Lessons from Austria-Hungary for North America and the Middle East

The year 1867 could be thought of as the year of compromise. As Canadians, we are familiar with our own grand compromise that was enshrined at Confederation—a political union between English and French that helped ensure the independence of the country we have today. But 1867 was also the year of another important inter-cultural compromise; one of the Austro-Hungarian variety, known in German as the Ausgleich. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had a single, shared head of state: Franz Joseph I. Austria and Hungary had a common foreign policy and a unified military. Together, the two entities formed a customs union. Otherwise, there was a tremendous amount of self-rule, with certain specific territories within the empire governed from Vienna, and others from Budapest. In today’s increasingly complex world, it may be useful to think outside the box when it comes to crafting long-term foreign policy strategies. There may be several regions that could look to the Ausgleich for inspiration today, but let’s focus on two: North America and Israel-Palestine. Using the various assets and resources of the United States in a comprehensive fashion could be a highly effective way for Canada to start punching above its weight on the international scene once again. Mexico and the United States each have a demography that is healthier than our own. A common labour market, a move beyond a mere customs union, may help to rejuvenate our population, while also increasing its size and thus our geopolitical clout. Proposals have been discussed to increase the scope of NORAD, and the topic of continental ballistic missile defence is back on the table. A more comprehensive continental security framework would provide Canada with the backdrop necessary to pursue deeper relations safely with Russia and China. In other words, developing a new overarching consensus with Washington is a necessary precondition for Ottawa be able to engage in sustained strategic promiscuity. Ottawa and Washington wouldn’t share a common foreign policy, but rather a common approach or strategy. The latter would provide the power, while the former could serve as a diplomatic bridge in instances of conflict between American interests and those of non-Western powers. Canada, in effect, would be piggybacking on America’s clout and using it as a power multiplier. A common head of state is not verily an option, for reasons related to identity and practicality, but if some form of political integration were eventually to occur between Canada, the United States and Mexico, then a supranational body of limited scope could come into existence. All of the aforementioned parameters require deeper exploration as to their content and workability. But the important thing is that we begin to think about the long-term: What will the geopolitical realities of the decades ahead be, and what must we do to remain competitive and to contribute to international stability in a changing global environment? One area where the notion of an Ausgleich may fit the bill more completely is the case of Israel-Palestine. The 1993 Oslo Accords were an interim agreement: Israel and the nascent Palestinian Authority were to recognize each other, and Israel was to cede territory gradually in exchange for security guarantees; no stipulations were initially made as to the shape of the final-status agreement. Therefore, if it were possible, what would an Israeli-Palestinian Ausgleich look like? A common, Jewish-majority military would protect the entire country and meet the Israeli criterion of a demilitarized Palestine. A customs union would create a single economic space and provide the Palestinians with better growth prospects than if they were to be an independent state, due to the stability and size of the Israeli economy. The union could have a single foreign policy on political and security issues. And Israel-Palestine could have a single figurehead as head of state, with actual political power being vested in two separate, autonomous parliaments; one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. Instead of a binational state, you would have a federal state that would allow for the self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians. Which of the two-state or federal outcomes is ultimately preferable may depend on whether a solution to the conflict is arrived at mutually or unilaterally, something that would have a major impact on each people’s cultural attitudes and perceptions. The Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 shows that attempts to secure peace, order and good government extend well beyond our own borders. As we prepare to mark the sesquicentennial of our own great compromise, may the memory of past inter-ethnic reconciliations inspire us to build a stable and peaceful world for generations to come.