wrote an article entitled “A Bold and Optimistic Strategy for Europe.” In particular, he stressed that the US government should first of all provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and more military instructors as well as simultaneously increase defense spending to improve the conventional forces deterrent in Europe. Secondly, the US should invest a lot in intelligence and research work on Russia and other former Soviet Union nations. And thirdly, the West should replace emergency loans with a direct assistance program for Ukraine, to ensure its long-term stability, growth, democratization, and West-bound integration. Is this not a program worth implementing by the West?
“It’s a very good program, it’s just not very realistic. If I open media today, if I look at newspapers or television, Ukraine is not in the headlines. On the one hand, I’m very glad it’s not in the headlines, because it would probably be a bad thing if it were. But on the other hand, if it’s not in the headlines, it will not receive the aid that it should be getting. Everybody says, no we have to focus on refugees, and we have to focus on integration within the European Union, all that sort of things. I think some of the points he is mentioning are very valid and should be worked upon, it’s a program, I like to hear that. I just don’t see it realistically happening.”
Is the reason for this the lack of will or vision?
“I think it’s definitely the lack of vision. There’s no question about that. I think many people in the West would have the will, when they have to write a list of priorities, I have to say in parentheses (luckily) Ukraine is not on the priority list for them. They are saying, okay, it’s a big country, they are having certain problems, yes, they have been treated unjust by Russia, currently it’s something which has luckily calmed down – that’s where the lack of vision comes in: saying ‘yes, it has currently calmed down.’ But God knows what’s going to happen in Ukraine as soon as Syria has calmed down again. Because then all the focus of Russia comes back on Ukraine. I’m not looking forward to that. We should be prepared for that. And the West is definitely not prepared for that.”
What do you think about the role of the monarchy in the world today? Was not the world’s rejection of this model of government somewhat premature?
“If someone says, ‘monarchy is the system of the past, and something else is the system of the future,’ then I would say this is absolute nonsense. Because we have political systems, we have systems of government that are different, and none of them is the satellite of the past, and none of them is the satellite of the future. And I always do like to point out that, not too long ago, definitely all the monarchies in Europe are excellent democracies, and for sure you could not say the same things about all the republics in Europe. So, for me, it’s a political system that has its validity today, as it had in the past. I’m talking about representative monarchy. But you know, it is basically for feeling one thing, which is always a political element that people are striving after, which is continuity. That is why in all the republics we have the debate: should the French president be ruling for six years, or seven years, or eight years, or five years… And people want to have it long-term because if we have a good president, we want to have continuity in there.
“And of course monarchy is one system where you can say that the person who is the monarch gets trained all his life for the job, and secondly, it fulfils this need and this urge for continuity.
“On the other side, of course, the argument is that what if there is a bad monarch coming in, he is also in for a long term. But, as well as there are systems to get rid of a bad president, there should be systems, and there are systems in the current monarchies to get rid of a bad monarch. So, this is not really an argument for me. I’m just saying, we have valid political systems that are all existing in the framework of Europe today, and monarchy is one of them.”
You may have heard the words of Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, who asked “When shall we get ourselves a Washington?” Does our country need a George Washington? What do you think about this?
“All the presidents have their specific traits, and their positive and negative sides. I think Washington was definitely the person that was perfect in the place for the creation of the United States. I really don’t see Ukraine being in a similar situation, and I probably see it different there because, of course, Ukraine is a long-standing, traditionally European country. It has played a huge role in one or another constellation, in the creation of the European continent. It cannot and should not be compared with the United States, which was a young, upcoming state, which would re-invent or re-create itself. Of course having someone of the format, charisma, and abilities of Washington would always be a good thing.”
Sometimes it is Charles de Gaulle who is mentioned in this context in our country... Which of the two would be better for Ukraine?
“It’s very difficult to answer. De Gaulle is closer to my type of thinking and, of course, much closer to my time. I still remember him. As a young child, I remember listening to him on the radio and things like this. So, logically I’m more inclined to someone like De Gaulle, who was taking (and so was Washington, too) the country in the most difficult and dire of circumstances after the Second World War, basically leading it to its old pride. He was perfect for France, so I doubt that the same personality would be perfect for Ukraine. But if Ukraine should find its own De Gaulle – De Gaulle is a good idea.”
Some Ukrainians believe that the nation needs a kind of “intelligent dictator.” What do you say to that?
“I’m not so much on the dictator side, I have to say. I think we have all had rather bad experiences with that, and we shouldn’t forget that just a couple of days ago people voted for a president who is more inclined to rule through his family than through anything else. So, I don’t think this is a good solution. I think in many cases, when you have a functioning system, even a bad democracy is better than a good dictatorship.”
Some experts believe that Napoleon I was a ruler devoted to European integration who wanted to spread his legal code all over the continent. What do you think about this?
“I have to answer that with a quote of Bismarck: ‘You can do everything with a bayonet, except sitting on it.’ That, to some degree, is what Napoleon was doing: he was enforcing his European power by bayonets. No, that did not work, of course. In some respect, I have great admiration for Napoleon, especially when it comes to his juridical element. Code Napoleon and that sort of things are fantastic, are absolutely amazing achievements. He was a complete workaholic, he definitely was a military genius, but when it comes to foreign policy – no, I don’t think here he had the right approach. By his own account, he fought 79 battles, winning 66. And as a Habsburg, I always like to point out that the first 13 battles that Napoleon was commanding were all battles against Austria, of which he lost 2 and he won 11. We were not very successful against him because he was a military genius, no doubt. But of course, as a Habsburg, you automatically become kind of wary when it comes to showing Napoleonic international approach.”
How would you comment on the recent municipal elections in Vienna? Are there dangerous signs of the far-right coming to power in Austria?
“There are two things one has to see there. One element is that we are seeing the nationalist movements getting currently stronger in Europe. And nationalist movements always have a certain percentage of voters in Europe, and that was usually varying between 5 and 15 percent, depending on the country, whether you look at Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, they were always there. Under normal democratic circumstances you can absolutely deal with it. Currently it is getting stronger, there are strong indications that Russia is supporting very strong nationalistic movements in Europe. There are links that are open, let’s say Panos Kammenos in Greece, who is part of the government. He is a right-wing hardcore nationalist, but he is fully supported and indoctrinated by Russia, his connections with Dugin are known. So, there are some things, and one has to say that the current situation, especially also with the refugee crisis that we are having, is playing into the hands of nationalist movements. Nationalist movement was the cause of the First World War, it was the cause of the Second World War, and currently it is one of the biggest dangers that is threatening Europe. It has been in the past, and it will be so in the future. So one has always to be wary of what is happening there, but I’m not seeing it as a threat of nationalist movement suddenly taking over Europe. No, that I really don’t see currently. I see a strengthening on that side, yes, but I don’t see a danger of taking it over.”
Will you participate in the next parliamentary election in your country?
“No, definitely not. I mean, I was in the European Parliament, I have to say I absolutely loved being in the European Parliament. But currently my work is not in that field, my work is really linked with personal and international humanitarian law, intellectual property protection, and armed conflicts. I have to say that this is the field I really love working in. And I think I have quite a good impact there, I can achieve quite a lot there. But I have to admit my time in the European Parliament was definitely the time I loved every single day of.”
How often do you visit Ukraine, because we could not find much information about your stays in our country in the media?
“I have been plenty of times in Ukraine. I don’t know how often, but really very often. I have been a lot in the west, in Lviv, Chernivtsi, and I still remember my grandmother telling me about these areas, when she was there with my grandfather. That is something I feel very close to. I feel very close to Ukraine overall. I think for me it was a very good and logical decision to try and engage myself a little bit in the media side of Ukraine and see if we can impact the whole situation by transmitting the European message, I think it’s very important.”
What message do you have in mind?
“Showing there’s a certain European spirit, showing what other European countries are doing in their daily lives, of course. What we are showing on our radio station is very much what’s happening in the daily life, and not necessarily the political impact. But I also think that to show the normality of Europe is very important, because so many people are talking about Ukraine as being an artificial creation, or being partly Russia, or something like this. And it is just highly important to me to show that this is not the case. That, of course, Ukraine is an integral part of Europe, and Europe will never be complete without Ukraine being directly part of it.”
It is common knowledge that Europe’s overarching aim is expanding the sphere of prosperity, security, and freedom of movement. Where do you see the limits of this sphere?
“You see, of course the situation has changed drastically, because Europe used to be a big colonial power, which it is not anymore, because it has really changed from being a colonial power to being basically a trade power. And the main economic thrive for Europe comes from its ability to trade. We don’t have that many resources here, the resources are in those areas that used to be colonies, but they are not anymore. One thing that is not changed and which is difficult to see is that our attitude to the neighbors has not changed. And what we have been talking about, the ‘near abroad’ in the Soviet time, is still here today. And they are still treating their neighbors to some degree like colonies, and that’s something which is not really acceptable. They are sovereign states, and they have to be respected as sovereign states, and cannot be just treated as something that’s depending prolongation of your own country, it doesn’t work.”
