The formation of Austria's right-wing coalition government yesterday has reinforced the scale of international criticism and condemnation of the decision to include Mr Jorg Haider's far-right Freedom Party in its ranks. This is a profound moment for Austria, and for its 14 partners in the European Union which have announced boycotts on bilateral contacts with the Austrians. Based on their experience of the duplicitous extremism of other far-right parties and the imperative to protect democratic values one must respect these unprecedented steps. But there is room to doubt whether the means chosen match the ends proclaimed.
Words and deeds are at the heart of the matter. Mr Haider is notorious for his slips-of-tongue in favour of Nazi policies and his xenophobic rhetoric against foreigners. They reveal an extremism that cannot be explained away by his well-known opportunism and shifts of position. He talks simultaneously in extreme terms to his core followers and in emollient ones to wider public opinion. So do other such parties in France, Germany, Belgium and Italy, all of which states have taken very firm lines against this week's Austrian decision. These parties' verbal commitment to democratic norms and values is simply not considered to be credible.
The Austrian decision could create grave precedents for political choices in all the other member-states, Ireland included. The inclusion of parties with such policies in governing coalitions would change the character of European politics as the EU prepares to enlarge, change its methods of decision-making and create an ambitious scheme of integrated co-operation on justice and home affairs affecting most European states. The new Austrian coalition will disrupt these plans, it is feared or assumed. President Klestil of Austria has played an honourable role throughout this crisis. He insisted that the two parties sign a solemn declaration committing them to "unswerving adherence to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of the peoples of Europe" and "an Austria in which xenophobia, anti-semitism and racism have no place". Last night he undertook to monitor closely their words and deeds in office for compatibility with these values and to take action if they are violated. He appealed for co-operation from other governments on that basis.
If there is no departure from such values and a demonstrable readiness by the new Austrian government to co-operate, the case for a relaxation of the bilateral boycotts is strong. Otherwise they would rebound by strengthening Mr Haider's domestic political position in preparation for the next election as he blamed foreign interference in Austrian affairs. His support is broad and diffuse, tapping into a generalised political dissatisfaction as well as into extremist attitudes. But it is vulnerable to sharp erosion under the contradictory pressures of government and public protests.
The bilateral boycotts are intergovernmental in character, outside the EU treaties; but they will undoubtedly disrupt its institutional working. There is treaty provision for suspending a state's membership if fundamental values are violated, but only on the basis of proven deeds. That is the better sanction against extremist policies in the longer term.