This article compares the place of realism and responsibility as motivations for Germany's policy toward the European Community (EC) before 1989 and after. It argues that while the context and style have changed, there remains basic continuity in Germany's EC policy. Germany is characterized as interdependent partner and not as dominant leader or preoccupied spoiler in the EC. The assessment of continuity and partnership assumes that promotion of national interest, together with the pursuit of integration as an ideal, has been a fundamental element since the early 1950s and not a motive suddenly discovered with German unification. The full range of Germany's goals in the EC—economic, political, cultural and societal, regional, international—is examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. See Klaus Kinkel, “Verantwortung, Realismus, Zukunftssicherung: Deutsche Außenpolitik in einer sich neu ordnenden Welt,”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 Mar. 1993.
2.
Dieter Buhl , “Leichtfertig ins europäisches Abseits,”Die Zeit, 5 July 1985.
3.
3. “Policy Statement by Helmut Kohl, Federal Chancellor, to the Bundestag,” 18 Mar. 1987, reprinted in Federal Republic of Germany, Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, European Political Co-operation (Bonn: Press and Information Office, 1988), p. 378.
4.
Rudolf Hrbek and Wolfgang Wessels, eds., EG-Mitgliedschaft: Ein vitales Interesse der Bundesrepublik Deutschland? (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1984).
5.
Wolfgang Wessels , “Staat und (westeuropäische) Integration: Die Fusionsthese,” in Die Integration Europas, ed. Michael Kreile (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1992).
6.
6. Bulmer and Paterson, Federal Republic, chap. 2.
7.
7. Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich, “Deutschlands neues Gesicht: Über deutsche Hegemonie in Europa,”Leviathan, 1/1992, p. 32 (Mar. 1992).
8.
8. See, for example, the speech of Chancellor Kohl, “The European Market 1992—Implications for European-American Relations,”Statements and Speeches (German Information Center, New York), 16 Nov. 1988.
9.
9. See Bulmer and Paterson, Federal Republic, chap. 3.
10.
10. Markovits and Reich, “Deutschlands neues Gesicht,” p. 33.
11.
11. Bulmer and Paterson, Federal Republic, p. 12.
12.
12. David Cameron, “The 1992 Initiative: Causes and Consequences,” in Europolitics: Institutions and Policymaking in the “New” European Community, ed. Alberta M. Sbragia (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992), tab. 2-11, p. 69.
13.
13. Peter Lange, “The Politics of the Social Dimension,” in Europolitics, ed. Sbragia, p. 243.
14.
14. Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Germany, America, Europe: Forty Years of German Foreign Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 302-303.
15.
15. See Moravcsik, “Negotiating the Single Act,” p. 29.
16.
16. One might argue that trade benefits far outweigh Germany's contribution to the EC budget, but the lack of correspondence between initial beneficiary (the private sector) and ultimate donor (the government) renders the calculation more complicated.
17.
ibid., 15 Dec. 1992, p. 46.
18.
18. Statement to the European Parliament, 6 July 1988, in Official Journal of the European Communities, Debates of the European Parliament, 1988-89 session, no. 2-367, p. 138.
19.
19. For the text of Schmidt's interview, see Wolfram Hanrieder, ed., Helmut Schmidt: Perspectives on Politics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), p. 209. The original characterization came from Willy Brandt.
20.
20. On the history of the relationship between the Länder and the EC, see Rudolf Hrbek and Uwe Thaysen, eds., Die Deutschen Länder und die Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1986).
21.
21. Gardner Feldman, “1992 and the Federal Republic's European Identity,” pp. 111-112, n. 39.
22.
Werner Ungerer , “EC Progress under the German Presidency,”Aussenpolitik, 39(4) (1988).
23.
Rudolf Hrbek and Wolfgang Wessels, “Nationale Interessen der Bundesrepublik und der Integrationsprozess,” in EG-Mitgliedschaft, ed. Hrbek and Wessels.
24.
24. Press and Information Office, European Political Co-operation, pp. 349, 378.
25.
Richard von Weizsäcker , Die deutsche Geschichte geht weiter (Berlin: Siedler, 1983).
26.
Bulmer and Paterson, Federal Republic, chap. 5.
27.
Maria L. Green , “The Politics of Big Business in the Single Market Program” (Paper delivered at the Third Biennial International Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Washington, DC, May 1993), p. 34.
28.
28. Andrei S. Markovits and Alexander Otto, “German Labor and Europe '92,”Comparative Politics, 24(2) (Jan. 1992).
29.
Dorothee Wilms , “Konzept der Deutschlandpolitik im Rahmen der europäischen Einigung,”Bulletin (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn), 27 Jan. 1988.
30.
30. Werner Weidenfeld, “Die Europäische Gemeinschaft und Osteuropa,”Aussenpolitik, 38(2):142 (1987).
31.
Genscher's Mar. 1988 speech, reprinted in Press and Information Office, European Political Co-operation, p. 382.
32.
32. See Lily Gardner Feldman, “The EC and German Unification,” in The State of the European Community: Policies, Institutions, and Debates in the Transition Years, ed. Leon Hurwitz and Christian Lequesne (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1991).
33.
33. For these two approaches, see Barbara Lippert, Dirk Günther, and Stephen Woolcock, “Die EG und die neuen Bundesländer—eine Erfolgsgeschichte von kurzer Dauer?”Integration, 16(1):2-6 (Jan. 1993).
34.
34. Kinkel, “Verantwortung.”
35.
35. Ibid.
36.
36. See Christian Deubner, “The Role of the French-German Couple in European Integration in the 1990s: Disruption or Continuity?” (Paper delivered at the Third Biennial International Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Washington, DC, May 1993).
37.
37. See Gardner Feldman, “EC and German Unification,” pp. 319-321.
38.
38. For the EC's impact on eastern Germany, see Lippert, Günther, and Woolcock, “Die EG und die neuen Bundesländer.”
39.
39. See Anita Wolf, “Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Jahrbuch der Europäischen Integration 1991/92 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1992), p. 315.
40.
40. See Stefan Tangermann and David Kelch, “Agricultural Policymaking in Germany: Implications for the German Position in Multilateral Trade Negotiations,” Working Paper, no. 91-8 (Washington, DC: International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, 1991).
41.
41. See W. R. Smyser, “The Bundesbank and Europe” (Paper delivered at the Third Biennial International Conference of the European Community Studies Association, Washington, DC, May 1993).
42.
42. Kinkel, “Verantwortung.”
43.
43. See Helmut Kohl's speech to the Christian Democratic Union party convention, Düsseldorf, 25-27 Oct. 1992.
44.
44. For Kohl's analysis of Maastricht's achievements and weaknesses, see his speech of 3 Apr. 1992 to the Bertelsmann-Forum in Bulletin (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn), 8 Apr. 1992.
45.
45. James B. Steinberg, The Role of European Institutions in Security after the Cold War: Some Lessons for Yugoslavia, N-3445-FF, A RAND Note (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992).
46.
46. For the text of the July 1992 cabinet proposal, see Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 July 1992. For the ultimate formula hammered out between the Bundestag, Bundesrat, Länder, and federal government, see “Kontroverse um den neuen Europa-Artikel im Grundgesetz,” ibid., 11 Nov. 1992; “Der Bundestag soll Anfang Dezember über Maastricht entscheiden,” ibid., 14 Nov. 1992; “Verständigung in Bonn über die Konsequenzen von Maastricht,” ibid., 21 Nov. 1992. For details of Länder activities and positions, see Franz H. U. Borkenhagen and Rainer Godry, “Die deutschen Länder in einem neuen Europa,” Deutschland Archiv, no. 25 (1992); Franz H. U. Borkenhagen, “Vom kooperativen Föderalismus zum `Europa der Regionen,' ” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B42/92, 9 Oct. 1992. See also Florian Gerster, “Die Europaministerkonferenz der deutschen Länder: Aufgaben-Themen-Selbstverständnis,”Integration, 16(2) (Apr. 1993).
47.
47. See Jürgen Wahl, “Guter Rat statt Stolperdraht,”Rheinischer Merkur, 28 May 1993.
48.
48. See Ronald D. Asmus, “Germany's Geopolitical Maturation,”RAND Issue Paper (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1993).
49.
49. See Rudolf Hrbek, “Kontroverse und Manifeste zum Vertrag von Maastricht: Zur Einführung,”Integration, 15(4) (Nov. 1992).
50.
Research Group on European Affairs, University of Mainz, “The Future of Europe: Alternatives-Strategies-Options” (Documents presented to the International Bertelsmann Forum, Petersberg, 3-5 Apr. 1992).
51.
51. See Michael Burkert, “Deutsch als Amts-und Arbeitssprache in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,” in Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa, ed. Joachim Born and Gerhard Stickel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993).
52.
See also Pierre-Henri Laurent, “Widening Europe: The Dilemmas of Community Success,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
53.
53. Kinkel, “Verantwortung.”
54.
Edzard Reuter , “Alle müssen an einem Strang ziehen,”Die Zeit, 22 Jan. 1993.
