1 Introduction

Notes

1 Introduction

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1993, p. 14. 2. See Paul Rieckhoff and Dafna Hochmann, “Policies that Hurt: How the Pentagon Has Failed U.S. Troops,” International Herald Tribune, 31 August 2004; Richard W. Stevenson, “Even some Republicans Question Bush Strategy,” New York Times, 28 June 2005. 3. On the basis of its “open-door policy” on enlargement (Article 10 of the Washington Treaty), NATO on 29 March 2004 and in its second and largest round of eastward enlargement, formally acknowledged the Alliance membership of seven new countries from Central and Eastern Europe, these being the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as the East European countries of Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, and one successor state from the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia. In this respect, it may be worth pointing out that the Alliance’s second round of eastward enlargement into the still Russian perceived glacis protecteur appears to have been a far less spec- tacular event than the Alliance’s first round of eastern enlargement accom- plished and celebrated at the NATO Washington Summit in April 1999. NATO’s second round of enlargement more or less coincided with the EU’s first round of enlargement, which took place on 1 May 2004 and absorbed ten additional countries. These include: Cyprus and Malta; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. The origins of the eastern dimension of the EU enlargement process can be traced back to the Copenhagen European Council of June 1993, which legitimized Central and Eastern European applications for EU membership on the basis of the conditional fulfillment of the three main “Copenhagen Criteria”: the political criterion, covering the stability of institutions guar- anteeing the democracy and the rule of law; the economic criterion, relat- ing to the existence of a functioning market economy; and the criterion concerning the ability of “acceding countries” to adopt the existing body of EU legislation—the acquis communautaire. Thus, the dual enlargement of both NATO and the EU—with NATO now comprising 26 members and 234 Notes

the EU 25 member countries—represents the largest round of institutional enlargement the continent has ever experienced. It remains to be seen what this means—in terms of political practice–for the future of European International Relations and thus also for the future of Russia, which now shares a common border with the NATO and EU hemisphere. 4. See Fritz Stern, “Die zweite Chance: Die Wege der Deutschen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26 July 1990. 5. Ibid. 6. Timothy Garton Ash, In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent, London: Vintage 1994, p. 409. 7. Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich have characterized the dilemma con- fronting German foreign policy since (re)unification along the following lines: “Germany is caught between the Scylla of collective memory which will not permit it to exercise power in a normal manner, and the Charybdis of contemporary exigencies, which demand German acceptance of its responsibilities in Europe and maybe even the world.” For details, see Andrei S. Markovits and Simon Reich, The German Predicament: Memory and Power in the New Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997, here p. 7. 8. There is, of course, a vast amount of literature available on the historical dimension of the German “problem” and the possibility of a revival of German dominance in Europe after 1990. For a good overview comprising both international and German leading contributions see Thomas Banchoff, The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics, and Foreign Policy, 1945–1995, University of Michigan Press, 1999. 9. On the “normality/normalization” side of the German foreign policy debate see Philip H. Gordon, “The Normalisation of German Foreign Policy,” Orbis, vol. 38, no. 2, 1994, pp. 225–243; see especially Gunther Hellmann, “Nationale Normalität als Zukunft. Zur Außenpolitik der Berliner Republik,” Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 44, 1999; Hellmann, “Sag beim Abschied leise Servus. Die Zivilmacht Deutschland beginnt ein neues Selbst zu behaupten,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, vol. 43, no. 3, 2002, pp. 498–507; Hellmann, “Der ‘deutsche Weg.’ Eine außenpolitische Gratwanderung,” Internationale Politik, vol. 9, 2002, pp. 1–8.; Hellmann, “Wider die machtpolitische Resozialisierung in der deutschen Außenpolitik. Ein Plädoyer für offensiven Idealismus,” WeltTrends, vol. 42, Spring 2004, pp. 79–88; Hellmann, “Von Gipfelstürmern und Gratwanderern. Deutsche Wege in der Außenpolitik,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. B11, March 2004, pp. 32–39. See also, Egon Bahr, “Normalisierung der deutschen Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 1, 1999, pp. 41–52; Karl-Rudolf Korte, “Über die Unbefangenheit der Berliner Republik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 53, no. 12, December 1998, pp. 3–12; Robert Zoellick, “Abschied von der Selbstbeschränkung,” Internationale Politik, vol. 53, no. 12, December 1998, pp. 21–26. As for the “continuity” line of argumentation see Sebastian Harnisch and Hanns W. Maull (eds.), Germany as a Civilian Power: The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001; Hanns W. Maull, “Großmacht Deutschland? Anmerkungen und Notes 235

Thesen,” in Karl Kaiser and Hanns W. Maull (eds), Die Zukunft der deutschen Außenpolitik, Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik, 72, Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1993b, pp. 53–72. 10. Volker Rittberger and Frank Schimmelfennig, “Deutsche Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung. Realistische Prognosen auf dem Prüfstand,” Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, no. 28, 1997; Rainer Baumann, Volker Rittberger and Wolfgang Wagner, “Power and Power Politics: Neorealist Foreign Policy Theory and Expectations about German Foreign Policy since Unification,” Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, no. 30a, 1998. 11. Volker Rittberger (ed.), German Foreign Policy since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. 12. For details, see Dirk Peters, “The Debate about a New German Foreign Policy after Unification,” in Rittberger, German Foreign Policy since Unification, chapter 2. 13. On differences between the two concepts, see Michael Zürn, “From Interdependence to Globalisation,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, chapter 12. 14. Hanns W. Maull, “Zivilmacht Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Vierzehn Thesen für eine neue deutsche Außenpolitik,” Europa Archiv, vol. 47, no. 10, 1992, pp. 269–278; see also Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,” Foreign Affairs, 69: 5, 1990, pp. 91–106; Another equally prominent German advocate for a civilianizing foreign policy is Dieter Senghaas, Wohin driftet die Welt? Über die Zukunft friedlicher Koexistenz, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1994. 15. Maull’s “civilian power” concept may also serve to describe the foreign policy behavior of countries such as Sweden, Ireland, and Canada. 16. Harnisch and Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power. 17. Hanns W. Maull, “Auf leisen Sohlen aus der Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 9, 2003, pp. 19–30; Maull, “Internationaler Terrorismus. Die deutsche Außenpolitik auf dem Prüfstand,” Internationale Politik, vol. 12, 2001, pp. 1–10. 18. Maull, “Auf leisen Sohlen aus der Außenpolitik,” here p. 27; and Hanns W. Maull, Sebastian Harnisch, and Constantin Grund, Deutschland im Abseits? Rot-grüne Außenpolitik 1998–2003, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003. 19. Gunther Hellmann, “Agenda 2020. Krise und Perspektive deutscher Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 58, no. 9, September 2003, pp. 39–50. 20. Henning Tewes, “The Emergence of a Civilian Power: Germany and Central Europe,” German Politics, vol. 6, no. 2, August 1997, pp. 95–116. 21. Hanns W. Maull, “Germany, Iraq, and the Crisis of the Transatlantic Alliance System,” http://www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de/digest/op-ed_ inhalt_02.php. 22. On this point see Maull, “Zivilmacht Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” here p. 275. 236 Notes

23. William R. Smyser, How Germans Negotiate: Logical Goals, Practical Solutions, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. 24. Gunther Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik: Self-Containment and Civilian Power: United Germany’s Normalising Ambitions,” IGS Discussion Papers Series Number 99/10, Institute for German Studies, The University of Birmingham, 1999, p. 43. 25. Gunther Hellmann frequently uses the terms “self-confidence” and “normality” interchangeably. See especially, Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik.” 26. As is the case in Hellmann, “Agenda 2020.” 27. See Christian Hacke, “Die nationalen Interessen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert,” Außenpolitik, vol. 49, 1998, pp. 5–17; and Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die Zentralmacht Europas. Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbühne, Berlin: Siedler 1994. 28. Smyser, How Germans Negotiate, pp. 72–73. 29. See Thomas E. Halverson, The Last Great Nuclear Debate, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1995. See also, Wolfram F. Hanrieder, Deutschland, Europa, Amerika: Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1994, Volume 2, Auflage, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995. 30. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, “Globalisation: What’s New? What’s Not? (And so What?),” Foreign Policy, vol. 118, 2000, pp. 104–109. 31. Hanns W. Maull, “Geopolitik im 21. Jahrhundert: Keine Zukunft für den Nationalstaat?” Deutschland, vol. 6, December–January 1999/2000, pp. 26–30; Maull, “Die deutsche Außenpolitik am Ende der Ära Kohl,” in Erich Reiter (ed.), Jahrbuch für Internationale Sicherheitspolitik 1999, Hamburg: Mittler Verlag, 1998, pp. 274–295, here p. 280. 32. Obviously the disintegration of the former Soviet Union has opened up the possibility for Germany to exercise greater economic and thus political influence in the region of East Central Europe, but as the Czechs are fond of saying, “the only thing worse than being dominated by the German economy is not being dominated by it.” Quoted by Robert Gerald Livingston, “United Germany: Bigger and Better,” Foreign Policy, no. 87, Summer 1992, p. 168. 33. Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers.” 34. Ibid., p. 92. 35. Joseph S. Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, New York: Basic Books, 1990; Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs, 2004. 36. Nye, The Paradox of American Power, here p. 9. 37. Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,” here in partic- ular, pp. 93–97. 38. Nye, The Paradox of American Power, p. 9. 39. As coined by Alexander L. George, Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991. Notes 237

40. Maull, “Internationaler Terrorismus,” pp. 1–10. 41. John Vinocur, “Peace in Kabul or Not, Berlin Wins on Global Stage,” International Herald Tribune, 7 December 2001. 42. Ibid. 43. Inge Günther, “Israel einigt sich mit Hisbollah,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 January 2004. 44. Nye, The Paradox of American Power, p. 6. 45. Ibid., p. 12. 46. Thomas Risse, “Let’s Argue: Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organization, vol. 54, no. 1, 2000, pp. 1–39. 47. Fritz Schütze, Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeld-Studien dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen, Arbeitsberichte und Forschungsmaterialien, Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Soziologie, August 1977, 2nd edition, January 1978.

2 The Question of Germany’s Normalizing Ambitions

1. See, for example, Helmut Hubel and Bernhard May, “Ein ‘normales’ Deutschland? Die souveräne Bundesrepublik in der ausländischen Wahrnehmung,” Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik der DGAP, Band 92, Bonn 1995. 2. See Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik”; see also, Hellmann, “Jenseits von Normalisierung und Militarisierung: Zur Standortdebatte über die neue deutsche Außenpolitik,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. B1–2, 3 January 1997, pp. 24–33. 3. The term “semi-sovereignty” was coined by Peter J. Katzenstein, The Growth of a Semi-Sovereign State: Policy and Politics in West Germany, Philadelphia: Temple, 1987. 4. See Charlie Jeffery and William E. Paterson, Germany’s Power in Europe, IGC and ESRC Paper, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham, available at http://www.bham.ac.uk/IGC/pattjeff.pdf. 5. For this somewhat “soft” realist expectation, see Timothy Garton Ash, “Germany’s Choice,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, 1994, pp. 66–68. For a “harder” neorealist expectation concerning the international security policy implications of a united Germany, see Kenneth Waltz, “The Emerging Structure of International Relations,” International Security, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall 1993, pp. 44–79, here p. 66. 6. See Heinz-Jürgen Axt, “Hat Genscher Jugoslawien entzweit? Mythen und Fakten zur Außenpolitik des vereinten Deutschlands,” in Europa- Archiv, vol. 12, 1993, pp. 351–360, here p. 351. For more details, see Roland Schönfeld, “Balkankrieg und internationale Gemeinschaft,” Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, vol. 34, no. 4, 1994, pp. 257–278, here p. 266. 7. Official documents covering Germany’s Basic Law are available at http://www.bundesregierung.de/dokumente/-,4246.429716/PureHtml/ dokument.htm. 238 Notes

8. Gordon, “The Normalization of German Foreign Policy,” here p. 225. 9. Hellmann, “Nationale Normalität als Zukunft,” here p. 847. 10. Simon Bulmer, “Shaping the Rules. The Constitutive Politics of the European Union and German Power,” in Peter Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power. Germany in Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997, pp. 47–79. 11. Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik.” 12. Hellmann, “Nationale Normalität als Zukunft.” 13. Hellmann, “Sag beim Abschied leise Servus.” 14. Ibid. 15. Rittberger (ed), German Foreign Policy since Unification. 16. Harnisch and Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power? 17. Henning Tewes, “Das Zivilmachtskonzept in der Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu Knut Kirste und Hanns Maull,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 347–359. 18. For details, see Harnisch and Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power? p. 3. 19. Helga Haftendorn, Deutsche Außenpolitik zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehauptung 1945–2000, Stuttgart, München: Deutsche Verlags Anstalt, 2001, here p. 436. 20. For John Mearsheimer’s 1990 argument that Germany may possibly choose to go nuclear so as to protect itself from blackmail by other nuclear powers as a result of shifting alliances in a wider Europe free from Cold War constraints, see Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, vol. 15, no. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 5–56, here, p. 36. 21. Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik,” here pp. 2–3. 22. Ibid., p. 2. 23. Hellmann, “Jenseits von Normalisierung,” p. 24. 24. Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik,” p. 3. 25. For details, see Aufbruch und Erneuerung—Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert,” Koalitionsvereinbarung zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands und Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Bonn, 20. Oktober 1998 at http://archiv.spd.de/koalition/uebersicht.html. 26. See, for example, Philip Zelikow and Condolezza Rice, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed—A Study in Statecraft, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995; Karl Kaiser, Deutschlands Vereinigung: Die internationalen Aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach: Basteil Lübbe, 1991; Richard Kiessler and Frank Elbe, Ein runder Tisch mit scharfen Ecken: Der diplomatische Weg zur deutschen Einheit, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1993. 27. Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitk,” p. 16. 28. Ibid. 29. Hellmann, “Nationale Normalität,” p. 841. 30. Joschka Fischer, “Grundsatzfragen deutscher Außenpolitik,” Foreign Minister Fischer’s speech to the DGAP General Assembly in Berlin on 24 November 1999 in Internationale Politik, vol. 55, no. 2, February 2000, pp. 58–64. 31. For more information on this subject see Ulrich Herbert, Geschichte der Ausländerpolitik in Deutschland, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Notes 239

Bildung, Schriftenreihe Band 410, 2003; see also Simon Green, The Politics of Exclusion: Institutions and Immigration Policy in Contemporary Germany, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. 32. Rudolf Scharping, “Der Stein auf unserer Seele. Deutschland und der gerechte Krieg,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 May 1999. 33. Hellmann, “Beyond Weltpolitik,” p. 43. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., p. 25. 36. Hellmann, “Wider die machtpolitische Resozialisierung in der deutschen Außenpolitik.” 37. Gunther Hellmann and Reinhard Wolf, “Der überforderte Patient,” Handelsblatt, 18 May 2004 38. Hellmann and Wolf, “Neuer Spielplan auf der Weltbühne. Deutschlands Auftritt muß abgesagt werden,” Internationale Politik, vol. 59, no. 8, 2004, pp. 73–80. 39. Karl Kaiser, “Ein deutscher Sitz im UN Sicherheitsrat. Ein richtiges Ziel deutscher Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 59, no. 8, 2004, pp. 61–72.

3 Germany—Still Not a Civilianizing Power

1. See Harnisch and Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power? 2. See Christopher Hill, The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy, London: Routledge, 1995; Hedley Bull, “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” in Loukas Tsoukalis (ed.), The European Community: Past, Present and Future, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. 3. See Michael Zürn, Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Denationalisierung und Globalisierung als Chance, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1998. 4. Maull, “Die deutsche Außenpolitik am Ende der Ära Kohl.” 5. Maull, “Zivilmacht Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” 6. Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,” here p. 93. As has been explained in the introduction to this book, there are compelling reasons for keeping the two concepts of “soft” and “civilian” powers sep- arate and although Maull himself has a tendency to use the term “soft” power interchangeably with that of “civilian” power as shown here, it is all the more important to bear the differences in mind. 7. As coined by Richard N. Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, New York: Basic Books, 1986. 8. Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,” pp. 92–96. 9. On the growing currency of this subject especially with respect to the role of the UN, see all of the various contributions in Dieter S. Lutz and Hans J. Gießmann (eds.), Die Stärke des Rechts gegen das Recht des Stärkeren: Politische und rechtliche Einwände gegen eine Rückkehr des Faustrechts in die internationalen Beziehungen, 1st edition, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003. 240 Notes

10. As for the persistence of the “normality versus change” dichotomy in the German foreign policy debate see Thomas Risse’s more recent article, “Kontinuität durch Wandel: Eine neue deutsche Außenpolitik?” available at http://www.bpb.de/popup_druckversion.html?guidϭ3XLEXF. 11. However, “continuity” proponents are gradually moving away from their preoccupation with the “normality thesis” toward policy criticism and prescription. See, for example, Maull, “Auf leisen Sohlen aus der Außenpolitik”; Maull et al., Deutschland im Abseits? 1998–2003. 12. Harnisch and Maull, Germany as a Civilian Power? 13. As can be discerned from Hellmann’s writings. 14. Hanns W. Maull, “Germany and the Use of Force: Still a Civilian Power?” Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 56–80. 15. For a comprehensive overview of the 1999 Kosovo War, see Jens Reuter and Conrad Clewing (eds.), Der Kosovo Konflikt. Ursachen, Verlauf, Perspektiven, Klagenfurt: Wieser Verlag, 2000. Joachim Krause (ed.), Kosovo—Humanitäre Intervention und kooperative Sicherheit in Europa, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2000, pp. 103–119. 16. Having had the opportunity to personally ask Mr. Ahtisaari the question of who had been the key person to actually request him to assume the role of international mediator in the Kosovo conflict, Mr. Ahtisaari emphasized that this was, indeed, an important question because contrary to prevailing assumptions it had been Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who finally telephoned him and asked him to become the EU mediator to the crisis. Mr. Ahtisaari said he gladly agreed to Chancellor Schröder’s request because the offer of acting as a special envoy for the EU delivered him from becoming embroiled in the conflicting positions that had thus far existed between the United States and Russia. The question was asked during the June 2000 Press Conference held at the Peace Research Institute in Frankfurt, a.M., on the occasion of Mr. Ahtisaari receiving the Hessische Friedenspreis 2000. 17. Cited in Lily Gardner Feldman, “Cooperative Differences in U.S. and EU Balkans Policies: An American Perspective on the Political Dimension,” AICGS German Issues, vol. 26, 2001, pp. 1–29, here p. 19. 18. For more details see Hanns W. Maull, “Quo vadis, Germania? Außenpolitik in einer Welt des Wandels,” Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 10, 1997, pp. 1245–1255. 19. See Maull, “Internationaler Terrorismus,” here p. 7. 20. See Maull’s criticism in “Quo vadis, Germania?” 21. In Maull, “Germany and the Use of Force,” p. 57; see also Michael J. Inacker, “Deutschland nur noch beschränkt bündnisfähig,” Die Welt, 24 March 2000. 22. See, for example, Gunther Hellmann and Wolfgang Wagner, “Getrennt marschieren oder zusammen? Die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik und die NATO,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 June 2000. 23. Maull, “Germany and the Use of Force.” Notes 241

24. See Peter Schmidt’s comments on the question of “Was soll und kann im Kontext der NATO-Krise aus der ESVP werden?” presented at the SWP’s Jour Fixe on 19 March 2003, available at http://www.swp-berlin.org. 25. Ibid. 26. In “Martti Ahtisaari: International Mediator,” NATO Review, vol. 49, Autumn 2001, pp. 24–25, here p. 25. 27. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations—The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1949, here pp. 90–91. 28. On this subject, visit also the website of “Crisis Management Initiative— The Office of President Ahtisaari,” available at http://www.cmi.fi. 29. In this respect, see also Reinhardt Rummel, “Wie zivil ist die ESVP?” SWP-Aktuell, 10 March 2003. 30. Maull, “Germany and the Use of Force,” p. 72. 31. See article by former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley K. Clark, “When Force Is Necessary: NATO’s Military Response to the Kosovo Crisis,” available at http://www.nato.int/ docu/review/1999/ 9902–03.htm. 32. Norman Paech, “Ein letzter Mechanismus der Rettung,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 4 February 2003; see also Norman Paech and Gerhard Stuby, Völkerrecht und Machtpolitik in den internationalen Beziehungen, Hamburg: VSA-Verlag, 2001. 33. In Paech, “Ein letzter Mechanismus.” 34. Maull, “Germany and the Use of Force,” p. 77. 35. Survey figures from the Transatlantic Trends 2003 study, commissioned and conducted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Compagnia Di San Paolo in the month of June 2003, reveals 80 percent of Germans to be in favor of the strengthening of international organizations especially the UN, in response to the growing intricacies resulting from (asymmetrical) “globalization” and the need to deal with shared problems; the survey also reveals that 81 percent of Germans do not believe the war in Iraq to have been worth the loss of life as well as the material costs incurred; as for the experiment question of North Korea acquiring WMDs and NATO deciding to attack North Korea to force it to give up these weapons, 64 percent of Germans said they would not support their government’s decision to participate in such military action (hence, and as the answer to the first question reveals, the majority of Germans would like to see a strengthening of multilateralism but evidently not for the purpose of greater military action in international affairs); that this is so is also reflected in the response to another hypo- thetical question concerning the possibility of a country harboring international terrorists and the United States proposing to impose economic sanctions to counter this country, whereas the EU would favor the use of military force. In this case, 84 percent of Germans said they would pre- fer to support the U.S. proposal for economic sanctions. The study also reveals the majority of Germans to agree strongly that economic power is becoming more important in world affairs. Against the background of 242 Notes

82 percent of Germans supporting the argument that it would be best for Germany’s future if it were to take an active part in world affairs rather than remaining aloof, the overall result of the study clearly indicates a strong German preference for “civilian” rather than “military” solutions to international security problems, thus supporting Maull’s 1992 vision of Germany playing a greater role in international affairs by trying to strengthen patterns of multilateral cooperation rather than by “slipping” into a traditional realist and power political foreign policy practice. For a more detailed view of the survey, see Transatlantic Trends 2003, Topline Data, July 2003, available at www.worldviews.org. 36. That the notion of “change” in German foreign policy is largely a matter of (over)interpretation of contextual events can be discerned from Sebastian Harnisch’s strong reply to Gunther Hellmann’s provocative argumentation on the occasion of the 21st DVPW Congress in Halle, Saale, 1–5 October 2000. See Gunther Hellmann, “Rekonstruktion der Hegemonie des Machtstaates Deutschland unter modernen Bedingungen? Zwischenbilanzen nach zehn Jahren neuer deutscher Außenpolitik,” Beitrag zum 21. Kongress der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft in Halle, Saale, 1–5 Oktober 2000. For Harnisch’s reply, see “Truth Is What Works oder was nicht überzeugen kann, das wird sich auch nicht bewahrheiten,” Eine Replik auf Gunther Hellmann’s “Rekonstruktion der Hegemonie des Machtstaates Deutschland unter modernen Bedingungen?” Fassung vom 18 October 2000. 37. Hellmann, “Sag beim Abschied leise Servus.”

4 The Habermasian Practice of “Reasoning”

1. Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 3, no. 3, 1997, pp. 319–363, here pp. 320–321. 2. Thomas Risse, “Let’s Argue,” pp. 1–39, here pp. 4–5. 3. Ibid., here p. 3. 4. James March and Johan Olson, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press, 1989. 5. On the notion of “role theory” in relation to German foreign policy, see also Knut Kirste and Hanns W. Maull, “Zivilmacht und Rollentheorie,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 3, no. 2, 1996, pp. 283–312. 6. “Sociological Institutionalism” is sometimes also referred to as “Constructivist Institutionalism.” For details, see Thomas Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen—warum empirisch nichts so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wurde” in Gunther Hellmann, Klaus-Dieter Wolf, and Michael Zürn (eds.), Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003, pp. 99–132, here, p. 108. For specific works Notes 243

written from the “sociological institutionalist” perspective, see Frank Schimmelfennig’s, “Liberal Norms and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: A Case for Sociological Institutionalism,” ÖZP, vol. 27, no. 4, 1998, pp. 459–483; see also Karin Fierke and Antje Wiener, “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement, Robert Schuman Centre, EU Working Papers, no.99/14. 7. Risse, “Let’s Argue.” 8. Harald Müller, “International Relations as Communicative Action,” in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jørgensen (eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, London: M.E. Sharpe, 2001, pp. 160–178, here p. 161. 9. For the “ZIB-debate,” see Harald Müller, “Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 1, no. 1, 1994, pp. 15–44; Gerald Schneider, “Rational Choice und kommunikatives Handeln: Eine Replik auf Harald Müller,” ZIB, vol. 1, no. 2, 1994, pp. 357–366; Otto Keck, “Rationales kommunikatives Handeln in den Internationalen Beziehungen: Ist eine Verbindung von Rational-Choice- Theorie und Habermas’s Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns möglich?” ZIB, vol. 2, no. 1, 1995, pp. 5–48; Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Reden ist nicht billig: Zur Debatte um Kommunikation und Rationalität,” ZIB, vol. 2, no. 1, 1995, pp. 171–184; Rainer Schmalz- Bruns, “Die Theorie kommunikativen Handelns—eine Flaschenpost? Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Theoriedebatte in den Internationalen Beziehungen,” ZIB, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 347–370; Harald Müller, “Spielen hilft nicht immer: Die Grenzen des Rational-Choice-Ansatzes und der Platz der Theorie kommunikativen Handelns in der Analyse internationaler Beziehungen,” ZIB, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 371–391; Bernhard Zangl und Michael Zürn, “Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen: Moderate Anmerkungen zur post-realistischen Debatte,” ZIB, vol. 3, no. 2, 1996, pp. 341–366. 10. Müller, “Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln,” here p. 15. 11. On this aspect, see Volker von Prittwitz, Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1996a; see also Thomas Saretzki, “Arguing oder Bargaining: Selbstbindung der Politik durch öffentliche Diskurse,” in Gerhard Göhler (ed.), Macht der Öffentlichkeit—Öffentlichkeit der Macht, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1995, pp. 277–307. 12. Müller, “Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln,” here p. 27. 13. F.D. Newmeyer, The Politics of Linguistics, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986, pp. 3–4. 14. Müller, “International Relations as Communicative Action,” here p. 164. 15. Müller, “Spielen hilft nicht immer: Die Grenzen des Rational-Choice- Ansatzes.” 244 Notes

16. See Otto Keck, Information, Macht und gesellschaftliche Rationalität. Das Dilemma rationalen kommunikativen Handelns, dargestellt am Beispiel eines internationalen Vergleichs der Kernenergiepolitik, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993. 17. Müller, “International Relations as Communicative Action,” here p. 161. 18. See David Bell, “Political Linguistics and International Negotiation,” Negotiation Journal, July 1988, pp. 233–246, here p. 244. 19. This argument is made most explicit in Harald Müller, “Spielen hilft nicht immer: Die Grenzen des Rational-Choice-Ansatzes.” 20. Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen,” here p. 111. 21. See Katharina Holzinger, “Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie,” Politische Viertelsjahreszeitschrift, vol. 42, no. 3, 2001, pp. 414–446; Robert O. Keohane, “Governance in a Partially Globalized World,” American Political Science Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2001, pp. 1–14; Thomas Risse, “International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behaviour in the Human Rights Area,” Politics and Society, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 526–556. 22. Zangl und Zürn, “Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen.” 23. Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen,” here p. 112. 24. See Harald Müller’s and Thomas Risse’s project, Arguing and Persuasion in Multilateral Negotiations, unpublished manuscript, 2001. 25. Katharina Holzinger, “Kommunkationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 8, no. 2, 2001, pp. 243–286. 26. Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen,” here p. 113. 27. Frank Schimmelfennig, “Rhetorisches Handeln in der Internationalen Politik,” ZIB, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 219–254. 28. Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen,” here pp. 113–114. 29. Ibid., p. 114; as well as Thomas Risse, Anja Jetschke, and Hans-Peter Schmitz, Die Macht der Menschenrechte. Internationale Normen, kommunikatives Handeln und politischer Wandel in den Ländern des Südens, Baden- Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002. 30. As exemplified by Jeffrey Checkel’s, “Why Comply? Constructivism, Social Norms, and the Study of International Institutions,” International Organization, vol. 55, no. 3, 2001, pp. 553–588; Alistair Ian Johnston, “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 5, 2001, pp. 487–515. 31. Risse, “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen.” 32. As Colin Wight convincingly argues, not only is dichotomized thinking in IR Theory vastly overstated but it is founded on the misinterpretation of Notes 245

“positivism” as meaning “science” when, in fact, “positivism” ought to be understood as one of many “epistemologies” initially formed in accordance with the criteria of the “philosophy of science.” However, over time it was falsely interpreted to denote the “philosophy of science” itself. It is this mis- understanding that has led to the perpetuation of the science–anti- science divide in IR Theory, appearing under many different labels over the years to denote the nature of inter-paradigmatic debates in IR, the most recent one being the rationalist–constructivist debate. For details see, Colin Wight, “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Carlsnaes et al., Handbook of International Relations, pp. 23–51. 33. Müller, “International Relations as Communicative Action,” here p. 162. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., p. 166. 36. Risse, “Let’s Argue,” here p. 14. 37. Ibid., p. 15. 38. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Security Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 39. Harald Müller, “Antinomien des demokratischen Friedens,” Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift, vol. 43, no. 1, 2001, pp. 46–81; Andreas Hasenclever, “The Democratic Peace Meets International Institutions. Überlegungen zur internationalen Organisation des demokratischen Friedens,” ZIB, vol. 9, no. 1, 2002, pp. 75–112. 40. Tanja Börzel, “Organizing Babylon—On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks,” Public Administration, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 253–273. 41. Ibid., p. 16. 42. Michel Foucault, “Politics and the Study of Discourse,” in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, pp. 53–72. 43. See Shelly Chaiken, Wendy Wood, and Alice H. Eagly, “Principles of Persuasion,” in E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 702–742. 44. Risse, “Let’s Argue,” here p. 17; also Simone Chambers, Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996, pp. 137–138. 45. Ibid., p. 19. 46. Risse, “Let’s Argue,” here p. 18.

5 The Smyser–Habermasian “Navigational Aid”

1. Smyser, How Germans Negotiate. 2. See Maull’s remarks in “Germany and the Use of Force,” here p. 72. 3. See Maull, “Forderungen an die deutsche Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 58, no. 12, December 2001, pp. 1–10, p. 7. 4. Maull, “Germany, Iraq, and the Crisis of the Transatlantic Alliance System.” 246 Notes

5. Maull, “Zivilmacht Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” 6. Maull, “Why Germany Needs to Choose Europe over America,” available at http://www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de/digest/op-ed_inhalt_ o4.php. 7. See Harald Müller, Macht und Ohnmacht: Deutsche Außenpolitik vor dem Ende? Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft für internationalen Dialog, Frankfurt/M.: Deutsche Bank 1998 (my translation). 8. Ibid., p. 55 9. Ibid., pp. 62–63. 10. See Henning Tewes, Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. 11. A complete interpretation of Maull’s Vierzehn Thesen is presented in chapter 3 of this book. 12. Wolf Mendl, “Strategic Thinking in Diplomacy: A Legacy of the Cold War,” in Michael Clarke (ed.), New Perspectives on Security, The Centre for Defence Studies, London: Brassey’s, 1993, pp. 1–16, here p. 16. 13. See Harald Müller, “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 10, no. 03, September 2004, pp. 395–435. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. See Müller, “International Relations as Communicative Action,” here p. 163. 18. Ibid., pp. 164–165. 19. Ibid. 20. Müller, “Arguing, Bargaining and All That.” 21. See Christer Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” in Carlsnaes et al., Handbook of International Relations, pp. 212–234. 22. Raymond Cohen, “Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map,” Diplomatic Studies Programme Newsletter, Leicester University, 4 May 1998. 23. Paul Sharp, “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 1999, pp. 33–57, here, p. 56. 24. François de Callières, On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1919. 25. Harold Nicholson, Diplomacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939; and Harold Nicholson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, London: Constable, 1954. 26. James Der Derian, “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1987, pp. 91–110, p. 91. 27. Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration, London and New York: Routledge, 1995, p. 1. 28. Jose Calvet De Magalhaes, The Pure Concept of Diplomacy, New York: Greenwood Press, 1988, p. 59. Notes 247

29. Raymond Cohen, “Reflections on the New Global Diplomacy: Statecraft 2500 BC to 2000 AD,” in Jan Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999, p. 4. 30. See George, Forceful Persuasion. See also, Robert J. Art and Patrick M. Cronin, The United States and Coercive Diplomacy, Washington, D.C.: The United States Institute of Peace, 2003. The notion of “coercive diplomacy” is sometimes also referred to as “coercive compellence.” 31. Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States, London: Eyre Methuen, 1982, p. 60. 32. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994. 33. Nicholson, Diplomacy. 34. Ibid. 35. Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” here, p. 51. 36. M. Costas Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996, p. 25. 37. Alan James, “Diplomacy and International Society,” International Relations, vol. 6, no. 6, 1980, pp. 931–948, p. 942. 38. Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy, p. 113. 39. For further details see Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” here pp. 214–217. 40. Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981. 41. Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” here p. 218. 42. Fred Charles Iklé, How Nations Negotiate, New York: Praeger, 1964, p. 2. 43. Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960, p. 21. 44. Iklé, How Nations Negotiate, pp. 3–4. 45. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict; and Anatol Rapoport, Fights, Games and Debates, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960. 46. Terrence P. Hopmann, “Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem-Solving,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 542, 1995, pp. 24–27. 47. Howard Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982. 48. Robert Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. 49. Glenn Snyder and Paul Diesing, Conflicts among Nations: Bargaining, Decisionmaking, and System Structure in International Crises, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. 50. James Sebenius, “Negotiation Analysis,” in Victor Kremenyuk (ed.), International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1991. 51. Terrence Hopmann, The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of International Conflict, Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. 52. See especially the projects on national negotiating styles in progress at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., as well as the 248 Notes

Institute’s Cross-Cultural Negotiation Project aimed at comparisons of national negotiating styles. 53. Thomas Risse, Cooperation among Democracies. The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997; William Zartman and Jeffrey Rubin, Power and Negotiation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. 54. Iklé, How Nations Negotiate. 55. See, for example, Jacob Bercovitsch, Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation, Boulder: Lynne Riener, 1996. 56. See Beate Kohler-Koch, “Catching Up with Change: The Transformation of Governance in the European Union,” Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 3, no. 3, 1996, pp. 359–380. 57. Raiffa, The Art and Science of Negotiation. 58. Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966. 59. William Zartmann and Maureen Berman, The Practical Negotiator, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 93–95. 60. Dean G. Pruitt, “Flexibility in Conflict Episodes,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 542, 1995, 100–115. 61. Zartmann and Berman, The Practical Negotiator. 62. Ibid., p. 207; but also Robert Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, 1988, pp. 428–460. 63. Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes, here p. 33. 64. Ibid. 65. Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” p. 227. 66. Smyser, How Germans Negotiate. 67. Ibid., p. 6. 68. Ibid., p. 58. 69. Ibid., p. 59. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid., p. 72. 72. Ibid., p. 73. 73. Ibid., p. 74. 74. Ibid., p. 78. 75. Ibid., p. 80. 76. Ibid., p. 83. 77. Ibid. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid., p. 86. 81. Ibid. p. 97. 82. See Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Erinnerungen, 1. Auflage, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1995. and Halverson, The Last Great Nuclear Debate. 83. See Risse-Kappen, Cooperation among Democracies, p. 19; see also NATO Handbook, NATO Office of Information and Press, Belgium: Brussels, 2001, pp. 149–151. 84. Zartmann and Berman, The Practical Negotiator. Notes 249

6 Debate on NATO Enlargement, 1993

This chapter represents a first draft, written and completed in the course of May–June 2002. I would like to thank Dr. Karl-Heinz Kamp for his strong words of approval. In its original version, this case study included a preliminary chapter on the “Historical Background: Germany’s Unification within NATO.” However, for publication purposes and brevity, it is not included in this book. Suffice it to say here that the preliminary chapter is relevant to recognizing (i) that the nature of the agreement permitting Germany’s unification within NATO reveals the Bush administration to have entrusted the German leadership with the right to interpret the agreement responsibly; (ii) Germany’s unification as a sovereign nation within NATO, in a sense, already represented a first tranche of NATO extension into former Soviet territory; (iii) the respective process relates directly to Russian complaints throughout the ensuing negotiation period that NATO enlargement into ECE was in violation of the “spirit” of agreement reached in 1990, permitting German unification within NATO; (iv) it illustrates the nature of ECE security concerns against the background of disquieting events in the Balkans and the Baltic, their reasons for initially holding on to the Warsaw Pact but then supporting a CSCE/OSCE-based system for pan-European Security, only to end up appealing for NATO membership; and (v) NATO’s initially hesitant but various ad hoc responses to this persistent wooing. 1. Bill Clinton’s acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic Convention is available at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billclinton 1992duc.htm. 2. See Peter Rudolf, “The USA and NATO Enlargement,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 47, no. 4, 1996, pp. 339–347, here pp. 339–340. 3. See Elizabeth Drew, On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994, here p. 144. On Clinton’s indecisive leadership style, see also Douglas Brinkley, “Democratic Enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine,” Foreign Policy, vol. 106, Spring 1997, pp. 111–127; and Thomas Preston, The President and His Inner Circle, New York: Columbia University Press, 2001, pp. 222–235. 4. Karl-Heinz Kamp, Die Frage einer “Osterweiterung” der NATO, Interne Studien, No. 57, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Sankt Augustin, 1993. 5. Dr. Michael Rühle, Head of the Policy Planning and Speechwriting Section of the Political Affairs Division, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, in interview with the author on 22 May 2002, tape recorded. 6. Ibid. 7. On Kohl’s leadership style, see Karl-Rudolf Korte, Deutschlandpolitik in Helmut Kohl’s Kanzlerschaft. Regierungsstil und Entscheidungen 1982–1989, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1998, here pp. 257 and 482. 8. In Bulletin des Presse-und Informationsamts der Bundesregierung, no. 13, 1993, pp. 101–105. 9. Dr. Ronald Asmus in interview with the author at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C., on 8 January 2002, tape recorded. 250 Notes

10. Reinhard Wolf, “The Doubtful Mover: Germany and NATO Expansion,” in David Haglund (ed.), Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, Kingston, Ont.: Queen’s University, Centre for International Relations, 1996, pp. 197–224. 11. Angela Stent, Russia and Germany Reborn: Unification, the Soviet Collapse, and the New Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999, pp. 216–217. 12. Vice Admiral (ret.) Ulrich Weisser in interview with the author in Sankt Augustin, Bonn on 2 April 2002, tape recorded. 13. Ibid.; also mentioned by Dr. Stephen Larrabee in interview with the author at RAND, Washington, D.C., on 15 January 2002, tape recorded. 14. The SWP study (originally commissioned by General Klaus Wiesmann, FüS III) was supervised and written in large part by the then SWP research director Dr. Uwe Nerlich, now director of the European Security and Defence Analysis Group of the IABG in Ottobrunn. In a telephone conversation with the author on 26 April 2005, Nerlich revealed that in his former capacity as close adviser to NATO Secretary- General Manfred Wörner, he had initially and successfully advanced the view that NATO as a military alliance had first to be consolidated around an in-depth redefinition of its future purpose and tasks, before consider- ing the idea of extending its military membership to ECE. Also, Nerlich had long sought to convince Rühe of the righteousness of a “politische Bindungserklärung” for the “Oder-Neiße Linie” in lieu of the offer of NATO membership for Poland. Both these points underscore that Nerlich’s view probably did not suit the BMVg’s growing ambitions of putting NATO enlargement firmly on the international agenda by the winter of 1992–93. And indeed, as Heinrich Rentmeister, Rühe’s personal assistant in 1993 and Head of Office from 1994 to 1997, confirmed in a telephone conversation with the author on 1 June 2004: the SWP study, apart from having been too extensive and theoretical, was seen by the BMVg to confuse the two issues of NATO enlargement and consol- idation. The prevailing belief in the BMVg at the time was that the two issues had to be dealt with separately. For a reprint of Nerlich’s ideas as presented in the then SWP study, see Wolfgang Heydrich, Joachim Krause, Uwe Nerlich, Jürgen Nötzold, and Reinhardt Rummel (eds.), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands: Neue Konstellationen, Risiken und Instrumente, Baden-Baden (Reihe Internationale Politik und Sicherheit): Nomos Verlag, 1992. 15. Weisser, interview. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid.; confirmed also by Asmus, interview. Of course, there is good rea- son to believe that the Americans debated the issue of NATO enlargement long before the Germans did. This is exemplified by Dr. Jeffrey Simon’s various writings published during the early 1990s. However, it seems that neither the Bush administration nor the Clinton administration paid much attention to these early writings nor were there any major public speeches held in Washington in early 1993 on the question of Notes 251

NATO enlargement. See Jeffrey Simon, European Security Policy after the Revolutions of 1989, Government Printing Office, June 1991 edition; and Jeffrey Simon, “Does Eastern Europe Belong in NATO?” Orbis, vol. 37, Winter 1993, pp. 29–31. 18. Weisser, interview. 19. Asmus, interview; confirmed also by Larrabee, interview; and also by Professor Richard Kugler in interview with the author at the National Defence University, Washington, D.C., on 14 January 2002, tape recorded. 20. Weisser, interview. In Weisser’s own words: “This was relatively early in 1993. The initiation and planning of the consultancy process took cou- ple of months but this was all in 1993.” 21. Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Plan for Europe,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, no. 1, 1995, pp. 26–42. 22. See Ronald D. Asmus, “Double Enlargement: Redefining the Atlantic Partnership after the Cold War,” in David C. Gompert and Stephen Larrabee (eds.), America and Europe: A Partnership for a New Era, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 23. For a good overview concerning these intra-institutional dynamics, see Trine Flockhart, “The Dynamics of Expansion: NATO, WEU and EU,” European Security, vol. 5, no. 2, Summer 1996, pp. 196–218. 24. For the BMVg’s Gesamtkonzept, see Ulrich Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa: Die Atlantische Allianz in der Bewährung, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1999, pp. 25–30; related details were also confirmed during my interview with Weisser. 25. The EU-membership criteria had already been defined by the European Council at the Copenhagen Summit of June 1993. 26. Rentmeister, telephone conversation. 27. Weisser, interview; it is equally relevant to note that it had been Ulrich Weisser who, as a young officer, formerly helped to draft Helmut Schmidt’s 1977 Alistair Buchan Memorial Lecture, which served to ini- tiate the debate on INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces). 28. The 1977 Helmut Schmidt analogy was also raised by Ambassador J.D. Bindenagel in interview with the author at AICGS, Washington, D.C., on 9 January 2002, tape recorded. 29. Weisser, interview; also confirmed by Bindenagel, interview. Bindenagel stated that Rühe’s speech certainly came as a surprise to the U.S. State Department. 30. Weisser, interview; and confirmed by Bindenagel, interview. 31. See Volker Rühe, “Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies: A Grand Strategy for a New Era,” Survival, vol. 35, no. 2, Summer 1993, pp. 129–137. 32. It was Michael Rühle, who, by not differentiating between Rühe’s ambitions and Rühe’s ability during the interview, unintentionally helped to draw my attention to this point. I think, it is one thing to be overly ambi- tious and quite another to be able to pursue these ambitions in the appro- priate way and with the desired results. Since I am interested in the question of how Germany’s leadership pursued its interests in NATO 252 Notes

enlargement, I am naturally more concerned with the ability and personal qualities of key actors involved in the process of winning support for German conceptions than with their ambitions of “personal aggrandissement.” Of course, if a leading political figure is mesmerized by the ambition of “personal aggrandissement” this may, indeed, have an adverse effect on the authenticity of his/her speeches and his/her ability to influence the audience as previously discussed in relation to the notion of “rhetorical action” (chapter 4, in this book). On the other hand, if the arguments of the speech carry more weight than the personal weaknesses of the orator and if the arguments are made consistently and convincingly for a long period of time (which seems to have been the case with Rühe and his Policy Planning Staff), then the audience is likely to be influenced by the power of the “better argument” rather than by being overly concerned with the underlying weaknesses in the character of the speaker. Besides, working in the area of politics does require “ambition.” In other words, “ambition” need not be a “bad thing,” but it is certainly necessary if one wants to survive in the field of politics. 33. Hans-Joachim Falenski, Volker Rühe’s current Head of Office, speaking about Rühe’s personal qualitities, strengths, and weaknesses in interview with the author in Berlin on 2 May 2002, tape recorded. 34. Rühe, “Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies,” here p. 133. 35. It is interesting to observe how some of these arguments still carry weight in the context of today’s transatlantic debate. 36. Rühe, “Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies,” pp. 133–135. 37. Ibid., p. 131. 38. Ibid., p. 134. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid., p. 135. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid., p. 135. 44. Ibid., p. 137. 45. See Max Otte, A Rising Middle Power? German Foreign Policy in Transformation, 1989–1999, New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 2000; see also the comments made by the then British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, in “Hurd: keine baldige Ausdehnung der NATO,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 September 1993. 46. See Karl-Heinz Kamp, “NATO Entrapped: Debating the Next Enlargement Round,” Survival, vol. 40, no. 3, Autumn 1998, pp. 170–186, here p. 176. 47. On the function of speeches in foreign policy, see Warren Christopher, In the Stream of History: Shaping Foreign Policy for a New Era, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998, pp. 7–11. 48. For Kohl’s speech, see “Bündnis- und Einsatzfähigkeit der Bundeswehr bleiben gewährleistet,” Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, 2 July 1993, p. 45 (my translation). Notes 253

49. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Rühe offen für neue NATO-Mitglieder: Plädoyer für eine Strategie des euroatlantischen Raumes,” 21 May 1993. 50. Professor Anthony Lake, former national security adviser to Bill Clinton, in interview with the author at Georgetown University on 14 January 2002, tape recorded. The point made about Walesa confirms the point I made earlier about alleged weaknesses in character not taking precedence over the power of the “better argument.” See note 32, in this chapter. 51. See James Goldgeier, Not Whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999, p. 20; also confirmed by Lake, interview. 52. Interestingly, the “Vancouver Declaration” makes no mention at all of NATO’s role in bringing security to a new Europe. Instead, both presi- dents emphasize the role of the UN and the CSCE in providing security and stability across the continent including Central and Eastern Europe. For details see, 1st Clinton–Yeltsin Summit, 3–4 April 1993 (Vancouver, Canada), Vancouver Declaration, available at http://www.ceip.org/ programs/npp/summits1.htm. 53. As the anonymous peer reviewer revealed, the “Twin Arcs” study had been sponsored by the U.S. Army where—upon completion—it was largely ignored. Report by peer reviewer, 23 June 2005. 54. As mentioned in the peer review report. 55. The fact that the subject of NATO enlargement was highly unpopular among Washington’s policy circles at the time was confirmed by Dr. Karl-Heinz Kamp, in interview with the author at JWG University of Frankfurt, March 2002. It was also mentioned by Asmus, interview; Larrabee, interview; Kugler, interview; and Weisser, interview. 56. Asmus, interview. 57. Weisser, interview. The fact that the BMVg chose RAND and its experts on grounds that (i) their work suited Volker Rühe’s own ideas on NATO enlargement and (ii) served as a medium to influence, shape, and direct the U.S. policymaking machinery and its debate, by virtue of the fact that RAND had an input to the U.S. policymaking process, was also confirmed by Rentmeister, telephone conversation. 58. Asmus, interview; confirmed by Weisser, interview. 59. Weisser, interview. The BMVg sponsored all three of the leading RAND publications on the subject of NATO enlargement: Ronald D. Asmus, Richard L. Kugler, and F. Stephen Larrabee, “Building a New NATO,” Foreign Affairs, September–October 1993, pp. 28–40; Ronald D. Asmus, Richard L. Kugler, and F. Stephen Larrabee, “NATO Expansion: The Next Steps,” Survival, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 7–33; Ronald D. Asmus, Richard L. Kugler, and F. Stephen Larrabee, “What Will NATO Enlargement Cost?” Survival, vol. 38, no. 3, Autumn 1996, pp. 5–26. Of these three major RAND studies, the second one is considered to be the most important, according to Asmus, interview. 60. Confirmed by Falenski, interview; Weisser, interview; Asmus, interview. 61. Asmus, interview. 254 Notes

62. See Richard Lugar, “NATO: Out-of-Area or Out-of- Business,” Foreign Policy Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 2, September–October 1993, pp. 25–29. It should be noted that the slogan “Out-of-Area or Out-of- Business” was purely a RAND creation, according to the peer reviewer. 63. Asmus, interview. 64. On Lugar’s role, see also Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 35. 65. This speech is entitled, “Why Europe Still Matters and Why NATO Should Enlarge, Again,” Address by Senator Richard G. Lugar to the CSIS Washington Roundtable on Capitol Hill, 13 June 2001, available at http://www.expand.nato.org/lugarcsis.html. 66. Ambassador Jenonne Walker, former special assistant to President Clinton and senior director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, in interview with the author in Washington, D.C., on 20 December 2001, tape recorded. 67. Asmus et al., “Building a New NATO.” 68. Confirmed by Larrabee, interview. Stephen Larrabee explained that many U.S. policymakers at the time thought that Asmus was simply “crazy” to be advertising the issue of NATO enlargement in D.C. 69. Asmus et al., “Building a New NATO,” here specifically pp. 31–32 and 37. 70. In his book, Warren Christopher, mentions that his thinking had been influenced by the first RAND article on NATO enlargement published in the autumn of 1994. See Christopher, In The Stream of History, p. 129, footnote 2. 71. Warren Christopher, “U.S. Leadership after the Cold War: NATO and Transatlantic Security,” Intervention at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting in Athens, Greece, 10 June 1993, in U.S. Department of State Dispatch, 21 June 1993, vol. 4, no. 25, p. 450. 72. Lake, interview; also confirmed by Walker, interview. 73. Ambassador Robert Hunter, in interview with the author at RAND, Washington, D.C., on 11 February 2002, tape recorded. Robert Hunter also mentioned that Thomas Donilon, then Warren Christopher’s Chief of Staff, was able to confirm that it had been Hunter who managed to get the idea of the summit proposal across to the White House upon Wörner’s request. Ulrich Weisser, during the interview, also emphasized that Manfred Wörner had a great deal of influence on American deliberations and especially on placing the idea of a NATO Summit on the U.S agenda in the course of 1993 for 1994. Dr. Karsten Voigt, former president of the North Atlantic Assembly, in interview with the author in Berlin on 28 May 2002, equally confirmed that Wörner together with Rühe, Weisser, RAND, and others joined forces to see this project through. 74. Rühle, interview. As Michael Rühle clarified, Manfred Wörner had been waiting for an Alliance member to take the initiative to start the debate on NATO enlargement. 75. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 22. 76. For details on the Interagency Working Group see ibid., pp. 23–24. 77. Ibid., p. 26. Notes 255

78. Joseph Kruzel sadly lost his life in a car accident outside Sarajevo during Richard Holbrooke’s Mission in Bosnia in 1995. Consult Richard Holbrooke, To End a War, New York: The Modern Library, 1998. 79. It is a well-known fact within NATO, although only seldom openly pro- nounced, that new member countries are hardly able to contribute to Alliance security to the extent Pentagon officials envisioned in 1993–94. Hence, the Alliance’s 1997 decision to invite new members from ECE indicates that, in the end, other considerations—other than rational cost–benefit analyses—must have dominated the decisionmaking process within NATO. On the (in)ability of new members to contribute effec- tively to Alliance security, see Ronald D. Asmus and Charles Grant, “Can NATO Remain an Effective Military and Political Alliance if it Keeps Growing?” available at http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2002/ issue1/debate_pr.html. 80. See Rudolf, “The USA and NATO Enlargement,” p. 340. 81. See Gerald B. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, 1990–1997— Blessings of Liberty, Westport: Praeger Press with Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1998, pp. 27–28. Also confirmed by Hunter, interview. 82. See my point under note 80, in this chapter. 83. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, pp. 27–28; see also Michael Mihalka, “Squaring the Circle: NATO’s Offer to the East,” RFE/Rl Research Report, 25 March 1994, p. 1. 84. See Drew, On the Edge, p. 404. 85. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 34. 86. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Bedenken Jelzins gegen eine Ausweitung der NATO nach Osten,” 2 October 1993; New York Times, “Yeltsin Opposes Expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe,” 2 October 1993. 87. Drew, On the Edge, p. 140. 88. In Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 41. 89. On Washington’s overly negative definition of NATO enlargement, see Brzezinski, “A Plan for Europe,” pp. 26–42, at p. 42. 90. Confirmed by Rentmeister, telephone conversation. 91. That this was the German government’s main rationale for and definition of NATO enlargement was also confirmed by Voigt, interview. 92. James M. Morrison, “NATO Expansion and Alternative Future Security Alignments,” available at http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/ macnair/m040ch2a.html, p. 1; and Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 23. 93. Morrison, “NATO Expansion,” p. 1. 94. Ibid. 95. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Jelzin-Brief in Prag kritisiert,” 4 October 1993. 96. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Bedenken Jelzins gegen eine Ausweitung der NATO nach Osten,” 2 October 1993; see also Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 24. 256 Notes

97. Anthony Lake, “From Containment to Enlargement,” U.S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 4, no. 39, 27 September 1993, pp. 658–664. 98. Brinkley, “Democratic Enlargement.” 99. Ibid., here pp. 111–118. 100. Manfred Wörner, IISS speech, Brussels, 10 September 1993, available at http://www.nato.int./docu/speech/1993/s930910a.htm. It is worth remembering that at the time Wörner gave this speech, Yeltsin’s letter had not yet been written. 101. Rühle, interview. 102. On this point, see also Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 34. Besides, Professor James Goldgeier agreed with me in a tape-recorded interview at George Washington University, on 18 December 2001, that he should have paid more attention to the role and influence of the Kohl government on the U.S. decision to enlarge NATO than he had done in his 1999 book. 103. See Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 44 (my translation). 104. See Kamp’s remarks in “NATO Entrapped,” here p. 177. 105. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 45. 106. Weisser, interview. 107. Weisser, interview. 108. Weisser, interview. 109. Ambassador Jenonne Walker’s preference for the NACC was also confirmed by Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski in interview with the author at John Hopkins University on 8 January 2002, tape recorded. 110. Weisser, interview. 111. See Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 47–48; and Weisser, interview. 112. On differing interpretations of this formula and the general state of con- fusion within the Clinton administration on NATO enlargement, see Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 42. 113. Walker, interview. 114. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 35. 115. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 30. 116. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 48. 117. Weisser, interview; permission to see a copy of the telex addressed to Ulrich Weisser and signed by Jenonne Walker in confirmation that PFP were not to be interpreted by the Clinton administration as an alternative to NATO enlargement at the then forthcoming NATO defence ministers meeting in Travemünde in October 1993. 118. Weisser, interview. 119. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 33. 120. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 52; and Weisser, interview. See also, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Die NATO bietet eine Partnerschaft für den Frieden an,” 22 October 1993. 121. In Thomas W. Lippmann, “Christopher Talks Partnership in East,” Washington Post, 22 October 1993, p. A28. 122. Welt am Sonntag, “Polen beklagt Absage der NATO an Erweiterung,” 24 October 1993. Notes 257

123. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 53. 124. Martin Winter, “Kinkel will osteuropäischen Staaten Zugang zur NATO öffnen,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 11 September 1993. 125. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 57. 126. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 47. 127. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 29. 128. See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Rühe warnt die NATO vor “Vetorecht” für Rußland,” 9 December 1993. 129. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 54.

7 The Holbrooke Factor, 1994

1. William Jefferson Clinton, “Remarks to Future Leaders of Europe in Brussels,” 9 January 1994, Public Papers, Book I, p. 11. 2. Ibid. 3. William Jefferson Clinton, “Partnership for Peace: Building New Security for the 21st Century,” US Department of State Dispatch Supplement, January 1994, vol. 5, pp. 3–4; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Vereinigte Staaten: Langsamere Gangart Rußlands wegen,” 7 January 1994. 4. William Jefferson Clinton, “The President’s News Conference in Brussels,” 11 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 29. 5. For more information on PFP and CJTF in this context, see Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, pp. 56–57. 6. Charles Kupchan, “Strategic Visions,” World Policy Journal, vol. 11, Fall 1994, pp. 112–122, here p. 113. 7. See “Erklärung der Staats-und Regierungschefs des Nordatlantikpaktes, abgegeben zum Abschluß ihrer Tagung am 10–11 January 1994 in Brüssel,” Europa-Archiv, vol. 49, no. 2,1994, pp. 132–134; see also Karl- Heinz Kamp, Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft: Die Frage einer Osterweiterung der NATO? Interne Studien, no. 102, June 1995, Sankt Augustin: Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung. 8. William Jefferson Clinton, “The President’s News Conference with Visegrad Leaders in Prague,” 12 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 40; for ECE concerns, see also Jiri Dienstbier, “Die NATO- Partnerschaft darf kein Ersatzzuckerl sein,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 6 January 1994; and Andrzej Olechowski, “Polen und die Nordatlantische Allianz,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 03.01.1994. 9. Asmus, interview. 10. Goldgeier, interview. 11. Kupchan, “Strategic Visions,” p. 113. 12. William Jefferson Clinton, “Interview with Reporters Aboard Air Force One,” 16 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 90. 13. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 46. 14. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, pp. 47–48. 258 Notes

15. Ibid., p. 65. Keeping the Russia and NATO trains on parallel tracks in 1996–97 was a joint German–American effort led by both Strobe Talbott and the then political director of the German Foreign Ministry, Wolfgang Ischinger, on the diplomatic level. 16. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 64. 17. In Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, no. 3, 1994, p. 17 (my translation). 18. Claus Gennrich “Das Bild der Moskauer Vorgänge beunruhigt die Bonner Politik: Die Lava ist in Bewegung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 February 1994. 19. See Das Parlament, “Das Tor nach Osten geöffnet,” 21 January 1994, no. 3. 20. Ibid. 21. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 43. 22. Frankfurter Rundschau, “Rücksicht tut Not,” 9 December 1993. 23. Asmus, interview. 24. Asmus, interview. That Clinton and Kohl were in regular contact was also confirmed by Anthony Lake, interview. 25. Martin S. Lambeck, “Kohl bei Clinton: Abstand zu Polen,” Die Welt, 10 February 1995; also George Brock, “Kohl Cautions NATO against Rush to Expand Eastwards,” Times (London), 4 July 1995; Atlantic News, “NATO Enlargement/Kohl: Developing a Concept in Close Contact with Russia,” 22 December 1994. 26. “Junktim mit EU-Mitgliedschaft,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 July 1995. 27. Details in Wolf, The Doubtful Mover, pp. 197–219, here p. 208. 28. That intra-governmental differences did not prevent Germany from playing a leading role in the international Alliance debate can be discerned from Claus Gennrich, “In einer Zeit ohne Patentrezepte gewinnt die deutsche Außenpolitik an Gewicht: der wichtigste Partner Amerikas—enge Verbindung zu Jelzin,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 January 1994. 29. Asmus, interview. 30. Weisser, interview. Confirmed also by Asmus, interview; and Walker, interview. 31. Weisser, interview. 32. Weisser, interview. 33. In Germany, the 1995–96 American–British debate on NATO enlargement was largely perceived as a delayed debate over the pros and cons of enlargement, shaped primarily by U.S. strategic interests and cost–benefit calculations rather than “pro-stability” arguments as in the case of Germany. See, Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger, “Zwischen Moral und Staatsinteresse,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 June 1995. See, especially, Michael E. Brown, “The Flawed Logic of NATO Expansion,” Survival, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 34–52; Dana H. Allin, “Can Containment Work Again?” Survival, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 53–65; Philip Zelikow, “The Masque of Institutions,” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 6–18; Philip H. Gordon, “Recasting the Atlantic Alliance,” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 32–57; Nick Notes 259

Williams, “Partnership for Peace: Permanent Fixture or Declining Asset?” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 98–110. 34. Voigt, interview. 35. See Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 28; and Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger, “Amerika setzt auf Deutschland,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 March 1994. 36. Voigt, interview. 37. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 32. 38. Ibid., p. 49. 39. Ibid. 40. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 69. 41. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 64. 42. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 62; supported by Bindenagel, interview. 43. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 61. 44. Ibid., p. 65. 45. Dr. Daniel Hamilton, former senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke and currently director of the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C., in interview with the author on 17 February 2002, tape recorded. 46. Voigt, interview. 47. Asmus, interview. 48. Hamilton, interview. 49. See Stent, Russia and Germany Reborn, p. 219. 50. Asmus, interview; also confirmed by Weisser, interview. 51. Asmus, interview. 52. Asmus, interview. 53. Asmus interview; also confirmed by Weisser, interview, as well as Bindenagel, interview. Ambassador Bindenagel added that Joachim Bitterlich (Chancellor Kohl’s adviser) also managed to positively influence Holbrooke’s thinking on the German rationale for NATO enlargement. See also, Richard Holbrooke, “America, a European Power,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, no. 2, March–April 1995, pp. 38–51. 54. Weisser, interview; confirmed by Bindenagel, interview. 55. Weisser, interview. 56. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 69; confirmed by Asmus, interview; Bindenagel, interview; and Hamilton, interview. 57. Asmus, interview. 58. Asmus, interview. Also, Anthony Lake confirmed in his interview that Strobe Talbott was not as anti–NATO enlargement as is often portrayed. 59. Asmus, interview. 60. Hamilton, interview. 61. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 73. 62. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 67. 63. Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, p. 74. 64. Richard Holbrooke has been characterized by some Washington officials as: “A master negotiator, even though he does not fit Harold Nicholson’s 260 Notes

description of a “good” diplomat. Holbrooke stands in a category of his own. He is a “tough cookie” and an interesting case study of “communicative action” in himself because he can conduct several telephone conversations at once. Holbrooke is someone you would love to have on your football team, but not someone you would like to see courting your sister. He can be ruthless, constantly thinking about every scrap of lever- age he can get over you—to get what he wants. He may start to talk about your mother, your sister, the weather—it is all part of the tactics. He is a genius. You can either love or hate him.” I guess it is not sur- prising that the respective informants would like to remain anonymous. 65. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 72. 66. Ibid (my translation). 67. See Kamp, “Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft,” p. 19. 68. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Im Grundsatz nach Osten offen,” 5 May 1994. 69. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kinkel und Rühe uneins über NATO- Erweiterung,” 7 October 1994; see also, dpa Pressebrief, “Kohl will sich zum Streit um Ost-Erweiterung nicht äußern,” 7 October 1994. 70. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 66. 71. Ibid., pp. 66–67. 72. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Washington will Osterweiterung der NATO voranbringen,” 9 November 1994. In a World-Net Interview in November 1994, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke announced that the U.S administration intended to take “far-ranging steps” on the subject of NATO enlargement: see U.S. Policy and Texts, 21 November 1994, p. 7. 73. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 68. 74. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 70. 75. dpa Pressebrief, “Süddeutsche Zeitung: NATO Botschafter kritisiert USA,” 30 November 1994. Excerpts of Richthofen’s letter to the German government are reprinted in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1 December 1994. 76. Confirmed during an interview with a high-ranking AA official who had been commissioned to NATO at the time to help work out an agreement with Russia and who would like to remain anonymous. According to this official, it had not been easy for the German delegation in NATO to consult with the American NATO delegation on matters at hand, since the latter appeared to be “very disorganized.” Interview conducted in Berlin, AA, on 28 May 2002. 77. See Kamp, “Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft,” p. 18. 78. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 71. 79. Kamp, “Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft,” p. 19, footnote 27. 80. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 71. 81. Die Welt, “Schlagabtausch Clinton-Jelzin,” 6 December 1994. 82. Stanley Kober, “NATO Expansion and the Danger of a Second Cold War,” available at http://cato.org/pubs7fpbriefs/fpb-038.html, pp. 1–14, here pp. 4–5. 83. Kamp, “Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft,” p. 20; see also, Craig Whitney, “Why Europe Is Careful Not to Scold the Bear,” Notes 261

New York Times, 2 January 1995; see also, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kohl rät in Washington zur Geduld bei NATO-Erweiterung,” 11 February 1995.

8 Keeping the Process Afloat, 1995

1. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Wie weiter zwischen dem Westen und Russland? Amerika, Europa, Bonn denken nach,” 12 May 1995. 2. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Vier Minister sollen erreichen, was die NATO als Ganzes nicht kann: Rühe reist nach Amerika—Treffen mit Perry, Rifkind, Leotard,” 27 February 1995. 3. United States Information Service Wireless File, “NATO Issues Study on Enlargement of Alliance,” 29 September 1995. See also John Barrett, “NATO’s Year of Study: Results and Policy Implications,” in Haglund, Will NATO Go East? pp. 99–102. 4. Steven Greenhouse, “Clinton to Tell Yeltsin that NATO Is Not Anti- Russian,” The New York Times, 14 March 1995. 5. Steven Greenhouse, “U.S.–Russian Intersection: The Romance Is Gone,” The New York Times, 27 March 1995. 6. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 80. 7. Argumenty I Fakty, “Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel: We Bear No Grudge against Russians for Germany’s Defeat in World War Two,” 10 May 1995, no. 18–19, p. 8. 8. For Kohl’s speech, see “Offizieller Besuch des Bundeskanzlers in der Republik Polen,” Bulletin des Presse-und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, no. 58, 14 July 1995, pp. 569–572. 9. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 80. 10. Ibid., p. 83; confirmed by Asmus, interview. 11. For further details, see Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 82–83. 12. On the role and significance of Russian soldiers serving in Bosnia under the American-led NATO command for the first time in history, see Gerhard Gnauck, “Jetzt sind wir Waffenbrüder,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 March 1997. 13. See Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 84.

9 Winning Moscow’s Approval, 1996–97

1. See Tatiana Parkhalina, “Of Myths and Illusions: Russians Perceptions of NATO Enlargement,” NATO Review, no. 3, May–June 1997, pp. 11–15. 2. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kinkel macht sich für die Aufnahme Rußlands in den Europarat stark,” 22 January 1996 (my translation). 3. Quoted in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Jelzin warnt Washington und Bonn vor der Ost-Erweiterung der NATO,” 29 January 1996 (my translation). 262 Notes

4. On Kohl’s cautionary remarks see Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 92; see also Claus Gennrich, “Die Europäer sollen in einem Block leben und nicht in zweien,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 February 1996. 5. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kohl in Moskau—Wutausbruch Jelzins gegen die Ost-Erweiterung der NATO,” 20 February 1996 (my translation); see also Roger Boyes, “Germany’s Wooing of Uneasy Russia Unsettles Nerves in Central Europe,” The Times, 7 February 1996. 6. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kohl in Moskau,” 20 February 1996 (my translation). 7. See Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 93. 8. According to news reports, Yeltsin had suffered a heart attack shortly before the second round of elections; however the Kremlin tried to with- hold the information of the heart attack for political reasons. On Kohl’s relaxed meeting with Yeltsin, see http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ 9609/07/kohl.yeltsin/. 9. For details of Yeltsin’s health record amid domestic political crises, see http://www.cnn.com/world/9609/20/yeltsin.button/. 10. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 97. 11. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 94–97. 12. On the Russian negotiating style, see Hiroshi Kimura, “The Russian Way of Negotiation,” in Peter Berton, Hiroshi Kimura, and William Zartmann, International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Values, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1999, chapter 3. 13. In 1997, for example, Madeleine Albright the new U.S. secretary of state would repeatedly and in various comments emphasize that NATO was not going to be “dictated” to by Russia. 14. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Kohl und Jelzin wollen 1997 Frage der NATO-Erweiterung klären,” 9 September 1996; see also, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Jelzin: Erst Vertrag zwischen der NATO und Rußland,” 30 September 1996; and Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, “NATO: Herbsttagung der Außenminister,” 10 December 1996, 41641. 15. Weisser, interview and Weisser’s book, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 97–100. 16. Ibid. 17. Weisser, interview. 18. The fact that Wolfgang Ischinger played a key role in preparing the ground for the 1997 Solana–Primakov negotiations on the NATO–Russia Founding Act, was also confirmed by Heinrich Rentmeister, telephone conversation. 19. On this line of argumentation, see also, Karsten Voigt, “Die Osterweiterung der NATO,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 46, no. B5, 1996, p. 22. 20. Weisser, interview. 21. See Gennady Temnenkkov, “German Minister Proposes NATO–Russian Consultative Body,” The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, 8 December 1996; See also, Alexei Korinenko, “Germany: Notes 263

NATO to Take Decision on Expansion in the First Six Months of 1997,” Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, 22 September 1996. 22. For more details, see Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 101–109. 23. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Die Bundesregierung hat für die Gespräche mit Rußland ein Konzept entwickelt: westlichen Bemühungen vorausgedacht,” 17 January 1997 (my translation). As the article confirms, it had been Germany that had secured the Alliance’s uni- lateral “three no’s” pledge issued in December 1996. On the pledge, see Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 104. 24. See Bruce Clark, “How the East Was Won,” Financial Times, 5–6 July 1997; see also, Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, “Russische Diskussionen über die NATO-Osterweiterung: Solana in Moskau,” 20 January 1997, 41734. 25. It is worth noting that Kinkel himself preferred the “17” to the “16ϩ1” formula adopted by NATO in September 1995 as part of a political framework agreed with Russia. For this, see Gennady Temnenkov, “German Minister Proposes NATO–Russia Consultative Body,” The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, 8 December 1996. 26. See Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, p. 112. 27. See Ian Mather and Miranda Anichkina, “Solana to Seek Deal in Russia,” The European, 6–12 March 1997. 28. Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, “Gipfeltreffen in Helsinki,” 20 March 1997, 41898–41900. 29. For details, see Focus, “Schach dem Bündnis: Russland setzt bei der NATO- Osterweiterung ein lukratives Tauschgeschäft durch, und die Deutschen helfen dabei,” 17 May 1997, pp. 60–62, here p. 60; see also, Süddeutsche Zeitung, “Kohl: Moskau wird politisch aufgewertet,” 18 April 1997. 30. Henry Kissinger, “Helsinki Fiasco,” Washington Post, 30 March 1997. 31. Solomon, The NATO Enlargement Debate, p. 112. 32. Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 109–116. 33. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Die NATO und Rußland einig—Der Weg zur Unterzeichnung in Paris ist frei: Solana und Primakov nach zähen Verhandlungen erfolgreich,” 15 May 1997 (my translation). 34. Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Germ of a More Secure Europe,” Financial Times, 27 May 1997; see also, Javier Solana, “NATO’s Quantum Leap,” Wall Street Journal Europe, 27 May 1997. 35. For details, see Weisser, Sicherheit für ganz Europa, pp. 117–118. 36. Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, “NATO-Gipfelkonferenz in Madrid,” 9 July 1997, 42175; see also Focus, “Drei dürfen mit,” 7 July 1997, pp. 208–212. 37. Financial Times, “NATO invited old enemies into fold,” 9 July 1997; David Buchan, Bruce Clark and David White, “NATO Expansion Deal Covers Divide,” Financial Times, 9 July 1997.

Conclusion

1. See most notably, Goldgeier, Not Whether but When, pp. 32–33; Stanley Sloan, NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community: The 264 Notes

Transatlantic Bargain Reconsidered, Boulder, Colo.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002. 2. Ronald D. Asmus, Opening NATO’s Doors, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. 3. In Michael Rühle, “Re-Examining the Transatlantic Bargain and the Enlargement Conundrum,” available at http://www.nato.int/docu/ review/2002/issue4/english/book_pr.html; see also Stefan Wolff, “Coincidence or Commonality of Interests? German and American Views on NATO Enlargement,” International Studies Association, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 4. Stephen Szabo, “Ein Projekt ‘Made in Germany’—Was Rühe’s strategischer Logik entsprang, hat die Unterstützung der Regierung Clinton gefunden,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1997 (my translation). 5. Robert J. Lieber (ed.), Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century, New York: Longman, 1997. 6. Weisser, interview. 7. David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford, “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest,” in Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 133–155, here p. 136. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., p. 137. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., p. 138. 13. On this, see Bonnie Azab Powell, “Linguistics Professor George Lakoff Dissects the “War on Terror” and other conservative catchphrases,” UC Berkeley Web Feature, News Center, 26 August 2004, available at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml. 14. See “The Republicans Know How to Frame Issues and Keep the Democrats on the Defensive,” a BuzzFlash Interview with “Framing” Expert UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff, available at http://www.opednews.com/buzzflash0104_lakoff_interview.htm. 15. Also confirmed by Brzezinski, interview. 16. Bindenagel, interview. 17. Asmus, interview. 18. Asmus, interview. 19. Walker, interview. 20. Asmus, interview. 21. Bindenagel, interview. 22. Rühe, “Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies,” here p. 134. 23. Ibid. 24. Weisser, interview. 25. Holbrooke, “America, a European Power,” here pp. 38–51. 26. Beate Kohler-Koch, “Deutsche Einigung im Spannungsfeld internationaler Umbrüche,” Politische Vierteljahresschrift, vol. 32, December 1991, pp. 605–620, here p. 616. Notes 265

27. I place the word “new” in inverted commas, because I believe there are many foreign policy concepts of the early 1990s that remain ill defined and thus deserve to be closely reexamined in relation to their potential usefulness to current international affairs. Still, I do not believe that any effort to recharge older concepts should distract our attention from producing new foreign policy concepts similar to the period of engen- derment we experienced during the early 1990s. Bibliography

Books and Articles

Ackermann, A. and Kelleher, McArdle C., “The United States and the German Question: Building a New European Order,” in Dirk Verheyen and Christian Soe (eds.), The Germans and Their Neighbours, Oxford: Westview Press, 1993, pp. 401–421. Adler, E., “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 3, no. 3, 1997, pp. 319–363. Adler, E., “Constructivism and International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 95–118. Adler, E. and Barnett, M., Security Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Albert, M., “What Systems Theory Can Tell Us About Constructivism,” in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jørgensen (eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, London: M.E. Sharpe, 2001, pp. 93–111. Albert, M., Brock, L., and Wolf, K.D., Civilising World Politics. Society and Community beyond the State, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000. Albrecht, U., “Konfliktfelder in einer neuen Weltordnung,” in Hans-Peter Hubert and Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Frieden und Internationalismus der Grünen (eds.), Grüne Außenpolitik. Aspekte einer Debatte, Göttingen: Die Werkstatt, 1993, pp. 63–68. Albrow, M., The Global Age. State and Society beyond Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press, 1996. Allin, D.H., “Can Containment Work Again?” Survival, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 53–65. Alten, J.V., Die ganz normale Anarchie. Jetzt beginnt die Nachkriegszeit, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1994. Anderson, J.J. and Goodman, J.B., “Mars or Minerva? A United Germany in Post–Cold War Europe,” in Robert O. Keohane, Joseph S. Nye, and Stanley Hoffmann (eds.), After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991, Center for International Affairs: Harvard University Press, 1994, pp. 23–62. 268 Bibliography

Art, R.J. and Cronin, P.M., The United States and Coercive Diplomacy, Washington, D.C.: The United States Institute of Peace, 2003. Ashley, R., “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics,” Alternatives, vol. 12, no. 4, 1987, pp. 403–434. Ashley, R. and Walker, R.J.B, “Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, 1990, pp. 367–416. Asmus, R.D., “Germany and America: Partners in Leadership?” Survival, vol. 33, no. 6, November/December 1991, pp. 546–566. Asmus, R.D., “German Unification and Its Ramifications,” Santa Monica: RAND Publications, 1991. Asmus, R.D., “Die Deutschen setzen auf Bewährtes: NATO und EU,” Die Welt, 7 February 1995, p. 5. Asmus, R.D., Germany’s Geopolitical Maturation: Public Opinion and Security Policy in 1994, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1995. Asmus, R.D., “Double Enlargement: Redefining the Atlantic Partnership after the Cold War,” in David C. Gompert and Stephen Larrabee (eds.), America and Europe: A Partnership for a New Era, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Asmus, R.D. and Grant, C., “Can NATO Remain an Effective Military and Political Alliance If It Keeps Growing?” available at http://www.nato.int/docu/ review/2002/issue1/debate_pr.html. Asmus, R.D., Kugler, R.L., and Larrabee, S., “Building a New NATO,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, September/October 1993, pp. 28–40. Asmus, R.D., Kugler, R.L., and Larrabee, S., “NATO Expansion: The Next Steps,” Survival, vol. 37, Spring 1995, pp.7–33. Asmus, R.D., Kugler, R.L., and Larrabee, S., “What Will NATO Enlargement Cost?” Survival, vol. 38, Autumn 1996, pp. 5–26. Austin, J.L., Sense and Sensibilia, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books, 1984. Axelrod, R., The Complexity of Cooperation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Axelrod, R. and Keohane, R., “Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions,” in Kenneth Oye (ed.), Cooperation under Anarchy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986, pp. 226–254. Axt, H.J., “Hat Genscher Jugoslawien entzweit? Mythen und Fakten zur Außenpolitik des vereinten Deutschlands,” Europa-Archiv, vol. 12, 1993. Bacharach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J., Bargaining, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1981. Bahr, E., “Normalisierung der deutschen Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 54, no.1, January 1999, pp. 41–52. Bahr, E. and Mutz, R., “Deutsche Interessen und die Sicherheit Europas: Zur militärischen Verengung eines politischen Begriffs,” in Reinhard Mutz, Bruno Schoch, and Friedhelm Solms (eds.), Friedensgutachten, Münster: Lit, 1998, pp. 236–249. Baker, J., The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace, 1989–1992, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1995. Baldwin, D.A., “Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies,” World Politics, vol. 31, no. 2, 1979, pp. 161–194. Bibliography 269

Baldwin, D.A., Economic Statecraft, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1985. Baldwin, D.A., Paradoxes of Power, New York: Blackwell Publishers, 1989. Baldwin, D.A., “Neoliberalism, Neorealism and World Politics,” in David Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, pp. 3–25. Baldwin, D.A. (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Banchoff, T., “German Identity and European Integration,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 5, no. 3, 1999, pp. 259–289. Banchoff, T., The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics, and Foreign Policy, 1945–1995, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. Baring, A., Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994. Baring, A., “Germany, What Now?” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 1–20. Baring, A., “Wie neu ist unsere Lage? Deutschland als Regionalmacht,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, April 1995, pp. 12–21. Baring, A., Scheitert Deutschland? Abschied von unseren Wunschwelten, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1997. Barnett, M., Dialogues in Arab Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Barnett, M. and Finnemore, M., “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations,” International Organization, vol. 53, no. 4, 1999, pp. 699–732. Barrett, J., “NATO’s Year of Study: Results and Policy Implications,” in D. Haglund (ed.), Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, Kingston, Ont.: Queen’s University, Centre for International Relations, 1996, pp. 99–102. Baumann, R., Rittberger, V., and Wagner, W., “Power and Power Politics: Neorealist Foreign Policy Theory and Expectations about German Foreign Policy since Unification,” University of Tübingen: Institute for Political Science, Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, no. 30a, 1998. Beck, U., “Weltrisikogesellschaft. Zur politischen Dynamik globaler Gefahren,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, August 1995, pp. 13–20. Bell, D., “Political Linguistics and International Negotiation,” Negotiation Journal, July 1988, pp. 233–246. Bercovitsch, J., Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation, Boulder: Lynne Riener, 1996. Berger, T.U., “The Past in the Present: Historical Memory and German National Security Policy,” German Politics, vol. 6, no.1, April 1997, pp. 39–59. Berger, T.U., Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T., The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Anchor, 1966. Bergfleth, G., “Erde und Heimat. Über das Ende der Ära des Unheils,” in H. Schwilk and U. Schacht (eds.), Die selbstbewusste Nation, Berlin: Ullstein, 1995, pp. 101–123. Berton, P., Kimura, H., and Zartmann, W., International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Values, Hampshire: Macmillan Press, 1999. 270 Bibliography

Bertram, C., “The Power and the Past: Germany’s New International Loneliness,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, 91–106. Bertram, C., Europe in the Balance: Securing the Peace Won in the Cold War, Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995. Beschloss, M. and Talbott, S., At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War, Boston: Little, Brown, 1992. Bhaskar, R., The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, Brighton: Harvester, 1979. Biersteker, T.J., “State, Sovereignty and Territory,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 157–176. Biersteker, T.J. and Weber, C., State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Blackwill, R., “The Security Implications of a United Germany: Paper I,” Adelphi Papers 257, Part II, Winter 1990/91, pp. 92–95. Börzel, T., “Organizing Babylon—On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks,” Public Administration, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 253–273. Brechtefeld, J., “Mitteleuropa als Option deutscher Außenpolitik,” WeltTrends, vol. 6, March 1995, pp. 76–97. Bredow, W.V., “Die Mittelmacht. Über die Rolle des vereinten Deutschlands in der Internationalen Politik,” in B. Guggenberger and K. Hansen (eds.), Die Mitte. Vermessungen in Politik und Kultur, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1993, pp. 161–176. Bredow, W.V. and Jäger, T., Neue deutsche Außenpolitik. Nationale Interessen in Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1993. Brenner, M., “Multilateralism and European Security,” Survival, vol. 35, no. 2, Summer 1993, pp. 138–155. Breuilly, J., The State of Germany, London: Longman Group, 1992. Brock, G., “Kohl Cautions NATO against Rush to Expand Eastwards,” Times (London), 4 July 1995. Brock, L. and Albert, M., “Entgrenzung der Staatenwelt. Zur Analyse weltge- sellschaftlicher Entwicklungstendenzen,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 259–285. Brooks, S.G., “Dueling Realisms,” International Organizations, vol. 51, no. 3, 1997, pp. 445–477. Brown, M.E., “The Flawed Logic of NATO Expansion,” Survival, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 34–52. Brinkley, D. “Democratic Enlargement: The Clinton Doctrine,” Foreign Policy, vol.106, Spring 1997, pp. 111–127. Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty–First Century, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1993. Brzezinski, Z., “A Plan for Europe,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, no. 1, 1995, pp. 26–42. Brzezinski, Z., “The Germ of a More Secure Europe,” Financial Times, 27 May 1997. Buchan, D., Clark, B., and White, D., “NATO Expansion Deal Covers Divide,” Financial Times, 9 July 1997, p. 2. Bibliography 271

Bull, H., “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” in Loukas Tsoukalis (ed.), The European Community: Past, Present and Future, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Bulmer, S., “Shaping the Rules. The Constitutive Politics of the European Union and German Power,” in Peter Katzenstein (ed.), Tamed Power. Germany in Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997, pp. 47–79. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W.E., “Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?” International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 1, January 1996, pp. 9–32. Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991, pp. 53–72. Buzan, B., People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post Cold War Era, 2nd edition, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Buzan, B., “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School,” International Organization, vol. 47, no. 3, 1993, pp. 377–452. Bühl, W., “Gesellschaftliche Grundlagen der deutschen Außenpolitik,” Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg, 1994, pp. 175–201. Callières, F. de, De la manière de négocier avec les Souverains, Paris: M. Brunet, 1716. Callières, F. de, On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1919. Calleo, D., The German Problem Reconsidered. Germany and the World Order. 1870 to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Campbell, D., Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Carlsnaes, W., “The Agency—Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, 1992, pp. 245–270. Carter, A. and Perry, W., Preventive Defence. A New Security Strategy for America, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., and Eagly, A.H., “Principles of Persuasion,” in E.T. Higgins and A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 702–742. Chambers, S., Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996. Checkel, J., “International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist–Constructivist Divide,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 3, no. 4, 1997, pp. 473–495. Checkel, J., “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations,” World Politics, vol. 50, no. 2, 1998, pp. 324–348. Checkel, J., Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian Behaviour and the End of the Cold War, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Checkel, J., “Social Learning and European Identity Change,” International Organization, vol. 55, no. 3, 2000, pp. 553–588. Checkel, J., “Social Construction and Integration,” in Thomas Christiansen, Knud Eric Jørgensen, and Antje Wiener (eds.), The Social Construction of Europe, London: Sage Publications, 2001, pp. 50–64. 272 Bibliography

Checkel, J., “Why Comply? Constructivism, Social Norms, and the Study of International Institutions,” International Organization, vol. 55, no. 3, 2001, pp. 553–588 Christensen, T. and Snyder, J., “Progressive Research on Degenerate Alliances,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 919–922. Christiansen, T., Jørgensen, K.E., and Wiener, A., “The Social Construction of Europe,” Journal Of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 4, 1999, pp. 528–544. Christopher, W., In the Stream of History: Shaping Foreign Policy for a New Era, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Cohen, R., “Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map,” Diplomatic Studies Programme Newsletter, Leicester University, 4 May 1998. Constantinou, C., On the Way to Diplomacy, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Conzelmann, T., “Neofunktionalismus,” in Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler (eds.), Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2003, pp. 141–168. Corterier, P., “Quo vadis NATO?” Survival, vol. 32, no. 2, March/April 1990, pp. 141–155. Cox, M., US Foreign Policy after the Cold War—Superpower without a Mission? London: RIIA, 1995. Cox, R.W., “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, pp. 204–254. Crawford, N., “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships,” International Security, vol. 24, no. 4, 1999, pp. 116–156. Czempiel, E.O., “Die neue Souveränität—ein Anachronismus? Regieren zwischen nationaler Souveränität, europäischer Integration und weltweiten Verflechtungen,” in Hans-Hermann Hartwich and Göttrik Wewer (eds.), Regieren in der Bundesrepublik V. Souveränität, Integration, Interdependenz— Staatliches Handeln in der Außen—und Europapolitik, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1993, pp. 145–158. Czempiel, E.O., “Kollektive Sicherheit—Mythos oder Möglichkeit,” Merkur, vol. 48, September/October, 1994, pp. 790–803. Czempiel, E.O., “Vergesellschaftete Außenpolitik,” Merkur, vol. 48, no. 1, January 1994, pp. 1–14. Czempiel, E.O., “Kants Theorem. Oder: Warum sind die Demokratien (noch immer) nicht friedlich?” in Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 3, no. 1, 1996, pp. 79–101. Daase, C. and Jochum, M., “ ‘Partners in Leadership’? United Germany in the Eyes of the USA,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 43, no. 3, 1992, pp. 236–245. Davis, P. and Dombrowski, P., “Appetite of the Wolf: German Foreign Assistance for Central and Eastern Europe,” German Politics, vol. 6, no. 1, April 1997, pp. 1–22. Delanty, G., Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Bibliography 273

Dembinski, M., “Von der kollektiven Verteidigung in Europa zur weltweiten Intervention? Das neue strategische Konzept, der Kosovo–Krieg und die Zukunft der NATO,” HSFK–Standpunkte, no. 3, 1999. Der Derian, J., “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1987, pp. 91–110. Der Derian, J., On Diplomacy, Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. Der Derian, J., “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance and Speed,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, 1990, pp. 295–310. Der Derian, J., Antidiplomacy—Spies, Terror, Speed and War, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1992. Dessler, D., “What’s at Stake with the Agent—Structure Debate,” International Organization, vol. 43, no. 3, 1989, pp. 441–473. Deutsch, K.W, Burrell, S.A., Kann, R.A., Lee, M., Jr., Lichterman, M., Lindgren, R., Loewenheim, F., and Wagenen, R.V., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. Dienstbier, J., “Central Europe’s Security,” Foreign Policy, vol. 83, no. 1, Summer 1991, pp. 119–127. Dienstbier, J., “Die NATO—Partnerschaft darf kein Ersatzzuckerl sein,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 6 January 1994. Dobbs, M. and Smith, R.J., “US Offers Assurances on NATO,” The Washington Post, 7 May 1995, p. A01. Dorff, R.H., “Normal Actor or Reluctant Power,” European Security, vol. 6., no. 2, Summer 1997, pp. 56–69. Drew, E., On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994. Duke, S., The New European Security Disorder, London: Macmillan Press, 1994. Elias, N., Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen, Bern: Francke, 1969. Elman, C. and Elman, M.F., “Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 923–926. Elster, J., Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Elster, J., Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Eyal, J., “NATO Enlargement: Anatomy of a Decision” in Anton Bebler (ed.), The Challenge of NATO Enlargement, Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1999, pp. 22–34. Fearon, J. and Wendt, A., “Rationalism vs. Constructivism: A Skeptical View,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 52–72. Feldman, Lily Gardner, “Cooperative Differences in U.S. and EU Balkans Policies: An American Perspective on the Political Dimension,” AICGS German Issues, vol. 26, 2001, pp. 1–29. Feldmeyer, K., “Die NATO und Deutschland nach dem Ende des Ost–West Gegensatzes,” in Zitelmann, R., Weissmann, K., and Grossheim, M., Westbindung: Chancen und Risiken für Deutschland, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 1993, pp. 459–476. Fest, J., “Europe in a Cul-de-sac,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 51–64. 274 Bibliography

Fierke, K., Changing Games, Changing Strategies, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Fierke, K. and Wiener, A., “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement, Robert Schuman Centre, EU Working Papers, no. 99/14. Finnemore, M., National Interests in International Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Finnemore, M., “Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism,” International Organization, vol. 50, no. 2, 1996, pp. 325–347. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K., “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, 1998, pp. 887–917. Fischer, J., Risiko Deutschland. Krise und Zukunft der deutschen Politik, Köln: Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1994. Fisher, R. and Ury, W., Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981 Flockhart, T., “The Dynamics of Expansion: NATO, WEU and EU,” European Security, vol. 5, no. 2, Summer 1996, pp. 196–218. Fox, M.P. and Fox, J.S., NATO and the Range of American Choice, Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1967. Frankenberger, K.D., “Amerika setzt auf Deutschland,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 March 1994, p. 14. Frankenberger, K.D., “Zwischen Moral und Staatsinteresse,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 June 1995. Freudenstein, R., “Die Neuen Demokratien in Ostmitteleuropa und die Europäische Union,” in K. Kaiser and H.W. Maull, Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 2: Herausforderungen, München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994, pp. 103–119. Fritsch-Bournazel, R., Europe and German Unification, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1992. Garton Ash, T., “Germany’s Choice,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, 1994, pp. 66–68. Garton Ash, T., In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent, London: Vintage, 1994. Geipel, G.L., “Germany: Urgent Pressures, Quiet Change,” Current History, vol. 93, no. 586, November 1994, pp. 358–363. Genscher, H.D, Erinnerungen, 1. Auflage, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1995. Gennrich, C., “In einer Zeit ohne Patentrezepte gewinnt die deutsche Außenpolitik an Gewicht: der wichtigste Partner Amerikas—enge Verbindung zu Jelzin,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 January 1994, p. 3. Gennrich, C., “Das Bild der Moskauer Vorgänge beunruhigt die Bonner Politik: Die Lava ist in Bewegung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 February 1994, p. 3. Gennrich, C., “Die Europäer sollen in einem Block leben und nicht in zweien,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 21 February 1996. George, A.L., Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991. George, A.L., Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993. Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1984. Bibliography 275

Gillessen, G., “Germany’s Position in the Centre of Europe: The Significance of Germany’s Position and Misunderstandings about German Interests,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 21–34. Glaser, C., “Realists as Optimists. Cooperation as Self–Help,” International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994/95, pp. 50–90. Glaser, C., “The Security Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, vol. 50, no. 1, 1997, pp. 171–201. Glees, A., Reinventing Germany. German Political Development since 1945, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1996. Gnesotto, N., “Common European Defence and Transatlantic Relations,” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 19–31. Goldgeier, J.M., “NATO Expansion: The Anatomy of a Decision,” The Washington Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 85–102. Goldgeier, J.M., Not Whether but When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R.O., Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993. Gordon, P., “The Normalization of German Foreign Policy,” Orbis, vol. 38, no. 2, 1994, pp. 225–243. Gordon, P., “Recasting the Atlantic Alliance,” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 32–57. Göhler, G., Macht der Öffentlichkeit—Öffentlichkeit der Macht, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1995, pp. 277–307. Gramsci, A., Selection from the Prison Notebooks, New York: International, 1971. Green, S., The Politics of Exclusion: Institutions and Immigration Policy in Contemporary Germany, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004. Grieco, J.M.Ç “Anarchy and the Limits of International Cooperation. A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization, vol. 42, 1988, pp. 485–507. Grieco, J.M., “Realist Theory and the Problem of International Cooperation: Analysis with an Amended Prisoner’s Dilemma,” Journal of Politics, vol. 50, pp. 600–624, 1988. Grieco, J.M., Cooperation among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990. Grieco, J., “The Relative-Gains Problem for International Cooperation: Comment,” American Political Science Review, vol. 87, 1993, pp. 729–735. Gruner, W., “Germany in Europe: The German Question as Burden and as Opportunity,” in J. Breuilly (ed.), The State of Germany, London: Longman Group, 1992, pp. 201–223. Günther, I., “Israel einigt sich mit Hisbollah,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 26 January 2004. Gutjahr, L., German Foreign and Defence Policy after Unification, London: Pinter Publishers, 1994. Gutjahr, L., “Global Stability and Euro-Atlantic Cooperation: The New Germany’s National Interests,” European Security, vol. 3, no. 4, Winter 1994, pp. 649–663. 276 Bibliography

Gutjahr, L., “Stability, Integration and Global Responsibility: Germany’s Changing Perspectives on National Interests,” Review of International Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, July 1995, pp. 301–317. Haas, E.B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964. Haas, E.B., The Uniting of Europe, 2nd edition, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968 (1958). Haass, R.N., “Paradigm Lost,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, no.1, January/February 1995, pp. 43–58. Haass, R.N., The Opportunity, New York: Public Affairs, 2005. Habermas, J., Erkenntnis und Interesse, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1968. Habermas, J., Knowledge and Human Interests, 2nd edition, London: Heinemann, 1978. Habermas, J., Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1981. Habermas, J., The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Boston: Beacon Press, 1984. Habermas, J., The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, Boston: Beacon Press, 1987. Habermas, J., Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992. Habermas, J., Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1995. Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1996. Hacke, C., Weltmacht wider Willen: Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, revised edition, Frankfurt a.M.: Ullstein, 1993. Hacke, C., Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Weltmacht wider Willen? Berlin: Ullstein Propylaen, 1997. Hacke, C., “The National Interests of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Threshold of the 21st Century,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 49, no. 4, 1998, pp. 5–25. Hadar, L., Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Haftendorn, H., “Gulliver in der Mitte Europas. Internationale Verflechtung und nationale Handlungsmöglichkeiten,” in K. Kaiser and H.W. Maull (eds.), Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol.1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg, 1994, pp. 129–152. Haftendorn, H., Deutsche Außenpolitik zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehauptung 1945–2000, Stuttgart/München: Deutsche Verlags Anstalt, 2001. Haftendorn, H., “Die Krise der transatlantischen Beziehungen und die Transformation der NATO,” in B.W. Kubbig (ed.), Brandherd Irak: US- Hegemonieanspruch, die UNO und die Rolle Europas, Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2003, pp. 217–223. Halverson, T.E., The Last Great Nuclear Debate, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1995. Hamilton, D., “A More European Germany, A More German Europe,” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 41, no. 1, Summer 1991, pp. 127–149. Hamilton, D., Beyond Bonn—America and the Berlin Republic, Carnegie Endowment Study Group on U.S. Policy toward Germany, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1994. Bibliography 277

Hamilton, K. and Langhorne, R., The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration, London and New York: Routledge, 1995. Hanrieder, W.F., Deutschland, Europa, Amerika: Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949–1994, 2nd edition, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995. Harnisch, S. and Maull, H.W., Germany as a Civilian Power: The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Hasenclever, A., “The Democractic Peace Meets International Institutions. Über- legungen zur internationalen Organisation des demokratischen Friedens,” ZIB, vol. 9. no. 1, 2002, pp. 75–112. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., and Rittberger, V., “Interests, Power, and Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes,” Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 40, 1996, pp. 177–228. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., and Rittberger, V., Theories of International Régimes, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hasse, R., “German Unification and European Upheavals,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 43, no. 2, 1992, pp. 122–134. Hellmann, G., “Goodbye Bismarck? The Foreign Policy of Contemporary Germany,” Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 40, no. 1, 1996, pp. 1–39. Hellmann, G., “Jenseits von Normalisierung und Militarisierung: Zur Standortdebatte über die neue deutsche Europapolitik,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. B1–2/97, 1997. Hellmann, G., “The Sirens of Power and German Foreign Policy: Who Is Listening?” German Politics, vol. 6, no. 2, 1997, pp. 29–57. Hellmann, G., “Die prekäre Macht: Deutschland an der Schwelle zum 21. Jahrhundert,” in Wolf-Dieter Eberwein and Karl Kaiser (eds.), Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 4: Institutionen und Ressourcen, München: Oldenbourg, 1998, pp. 265–282. Hellmann, G., “Beyond Weltpolitik, Self-Containment and Civilian Power: United Germany’s Normalising Ambitions,” IGS Discussion Papers Series Number 99/10, Institute for German Studies, The University of Birmingham, 1999. Hellmann, G., “Machtbalance und Vormachtdenken sind überholt: Zum außen- politischen Diskurs im vereinigten Deutschland,” in Monika Medik-Krakau (ed.), Außenpolitischer Wandel in theoretischer und vergleichender Perspektive. Die USA und die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999, pp. 97–126. Hellmann, G., “Nationale Normalität als Zukunft. Zur Außenpolitik der Berliner Republik,” Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 44, 1999. Hellmann, G., “Deutschlands Kraft und Europas Vertrauen, oder: Die Selbstbewussten, die Befangenen und die Betroffenen der neuen deutschen Außenpolitik,” in Christiane Lammers and Lutz Schrader (eds.), Neue deutsche Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik? Eine Friedenswissenschaftliche Bilanz zwei Jahre nach dem Regierungswechsel AFK-Jahrestagung 1999, AFK Schriftenreihe Band 27, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000, pp. 42–77. Hellmann, G., Rekonstruktion der “Hegemonie des Machtstaates Deutschland unter modernen Bedingungen”? Zwischenbilanzen nach zehn Jahren neuer deutscher Außenpolitik, Beitrag zum 21.Kongress der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft, Halle/Saale, 1–5 October 2000. 278 Bibliography

Hellmann, G., “Der ‘deutsche Weg.’ Eine außenpolitische Gratwanderung,” Internationale Politik, vol. 9, 2002, pp. 1–8. Hellmann, G., “A New Role in Europe—and in the World at Large,” International Herald Tribune, 20 September 2002, p. 6. Hellmann, G., “Sag beim Abschied leise Servus. Die Zivilmacht Deutschland beginnt ein neues Selbst zu behaupten,” Politische Viertelsjahresschrift, vol. 43, no. 3, 2002, pp. 498–507. Hellmann, G., “Agenda 2020. Krise und Perspektive deutscher Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 58, no. 9, September 2003, pp. 39–50. Hellmann, G., “Von Gipfelstürmern und Gratwanderern. Deutsche Wege in der Außenpolitik,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. B11, March 2004, pp. 32–39. Hellmann, G., “Wider die machtpolitische Resozialisierung in der deutschen Außenpolitik. Ein Plädoyer für offensiven Idealismus,” WeltTrends, vol. 42, Spring 2004, pp. 79–88. Hellmann, G. and Wolf, R., “Der überforderte Patient,” Handelsblatt, 18 May 2004, p. 11. Hellmann, G. and Wolf, R., “Neuer Spielplan auf der Weltbühne. Deutschlands Auftritt muß abgesagt werden,” Internationale Politik, vol. 59, no. 8, 2004, pp. 73–80. Herbert, U., Geschichte der Ausländerpolitik in Deutschland, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Schriftenreihe Band 410, 2003. Heydrich, W., Krause, J., Nerlich, U., Nötzold, J., and Rummel, R. (eds.), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands: Neue Konstellationen, Risiken und Instrumente, Baden-Baden (Reihe Internationale Politik und Sicherheit): Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992. Hill, C., The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy, London: Routledge, 1995. Hoffmann, M., “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” Millennium, vol. 16, no. 2, 1987, pp. 231–249. Hoffmann, S., “Abschied von der Vergangenheit: Politik und Sicherheit im Europa der neunziger Jahre,” Europa-Archiv, vol. 45, 25 October 1990, pp. 595–606. Holbrooke, R., “America, a European Power,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 74. no. 2, March/ April 1995, pp. 38–51. Holbrooke, R., Meine Mission: Vom Krieg zum Frieden in Bosnien, München: Piper Verlag, 1998. Holbrooke, R., To End a War, New York: The Modern Library, 1998. Holzinger, K., “Kommunkationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 8, no. 2, 2001, pp. 243–286. Holzinger, K., “Verhandeln statt Argumentieren oder Verhandeln durch Argumentieren? Eine empirische Analyse auf der Basis der Sprechakttheorie,” Politische Viertelsjahreszeitschrift, vol. 42, no. 3, 2001, pp. 414–446. Hopf, T., “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 171–200. Hopmann, T., “Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem–Solving,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 542, 1995, pp. 24–27. Bibliography 279

Hopmann, T., The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of International Conflict, Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. Hubel, H. and May, B., “Ein ‘normales’ Deutschland? Die souveräne Bundesrepublik in der ausländischen Wahrnehmung,” Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik der DGAP, Band 92, Bonn 1995. Hubert, H.P. and Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Frieden und Internationalismus der Grünen (eds.), Grüne Außenpolitik—Aspekte einer Debatte, Göttingen: die Werkstatt, 1995. Hughes, K., “The 1996 Intergovernmental Conference and EU Enlargement,” International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 1, January 1996, pp. 1–8. Hyde-Price, A., European Security beyond the Cold War: Four Scenarios for the Year 2010, London: RIIA, 1991. Hyde-Price, A., The International Politics of East Central Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996. Hyde-Price, A., “Of Dragons and Snakes: Contemporary German Security Policy,” in Gordon Smith, William E. Paterson, and Stephen Padgett (eds.), Developments in German Politic, Hampshire: Macmillan Press, 1996, pp. 173–191. Iklé, F.C., How Nations Negotiate, New York: Praeger, 1964. Inacker, M.J., “Macht und Moralität: Über eine neue deutsche Sicherheitspolitik,” in H. Schwilk and U. Schacht (eds.), Die selbstbewußte Nation. Anschwellender Bockgesang und weitere Beiträge zu einer neuen deutschen Debatte, 3rd edition, Frankfurt a.M.: Ullstein, 1996, pp. 364–380. Inacker, M.J., “Deutschland nur noch beschränkt bündnisfähig,” Die Welt, 24 March 2000. James, A., “Diplomacy and International Society,” International Relations, vol. 6, no. 6, 1980, pp. 931–948. Janning, J., “A German Europe—a European Germany? On the Debate Over Germany’s Foreign Policy,” International Affairs, vol. 72, no.1, January 1996, pp. 9–32. Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W.E., Germany’s Power in Europe, IGC and ESRC Paper, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham, available at http://www.bham.ac.uk/IGC/pattjeff.pdf Joffe, J., “Europe’s American Pacifier,” Foreign Policy, no. 54, Spring 1984, pp. 64–82. Joffe, J., “Once More the German Question,” Survival, vol. 32, no. 2, March/April 1990, pp. 129–139. Joffe, J., “The Security Implications of a United Germany: Paper I,” Adelphi Papers, Part II 257, Winter 1990/91, pp. 84–95. Joffe, J., “German Grand Strategy after the Cold War,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 79–90. Joffe, J., “Deutsche Außenpolitk—Postmodern,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, January 1995, pp. 43–45. Johnston, A.I., “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 5, 2001, pp. 487–515. Jönsson, C., “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 212–234. 280 Bibliography

Jørgensen, K.E., “Four Levels and a Discipline,” in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jørgensen, Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, London: M.E. Sharpe, 2001, pp. 36–53. Josef-Meiers, F., “Germany: The Reluctant Power,” Survival, vol. 37, no. 3, Autumn 1995, pp. 82–103. Kamp, K.H., Die Frage einer “Osterweiterung” der NATO, Interne Studien der Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, no. 57, Sankt Augustin, 1993. Kamp, K.H., “Zwischen Friedenspartnerschaft und Vollmitgliedschaft—Die NATO und die Erweiterungsfrage,” Interne Studien der Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, no. 102, 1995. Kamp, K.H., “NATO Entrapped: Debating the Next Enlargement Round,” Survival, vol. 40, no. 3, Autumn 1998, pp. 170–186. Kant, I., “Zum Ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.” in Immanuel Kant (ed.), Kleinere Schriften zur Geschichtsphilosophie, Ethik und Politik, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1973 (1795), pp. 115–169. Katzenstein, P.J., The Growth of a Semi-Sovereign State: Policy and Politics in West Germany, Philadelphia: Temple, 1987. Katzenstein, P., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Katzenstein, P., Tamed Power. Germany in Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Kaiser, K., Deutschlands Vereinigung: Die internationalen Aspekte, Bergisch Gladbach: Basteil Lübbe, 1991. Kaiser, K., “Die ständige Mitgliedschaft im Sicherheitsrat. Ein berechtigtes Ziel der neuen deutschen Außenpolitik,” Europa Archiv, vol. 48, no. 10, 1993, pp. 541–552. Kaiser, K., “Europäischer Pfeiler und atlantische Kooperation: Eine alte Frage neu gestellt,” in Karl Kaiser and Hanns W. Maull (eds.), Die Zukunft der europäis- chen Integration: Folgerungen für die deutsche Politik, Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1993, pp. 68–77. Kaiser, K., “Deutsche Außenpolitik in der Ära des Globalismus,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, January 1995, pp. 27–36. Kaiser, K., Zur Zukunft der Deutschen Außenpolitik: Reden zur Außenpolitik der Berliner Republik, Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1998. Kaiser, K., “Ein deutscher Sitz im UN Sicherheitsrat. Ein richtiges Ziel deutscher Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 59, no. 8, 2004, pp. 61–72. Kaiser, K. and Maull, H.W., Deutschlands neue Aussenpolitik—Band I: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994. Kaiser, K. and Maull, H.W. (eds.), “Die Suche nach Kontinuität in einer Welt des Wandels,” Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994, pp. 15–25. Keck, O., Information, Macht und gesellschaftliche Rationalität. Das Dilemma rationalen kommunikativen Handelns, dargestellt am Beispiel eines internationalen Vergleichs der Kernenergiepolitik, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993. Keck, O., “Rationales kommunikatives Handeln in den internationalen Beziehungen. Ist eine Verbindung von Rational-Choice Theorie und Bibliography 281

Habermas’s Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns möglich?” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 2, no. 1, 1995, pp. 5–48. Kennedy, P., “The Perils of Empire,” Washington Post, 20 April 2003. Keohane, R., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984 Keohane, R., Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Keohane, R., “Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge after the Cold War,” in David A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism. The Contemporary Debate, New York: 1993, pp. 271–300. Keohane, R., “Governance in a Partially Globalized World,” American Political Science Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 2001, pp. 1–14. Keohane, R. and Nye, J.S., “Globalisation: What’s New? What’s Not? (And so What?),” Foreign Policy, vol. 118, 2000, pp. 104–109. Keohane, R., Nye, J.S., and Hoffmann, S., After the Cold War. International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993, pp. 23–62. Kiessler, R. and Elbe, F., Ein runder Tisch mit scharfen Ecken: Der diplomatische Weg zur deutschen Einheit, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993. Kimura, H., “The Russian Way of Negotiation,” in Peter Berton, Hiroshi Kimura, and William Zartmann (eds.), International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Values, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1999, chapter 3. King, G., Keohane, R., and Verba, S., Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Kinkel, K., “Das Konzept der ‘Erweiterten Sicherheit,’ “ Frankfurter Rundschau, 16 December 1993, p. 12. Kinkel, K., “Die NATO—Erweiterung: Ein Beitrag zur gesamteuropäischen Sicherheit,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, April 1995, pp. 22–25. Kirchner, E.J., “The Impact of German Unification on the New European Order,” in Hugh Miall (ed.), Redefining Europe: New Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation, London, Pinter: Royal Institute for International Affairs, 1996. Kirste, K., Rollentheorie und Außenpolitikanalyse. Die USA und Deutschland als Zivilmächte, Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 1998. Kirste, K. and Maull, H., “Zivilmacht und Rollentheorie,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 3, no. 2, 1996, pp. 183–312. Kissinger, H., Diplomacy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994. Kissinger, H., “Helsinki Fiasco,” Washington Post, 30 March 1997. Kober, S., “NATO Expansion and the Danger of a Second Cold War,” available at http://cato.org/pubs7fpbriefs/fpb–038.html. Kohl, H., “German Security Policy on the Threshold to the 21st Century,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 39, no. 3, 1998, pp. 5–11. Kohler-Koch, B., “Deutsche Einigung im Spannungsfeld internationaler Umbrüche,” Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift, no. 32, December 1991, pp. 605–620. Kohler-Koch, B., “Catching Up with Change: The Transformation of Governance in the European Union,” Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 3, 1996, pp. 359–380. 282 Bibliography

Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R., The Transformation of Governance in the European Union, London: Routledge, 1999. Korinenko, A., “Germany: NATO to Take Decision on Expansion in the First Six Months of 1997,” Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, 22 September 1996. Kornelius, S., “Die NATO verordnet sich eine lange Denkpause,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 23 October 1993. Korte, K.R., Deutschlandpolitik in Helmut Kohl’s Kanzlerschaft. Regierungsstil und Entscheidungen 1982–1989, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags Anstalt, 1998. Korte, K.R., “Über die Unbefangenheit der Berliner Republik,” Internationale Politik, vol.53, no. 12, December 1998, pp. 3–12. Kratochwil, F., Rules, Norms and Decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Krause, J., “Die deutsche Politik in der Kosovo-Krise,” in Joachim Krause (ed.), Kosovo—Humanitäre Intervention und kooperative Sicherheit in Europa, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2000, pp. 103–119. Kreile, M., “Übernimmt Deutschland eine Führungsrolle in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft?” in W. Weidenfeld (ed.), Was ändert die Einheit? Deutschlands Standort in Europa, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993, pp. 44–62. Krell, G., Weltbilder und Weltordnung: Einführung in die Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000. Kugler, R.L., Commitment to Purpose: How Alliance Partnership Won the Cold War, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1993. Kupchan, C., “Strategic Visions,” World Policy Journal, vol. 11. no. 3, Autumn 1994, pp. 113–122. Kvale, S., Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, London: Sage Publications, 1996. Laffey, M. and Weldes, J., “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations,” in European Journal of International Relations, vol. 3, no. 2, 1997, pp. 193–237. Lakatos, I., “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Lake, D.A. and Powell, R. (eds.), Strategic Choice and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Lambeck, M.S., “Kohl bei Cinton: Abstand zu Polen,” Die Welt, 10 February 1995. Lapid, Y., “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3, 1989, pp. 235–254. Larres, K., “Margaret Thatcher, the Foreign Office and German Unification,” Cercles, vol. 5, 2002, pp. 175–182. Legro, J. and Moravcsik, A., “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” International Security, vol. 24, no. 2, 1999, pp. 5–55. Lieber, R.J. (ed.), Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century, New York: Longman, 1997. Liftin, K., Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Link, W., “Kooperative Machtbalance und europäische Föderation als außenpolitis- che Orientierung,” in W. Heydrich, J. Krause, U. Nerlich, J. Nötzold, and Bibliography 283

R. Rummel (eds.), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands. Neue Konstellationen, Risiken, Instrumente, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992, pp. 601–611. Linklater, A., The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. Linklater, A., “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View,” Millennium, vol. 21, no. 1, 1992, pp. 77–98. Lippmann, T.W., “Christopher Talks Partnership in East,” Washington Post, vol. 22, October 1993, p. A28. Lippmann, T.W., Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy, Colorado: Westview Press, 2000. Livingston, R.G., “United Germany: Bigger and Better,” Foreign Policy, no. 87, Summer 1992, p. 168. Livingston, R.G., “Die Bundesrepublik zwischen Westintegration und Rückfall in die Mittellage,” Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 6, no. 39, 1994, pp. 685–694. Lübkemeier, E., “The United Germany in the Post-Bipolar World,” Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung, Paper No. 56, October 1993. Lübkemeier, E., Interdependenz und Konfliktmanagement: Deutsche Außenpolitik am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, Studie zur Außenpolitik, 74, Bonn, Friederich- Ebert-Stiftung, 1998, p. 33. Lugar, R., “NATO: Out-of-Area or Out-of- Business,” Foreign Policy Bulletin, vol. 4, no.2, September–October 1993, pp. 25–29. Lutz, D.S., Deutschland und die kollektive Sicherheit. Politische, rechtliche und program- matische Aspekte, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1993. Lutz, D.S., “Endzeit: Alptraum oder Wirklichkeit? Plädoyer für eine deutsche Weltinnenpolitik,” Hamburg: IFSH, 1993, 11 pages. Lutz, D.S. (ed.), Der Kosovo-Krieg. Rechtliche und rechtsethische Aspekte, Baden- Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1999/2000. Lutz, D.S. (ed.), “Der Krieg im Kosovo und das Versagen der Politik,” Beiträge aus dem IFSH, Baden–Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000. Lutz, D.S. and Gießmann, H.J. (eds.), Die Stärke des Rechts gegen das Recht des Stärkeren: Politische und rechtliche Einwände gegen eine Rückkehr des Faustrechts in die internationalen Beziehungen, 1st edition, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003. Magalhåes, J.C. de, The Pure Concept of Diplomacy, New York: Greenwood Press, 1988. March, J. and Olson, J., Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press, 1989. March, J. and Olson, J., “International Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, 1998, pp. 943–969. March, J. and Olson, J., “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner (eds.), Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002, pp. 303–329, here pp. 305–307. Markovits, A.S. and Reich, S., “Should Europe Fear the Germans?” German Politics and Society, vol. 23, 1991, pp. 1–20. 284 Bibliography

Markovits, A.S. and Reich, S., The German Predicament: Memory and Power in the New Europe, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Marsh, D., Germany and Europe: The Crisis of Unity, London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1994. Maull, H.W., “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 69, no. 5, Winter 1990/91, pp. 91–106. Maull, H.W., “Zivilmacht Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Vierzehn Thesen für eine neue deutsche Aussenpolitik,” Europa-Archiv, vol. 47, no. 10, 1992, pp. 269–278. Maull, H.W., “Großmacht Deutschland? Anmerkungen und Thesen,” in Karl Kaiser and Hanns W. Maull (eds.), Die Zukunft der deutschen Außenpolitik (Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik, 72), Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1993, pp. 53–72. Maull, H.W., “Quo vadis, Germania? Außenpolitik in einer Welt des Wandels,” Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, vol. 10, 1997, pp. 1245–1255. Maull, H.W., “Die deutsche Außenpolitik am Ende der Ära Kohl,” in Erich Reiter (ed.), Jahrbuch für Internationale Sicherheitspolitik 1999, Hamburg: Mittler Verlag, 1998, pp. 274–295. Maull, H.W., “Geopolitik im 21. Jahrhundert: Keine Zukunft für den Nationalstaat?” Deutschland, 6 December–January 1999/2000, pp. 26–30. Maull, H.W., “Germany and the Use of Force: Still a Civilian Power,” Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 56–80. Maull, H.W., “Internationaler Terrorismus. Die deutsche Außenpolitik auf dem Prüfstand,” Internationale Politik, vol. 12, 2001, pp. 1–10. Maull, H.W., “Auf leisen Sohlen aus der Außenpolitik,” Internationale Politik, vol. 9, 2003, pp. 19–30. Maull, H.W., “Germany, Iraq, and the Crisis of the Transatlantic Alliance System,” http://www.deutsche–aussenpolitik.de/digest/op–ed_inhalt_02.php. Maull, H.W. and Gordon, P., “German Foreign Policy and the German National Interest, German and American Perspectives,” AICGS Seminar Paper Series, No. 5, January 1993. Maull, H.W., Harnisch, S., and Grund, C., Deutschland im Abseits? Rot-grüne Außenpolitik 1998–2003, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003. Mead, W.R., “The Once and Future Reich,” World Policy Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, Autumn 1990, pp. 593–638. Mearsheimer, J., “Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, vol. 15, no. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 5–56. Mearsheimer, J., “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1995, pp. 5–49. Meiers, F.J., “Germany: The Reluctant Power,” Survival, vol. 37, no. 3, Autumn 1995, pp. 82–103. Meier-Walser, R., “Neorealismus ist mehr als Waltz. Der synoptische Realismus des Münchner Ansatzes,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 1, 1994, pp. 115–126. Melissen, J., Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Bibliography 285

Mendl, W., “Strategic Thinking in Diplomacy: A Legacy of the Cold War,” in Michael Clarke, New Perspectives on Security, The Centre for Defence Studies, London: Brassey’s, 1993, pp. 1–16. Mertes, M., “Germany’s Social and Political Culture: Change through Consensus,” Deadalus, Germany in Transition, vol. 123, no. 1, Winter 1994, pp. 1–32. Meyer, B. and Schlotter, P., “Die Kosovo-Kriege 1998/99. Die internationalen Interventionen und ihre Folgen,” HSFK-Report, vol. 1, 2000. Miall, H., Redefining Europe. New Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation, RIIA, London: Pinter, 1996. Mihalka, M., “Squaring the Circle: NATO’s Offer to the East,” RFE/Rl Research Report, 25 March 1994. Miller, A., “Uneasy about the Germans,” New York Times Magazine, 6 May 1990, p. A 29 Milliken, J., The Social Construction of the Korean War, New York: Manchester University Press, 2001. Mitrany, D., “A Working Peace System: An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization,” in D. Mitrany (ed.), A Working Peace System, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1966 (1943), pp. 25–99. Mitrany, D., The Functional Theory of Politics, London: Martin Robertson, 1975. Morgenthau, H.J., Politics among Nations—The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1949. Moravsik, A., The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, New York: Cornell University Press, 1998. Morrison, J.M., “NATO Expansion and Alternative Future Security Alignments,” available at http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/macnair/m040ch2a.html. Müchler, G. and Hoffmann, K., Helmut Kohl—Chancellor of German Unity: A Biography, Bonn: Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, 1992. Müller, H., “Welche Auswirkungen werden ökologische Probleme auf die Internationalen Beziehungen und auf die Internationale Politik haben? Diskussionsanstoß,” in Jörg Calließ (ed.), Weltsystem und Weltpolitik jenseits der Bipolarität, Rehburg Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum, 1991. Müller, H., “Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 1 no. 1, 1994, pp. 15–44. Müller, H., “Spielen hilft nicht immer. Die Grenzen des Rational-Choice Ansatzes und der Platz der Theorie kommunikativen Handelns in der Analyse internationaler Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 371–391. Müller, H., “Friedensforschung im Umbruch der Weltpolitik,” Begleitheft zur Ausstellung “Wozu Friedensforschung?” Frankfurt: Hessische Stiftung für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, 1996. Müller, H., Macht und Ohnmacht: Deutsche Außenpolitik vor dem Ende? Alfred Herrhausen Gesellschaft für internationalen Dialog, December 1998. Müller, H., “Antinomien des demokratischen Friedens,” Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift, vol. 43, no. 1, 2001, pp. 46–81. 286 Bibliography

Müller, H., “International Relations as Communicative Action,” in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jørgensen (eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, London: M.E. Sharpe, 2001, pp. 160–178. Müller, H., “Security Cooperation,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 369–391. Müller, H., “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 10, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 395–435 Müller, H. and Risse, T., Arguing and Persuasion in Multilateral Negotiations, Unpublished Manuscript, 2001. Müller, H. and Schoch, B., “Der Spagat wird schwieriger: Die deutsche Politik vor neuen Herausforderungen,” in Bruno Schoch, Ulrich Ratsch, and Reinhard Mutz (eds.), Friedensgutachten, Münster: Lit, 1999, pp. 37–47. Nerlich, U., “Instrumente künftiger Sicherheitspolitik,” in W. Heydrich, J. Krause, U. Nerlich, J. Nötzold, and R. Rummel (eds.), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands. Neue Konstellationen, Risiken, Instrumente, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992, pp. 513–545. Nerlich, U., “Deutsche Sicherheitspolitik: Konzeptionelle Grundlagen für multi- laterale Rahmenbedingungen,” Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg, 1994, pp. 153–174. Newmeyer, F.D., The Politics of Linguistics, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986, pp. 3–4. Nicholson, H., Diplomacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939. Nicholson, H., The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, London: Constable, 1954. Norman, P., “Kohl Rebuffed: Voters Weary of Grand Statesman,” Financial Times, 28 September 1998. Nye, J.S., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power, New York: Basic Books, 1990. Nye, J.S., The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Nye, J.S., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York: Public Affairs, 2004. O’Brien, C.C., “Beware, the Reich Is Reviving,” The Times, 31 October 1989. Olechowski, A., “Polen und die Nordatlantische Allianz,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 3 January 1994. Onuf, N., World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Onuf, N., “Constructivism: A User’s Manual,” in Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf, and Paul Kowert (eds.), International Relations in a Constructed World, London: M.E. Sharp, 1998, pp. 55–78. Otte, M., A Rising Middle Power? German Foreign Policy in Transformation, 1989–1999, New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 2000 Paech, N., “Ein letzter Mechanismus der Rettung,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 4 February 2003. Bibliography 287

Paech, N. and Stuby, G., Völkerrecht und Machtpolitik in den internationalen Beziehungen, Hamburg: VSA-Verlag, 2001. Papcke, S. and Weidenfeld, W. (eds.), Traumland Mitteleuropa? Beiträge zu einer aktuellen Kontroverse, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. Parkhalina, T., “Of Myths and Illusions: Russian Perceptions of NATO Enlargement,” NATO Review, no. 3, May/June 1997, pp. 11–15. Peters, D., “The Debate about a New German Foreign Policy after Unification,” in Volker Rittberger (ed.), German Foreign Policy since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001, chapter 2. Peterson, S.P., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory, Boulder: Lynne Riener, 1992. Pond, E., After the Wall: American Policy toward Germany, Washington, D.C.: Twentieth Century Fund, 1990, p. 90. Powell, B.A., “Linguistics Professor George Lakoff Dissects the “War on Terror” and Other Conservative Catchphrases,” UC Berkeley Web Feature, News Center, 26 August 2004, available at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/ media/releases/ 2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml. Preston, T., The President and His Inner Circle, New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Prittwitz, V.V., Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1996. Pruitt, D., “Flexibility in Conflict Episodes,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 542, 1995, 100–115. Pulzer, P., German Politics: 1945–1995, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Putnam, R., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, vol. 42, no. 3, 1988, pp. 428–460. Raiffa, H., The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. Rapoport, A., Fights, Games and Debates, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960. Reading, B., The Fourth Reich, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1995. Reuter, J. and Clewing, C. (eds.), Der Kosovo Konflikt. Ursachen, Verlauf, Perspektiven, Klagenfurt: Wieser Verlag, 2000. Rieckhoff, P. and Hochmann, D., “Policies that Hurt: How the Pentagon Has Failed U.S. Troops,” International Herald Tribune, 31 August 2004. Risse, T., Cooperation among Democracies: The European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997. Risse, T., “International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behaviour in the Human Rights Area,” Politics and Society, vol. 27, no. 4, 1999, pp. 526–556. Risse, T., “Let’s Argue: Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organization, vol. 54, no. 1, Winter 2000, pp. 1–39. Risse, T., “Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen–warum empirisch nichts so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wurde,” in Gunther Hellmann, Klaus Dieter Wolf, and Michael Zürn (eds.), Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und 288 Bibliography

Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2003, pp. 99–132. Risse, T., “Kontinuität durch Wandel: Eine neue deutsche Außenpolitik?” available at http://www.bpb.de/popup_druckversion.html?guidϭ3XLEXF. Risse, T., Jetschke, A., and Schmitz, H.P., Die Macht der Menschenrechte. Internationale Normen, kommunikatives Handeln und politischer Wandel in den Ländern des Südens, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002. Risse, T., Ropp, S.C., and Sikkink, K., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Risse-Kappen, T., “Reden ist nicht billig. Zur Debatte um Kommunikation und Rationalität,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 2, no. 1, 1995, pp. 171–184. Rittberger, V., “Nach der Vereinigung—Deutschlands Stellung in der Welt,” Leviathan, vol. 20, June 1992, pp. 207–229. Rittberger, V., “Deutschlands Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung. Zur Anwendbarkeit theoretischer Modelle der Außenpolitik: Machtstaat, Handelstaat oder Zivilstaat?” in W. Bergem, V. Ronge, and G. Weißeno (eds.), Friedenspolitik in und für Europa, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1999, pp. 83–108. Rittberger, V., German Foreign Policy since Unification: Theories and Case Studies, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Rittberger, V. (ed.), German Foreign Policy since Unification: An Analysis of Foreign Policy Continuity and Change, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Rittberger, V. and Schimmelfennig, F., “Deutsche Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung. Realistische Prognosen auf dem Prüfstand,” Tübinger Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik und Friedensforschung, no. 28, Tübingen: Attempto, 1997. Rosamond, B., Theories of European Integration, Houndsmill, London: Macmillan Press, 2000. Rosecrance, R.N., The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, New York: Basic Books, 1986. Röhl, K.R., “Morgenthau und Antifa: Über den Selbsthaß der Deutschen,” Heimo Schwilk and Ulrich Schacht (eds.), Die selbstbewußte Nation. Anschwellender Bockgesang und weitere Beiträge zu einer neuen deutschen Debatte, 3rd edition, Frankfurt a.M.: Ullstein, 1996, pp. 85–100. Rudolf, P., “The USA and NATO Enlargement,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 47, no. 4, 1996, pp. 339–347. Ruggie, J.G., Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Ruggie, J.G., Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation, London: Routledge, 1998. Ruggie, J.G., “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Stephen D. Krasner (eds.), Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002, pp. 215–245. Rühe, V., “Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies: A Grand Strategy for a New Era,” Survival, vol. 35, no. 2, Summer1993, pp. 129–137. Bibliography 289

Rühl, L., “Einige Kriterien nationaler Interessenbestimmung,” in W. Heydrich, J. Krause, U. Nerlich, J. Nötzold, and R. Rummel (eds.), Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands. Neue Konstellationen, Risiken, Instrumente, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992, pp. 741–759. Rühl, L., Deutschland also europäische Macht: Nationale Interessen und internationale Verantwortung, Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1996. Rummel, R., “Wie zivil ist die ESVP?” SWP-Aktuell, 10 March 2003. Saretzki, T., “Wie unterscheiden sich Argumentieren und Verhandeln? Definitionsprobleme, funktionale Bezüge und strukturelle Differenzen von zwei verschiedenen Kommunikationsmodi,” in V.V. Prittwitz (ed.), Verhandeln und Argumentieren. Dialog, Interessen und Macht in der Umweltpolitik, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1996, pp. 19–39. Scharping, R., “Der Stein auf unserer Seele. Deutschland und der gerechte Krieg,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 May 1999. Schelling, T.C., Strategy and Conflict, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Schelling, T.C., Arms and Influence, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Schimmelfennig, F., “Internationale Sozialisation neuer Staaten. Heuristische Überlegungen zu einem Forschungsdesiderat,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 1, no. 2, 1994, pp. 335–355. Schimmelfennig, F., Debatten zwischen Staaten: Eine Argumentationstheorie internationaler Systemkonflikte, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1995. Schimmelfennig, F., “Rhetorisches Handeln in der Internationalen Politik,” ZIB, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 219–254. Schimmelfennig, F., “Liberal Norms and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: A Case for Sociological Institutionalism,” Österreichische Zeitschrift Politikwissenschaft, vol. 27, no. 4, 1998, pp. 459–472. Schimmelfennig, F., “NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation,” Security Studies, vol. 8, nos. 2/3, Winter/Spring 1998/99, pp. 198–234. Schimmelfennig, F., “International Socialization in the New Europe: Rational Action in an Institutional Environment,” European International Relations, vol. 6, no. 1, 2000, pp. 109–139. Schlotter, P., “Die Mühen der stillen Diplomatie: Konfliktprävention und Krisenmanagement durch die OSZE,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 46, no. B5, 1996, pp. 27–31. Schmalz-Bruns, R., “Die Theorie kommunikativen Handelns—eine Flaschenpost? Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Theoriedebatte in den Internationalen Beziehungen,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 2, no. 2, 1995, pp. 347–370. Schmidt, H., The Balance of Power, London: William Kimber, 1971. Schmidt, H., Handeln für Deutschland, Berlin: Rowohlt Verlag, 1993. Schmidt, H., “Europa und die Deutschen in einer sich ändernden Welt,” Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, vol. 2, January 1995, pp. 5–14. Schmidt, P., “Frankreichs Ambitionen in der Sicherheitspolitik,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 44, 1993/94, pp. 335–343. Schmidt, P., “Was soll und kann im Kontext der NATO-Krise aus der ESVP werden?” SWP Jour fixe on 19 March 2003, available at http://www. swp–berlin.org. 290 Bibliography

Schmillen, A., “Stolpern in das 21. Jahrhundert. Thesen zur bündnisgrünen Außen- und Friedenspolitik vor der Jahrtausendwende,” in Jörg Calließ and Bernhard Moltmann (eds.), Die Zukunft der Außenpolitik. Deutsche Interessen in den internationalen Beziehungen, Loccumer Protokolle, 67/94, Rehburg- Loccum, Evangelische Akademie Loccum, pp. 511–531. Schneider, G., “Rational Choice und kommunikatives Handeln. Eine Replik auf Harald Müller,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 1, no. 2, 1994, pp. 357–366. Schoch, B., Deutschlands Einheit und Europas Zukunft, Friedensanalysen 26 Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992. Schöllgen, G., Die Macht in der Mitte Europas: Stationen deutscher Außenpolitik von Friedrich dem Großen bis zur Gegenwart, München: Beck Verlag, 1992. Schöllgen, G., Angst vor der Macht: Die Deutschen und Ihre Aussenpolitik, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 1993. Schöllgen, G., “National Interest and International Responsibility: Germany’s Role in World Affairs,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 35–50. Schöllgen, G., “The Berlin Republic as a Player on the International Stage—Does Germany still Have Its Own Political Interests? Aussenpolitik, English edition, vol. 49, 4th quarter, 1998. Schönfeld, R., “Balkankrieg und internationale Gemeinschaft,” Südosteuropa Mitteilungen, no. 4, 1994, pp. 257–278. Schütze, F., Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeld-studien dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen, Arbeitsberichte und Forschungsmaterialien, Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Soziologie, August 1977; 2nd edition, January 1978. Schwarz, H.P., Die gezähmten Deutschen: Von der Machtbesessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags Anstalt, 1985. Schwarz, H.P., “Das deutsche Dilemma,” in Karl Kaiser and Hanns W. Maull (eds.), Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg, 1994, pp. 81–97. Schwarz, H.P., Die Zentralmacht Europas. Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbühne, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1994. Schwarz, H.P., “Germany’s National and European Interests,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 107–130. Schwarz, H.P., “Die Zentralmacht Europas auf Kontinuitätskurs. Deutschland stabilisiert den Kontinent,” Internationale Politik, vol. 54, no. 11, 1999, pp. 1–10. Schweller, R., “New Realist Research on Alliances: Refining, Not Refuting Waltz’s Balancing Proposition,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 927–930. Schweller, R.L., “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security, vol. 19, no. 1, 1994. Scruton, R., “Don’t Trust the Germans,” The Sunday Telegraph, 21 May 1989. Searle, J.S., The Construction of Social Reality, New York: The Free Press, 1995. Sebenius, J., Negotiating the Law of the Sea: Lessons in the Art and Science of Reaching Agreement, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Bibliography 291

Sebenius, J., “Negotiation Analysis,” in Victor Kremenyuk (ed.), International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Seebacher-Brandt, B., “Norm und Normalität. Über die Liebe zum eigenen Land,” Heimo Schwilk and Ulrich Schacht (eds.), Die selbstbewußte Nation. Anschwellender Bockgesang und weitere Beiträge zu einer neuen deutschen Debatte, 3rd edition, Frankfurt a.M.: Ullstein, 1996, pp. 43–56. Senghaas, D., Friedensprojekt Europa, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1992. Senghaas, D., “Was sind der Deutschen Interessen?” in Siegfried Unseld (ed.), Politik ohne Projekt? Nachdenken über Deutschland, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1993 pp. 463–491. Senghaas, D., Wohin driftet die Welt? Über die Zukunft friedlicher Koexistenz, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1994. Senghaas, D., “Deutschlands verflochtene Interessen,” Internationale Politik, vol. 50, August 1995, pp. 31–37. Senghaas, D., Frieden als Zivilisierungsprojekt, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1995. Senghaas-Knobloch, E., Frieden durch Integration und Assoziation. Literaturbericht und Problemstudien, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1969. Sharp, P., “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 1999, pp. 33–57. Shearman, P., Russian Foreign Policy since 1990, Boulder: Westview Press, 1995. Simon, J., “Does Eastern Europe Belong in NATO?” Orbis, vol. 37, Winter 1993, pp. 29–31. Smith, G., Paterson, W., and Padgett, S., Developments in German Politics 2, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996. Smyser, W.R., How Germans Negotiate:Logical Goals, Practical Solutions, United States Institute of Peace, 2003. Snow, D.A. and Benford, R.D., “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest,” in Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Snyder, G.H., “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” World Politics, vol. 36, no. 4, 1984, pp. 461–495. Snyder, G.H., “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut,” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 44, no. 1, 1990, pp. 103–124. Snyder, G.H., Alliance Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Snyder, G.H. and Diesing, P., Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises, New Jersey: Princeton University, 1977. Solomon, G., The NATO Enlargement Debate 1990–1997—Blessings of Liberty, Westport: Praeger Press with CSIS, 1998. Sperling, J., “German Security Policy in Post-Yalta Europe,” M.D. Hancock and H.A. Welsh (eds.), German Unification: Process and Outcomes, Oxford: Westview Press, 1994. Sperling, J. and Kirchner, E., Recasting the European Order. Security Architectures and Economic Cooperation, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. Staack, M., Handelsstaat Deutschland: Deutsche Außenpolitik in einem neuen internationalen System, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000. Statz, A., “Nationale Selbstbeschränkung—internationale Einbindung—transna- tionale Verflechtung: Thesen zur grün-alternativen Außenpolitik,” in 292 Bibliography

Hans-Peter Hubert and Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Frieden und Internationalismus der Grünen (eds.), Grüne Außenpolitik—Aspekte einer Debatte, Göttingen: die Werkstatt, 1995, pp. 93–112. Stein, J.G., “International Negotiation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective,” Negotiation Journal, July 1988, pp. 221–231. Stent, A., Russia and Germany Reborn: Unification, the Soviet Collapse, and the New Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Stern, F., “Die zweite Chance: Die Wege der Deutschen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26 July 1990. Stern, F., “Freiheitsliebe ist eine Kerkerblume: Nach dem Mord an den europäis- chen Juden gibt es kein Ausweichen in Normalität,” Die Welt, 18 October 1999, p. 33. Stevenson, R., “Even Some Republicans Question Bush Strategy,” New York Times, 28 June 2005. Stone, N., “Germany? Maggie Was Absolutely Right,” available at http://www. sunday–times.co.uk/news/pages/Sunday–Times/stirevnws03004.html?1204337. Stürmer, M., Die Grenzen der Macht: Begegnung der Deutschen mit der Geschichte, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1992. Stürmer, M., “Deutsche Interessen,” in Karl Kaiser and Hanns W. Maull (eds.), Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, vol. 1: Grundlagen, München: Oldenbourg, 1994, pp. 39–61. Szabo, S., The Diplomacy of German Unification, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Szabo, S., “Ein Projekt “Made in Germany”—Was Rühe’s strategischer Logik entsprang, hat die Unterstützung der Regierung Clinton gefunden,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 July 1997, p. 9. Taylor, A.J.P., Europe, Grandeur and Decline, London: Penguin, 1967. Teltschik, H., 329 Tage: Innenansichten der Einigung, 3rd edition, Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1991. Temnenkkov, G., “German Minister proposes NATO–Russian Consultative Body,” The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, 8 December 1996. Tewes, H., “Das Zivilmachtskonzept in der Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu Knut Kirste und Hanns Maull,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 347–359. Tewes, H., “The Emergence of a Civilian Power: Germany and Central Europe,” German Politics, vol. 6, no. 2, August 1997, pp. 95–116. Tewes, H., Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. Thatcher, M., The Downing Street Years, London: Harper Collins, 1993. Thies, J., “Germany and Eastern Europe between Past and Future,” in Arnulf Baring (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe, Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1994, pp. 65–78. Treverton, G.F., America, Germany, and the Future of Europe, Oxford: Princeton University Press, 1992. Ulbert, C., “Sozialkonstruktivismus,” in Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler (eds.), Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 2003, pp. 391–420. Vasquez, J.A., “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Bibliography 293

Balancing Proposition,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 899–917. Verheyen, D., The German Question: A Cultural, Historical, and Geopolitical Exploration, Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. Vernet, D., Was wird aus Deutschland, Bergisch Gladbach: Gustav Lübbe, 1993. Vinocur, J., “Peace in Kabul or Not, Berlin Wins on Global Stage,” International Herald Tribune, 7 December 2001. Voigt, K., “Die Osterweiterung der NATO,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 46, no. B5, 1996. Voigt, K., “German Interest in Multilateralism,” Aussenpolitik, vol. 47, no. 2, 1996, pp. 107–116. Walker, M., “Overstretching Teutonia: Making the Best of the Fourth Reich,” World Policy Journal 12, no. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 1–18. Walt, S., The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. Walt, S., “The Progressive Power of Realism,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, December 1997, pp. 931–935. Walton, R. and Mc Kersie, R., A Behavioural Theory of Labour Negotiations, New York: McGraw Hill, 1965. Waltz, K., Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw Hill, 1979. Waltz, K., “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory,” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 44, no. 1, 1990, pp. 21–38. Waltz, K., “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall 1993, pp. 44–79. Waltz, K., “International Politics Is not Foreign Policy,” Security Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, 1996, pp. 54–57. Waltz, K., “Evaluating Theories,” American Political Science Review, vol. 91, no. 4, 1997, pp. 913–917. Waltz, K., “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, vol. 25, no. 1, Summer 2000, pp. 5–41. Watson, A., Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States, London: Eyre Methuen, 1982. Watson, A., The Germans: Who Are They Now? London: Methuen, 1992. Weber, M., The Methodology of the Social Sciences, New York: The Free Press, 1949. Weber, M., Methodologische Schriften. Studienausgabe, Frankfurt a.M.: S. Fisher Verlag, 1968. Weber, M., Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Weber, M., Soziologie. Universalgeschichtliche Analyse, Stuttgart: Politik, 1992. Weidenfeld, W., “Der deutsche Weg,” Internationale Politik, Special Issue, vol. 4, April 1995, pp. 1–2. Weisser, U., “NATO Invited Old Enemies into Fold,” Financial Times, 9 July 1997, p. 14. Weisser, U., Sicherheit für ganz Europa: Die Atlantische Allianz in der Bewährung, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1999. Weizsäcker, R. von, A Voice from Germany, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1985. Weldes, J., Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. 294 Bibliography

Wendt, A., “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization, vol. 41, no. 3, 1987, pp. 383–392. Wendt, A., “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, vol. 46, no. 2, 1992, pp. 391–425. Wendt, A., Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wessels, W., “Erweiterung, Vertiefung, Verkleinerung. Vitale Fragen für die Europäische Union,” Europa Archiv, vol. 48, May 1993, pp. 308–316. Whitney, C., “Why Europe Is Careful not to Scold the Bear,” New York Times, 2 January 1995, section 1, p. 6. Wight, C., “Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, pp. 23–51. Williams, N., “Partnership for Peace: Permanent Fixture or Declining Asset?” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 98–110. Winter, M., “Kinkel Will osteuropäischen Staaten Zugang zur NATO öffnen,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 11 September 1993, p. 1. Wolf, K.D., “Das neue Deutschland—eine Weltmacht”? Leviathan, vol. 19, June 1991, pp. 247–260. Wolf, K.D., “Eine neue Rolle Deutschlands? Optionen deutscher Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung,” Der Bürger im Staat 45, February 1995. Wolf, R., “The Doubtful Mover: Germany and NATO Expansion,” in D. Haglund (ed.), Will NATO Go East? The Debate over Enlarging the Atlantic Alliance, Kingston, Ont.: Queen’s University, Centre for International Relations, 1996. Wolf, R. and Hellmann, G., “Der überforderte Patient,” Handelsblatt, 18 May 2004. Woyke, Wichard (ed.), Die neue deutsche Außenpolitik, Schwalbach:1997. Xiang, L., “Is Germany in the West or in Central Europe?” Orbis, vol. 36, no. 3, Summer 1992, pp. 411–422. Zangl, B. and Zürn, M., “Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen: Moderate Anmerkungen zur post-realistischen Debatte,” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 3, no. 2, 1996, pp. 341–366. Zartmann, W. and Berman, M., The Practical Negotiator, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Zartman, W. and Rubin, J., Power and Negotiation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000. Zehfuß, M., Constructivism in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Zelikow, P., “The Masque of Institutions,” Survival, vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 1996, pp. 6–18. Zelikow, P. and Rice, C., Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995. Zimmer, M., “Return of the Mittellage? The Discourse of the Centre in German Foreign Policy,” German Politics, vol. 6, no. 1, April 1997, pp. 23–38. Zitelmann, R., Weissmann, K., and Grossheim, M., Westbindung: Chancen und Risiken für Deutschland, Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 1993. Bibliography 295

Zoellick, R., “Abschied von der Selbstbeschränkung,” Internationale Politik, no. 12, December 1998, pp. 21–26. Zürn, M., “Jenseits der Staatlichkeit,” Leviathan, vol. 20, no. 4, 1992, pp. 490–513. Zürn, M., Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Denationalisierung und Globalisierung als Chance, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1998. Zürn, M., “From Interdependence to Globalisation,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage Publications, 2002, chapter 12.

Speeches

Bush, G.H.W., Speech, The Alliance’s and the FRG’s 40th Birthday, Mainz, West Germany, 31 May 1989, available at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/ 1989/89053104.html. (He first employed the term “partners in leadership” in this speech.) Christopher, W., “U.S. Leadership after the Cold War: NATO and Transatlantic Security,” Intervention at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial Meeting in Athens, Greece, 10 June 1993, U.S. Department of State Dispatch, 21 June 1993, vol. 4, no. 25, p. 450. Clinton, W.J., Acceptance Speech, 1992 Democratic Convention, available at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/billclinton1992duc.htm. Clinton, W.J., “Interview with Reporters Aboard Air Force One,” 16 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 90. Clinton, W.J., “Partnership for Peace: Building New Security for the 21st Century,” US Department of State Dispatch Supplement, January 1994, vol. 5, pp. 3–4. Clinton, W.J., “The President’s News Conference in Brussels,” 11 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 29. Clinton, W.J., “The President’s News Conference with Visegrad Leaders in Prague,” 12 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 40. Clinton, W.J., “Remarks to Future Leaders of Europe in Brussels,” 9 January 1994, Public Papers, 1994, Book I, p. 11. Fischer, J., “Grundsatzfragen deutscher Außenpolitik,” Speech to the DGAP General Assembly in Berlin, 24 November 1999, Internationale Politik, vol. 55, no. 2, February 2000, pp. 58–64. Kohl, H., “Bündnis- und Einsatzfähigkeit der Bundeswehr bleiben gewährleistet,” Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, 2 July 1993, p. 45. Lake, A., “From Containment to Enlargement,” U.S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 4, no. 39, 27 September 1993, pp. 658–664. Lugar, R., “Why Europe still Matters and Why NATO Should Enlarge, Again,” Address by Senator Richard G. Lugar to the CSIS Washington Roundtable on Capitol Hill, 13 June 2001, available at http://www.expand.nato.org/ lugarcsis.html. Wörner, M., IISS Speech, Brussels, 10 September 1993, available at http://www.nato.int./docu/speech/1993/s930910a.htm, pp. 1–8. 296 Bibliography

Newspaper and Other Articles without Named Authors

“Bei NATO-Erweiterung russische Ängste beachten,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26 May 1995. “Das Tor nach Osten geöffnet,” Das Parlament, 21 January 1994, no. 3. “Die Bundesregierung hat für die Gespräche mit Rußland ein Konzept entwickelt: westlichen Bemühungen vorausgedacht,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 January 1997. “Die NATO und Rußland einig—Der Weg zur Unterzeichnung in Paris ist frei: Solana und Primakov nach zähen Verhandlungen erfolgreich,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15 May 1997. “Drei dürfen mit,” Focus, 7 July 1997, pp. 208–212. For details of Yeltsin’s health record amid domestic political crises in the summer of 1996, see http://www.cnn.com/world/9609/20/yeltsin.button/. “Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel: We Bear no Grudge against Russians for Germany’s Defeat in World War Two,” Argumenty I Fakty, 10 May 1995, nos. 18–19. “Im Grundsatz nach Osten offen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 May 1994. “In Bonn und in den Nachbarländern Rußlands wächst die Sorge über die Entwicklung in Moskau,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 January 1994. “Jelzin: Erst Vertrag zwischen der NATO und Rußland,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 30 September 1996. “Jelzin warnt Washington und Bonn vor der Ost-Erweiterung der NATO,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 29 January 1996. “Junktim mit EU-Mitgliedschaft,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 July 1995. “Kinkel macht sich für die Aufnahme Rußlands in den Europarat stark,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 January 1996. “Kinkel und Rühe uneins über NATO–Erweiterung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 October 1994. “Kohl: Die NATO muß die Sicherheitsbedürfnisse der östlichen Nachbarn ernst nehmen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 8 January 1994. “Kohl in Moskau—Wutausbruch Jelzins gegen die Ost–Erweiterung der NATO,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 20 February 1996. “Kohl: Moskau wird politisch aufgewertet,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 18 April 1997. “Kohl rät in Washington zur Geduld bei NATO–Erweiterung,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11 February 1995. “Kohl und Jelzin wollen 1997 Frage der NATO-Erweiterung klären,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9 September 1996. “Kohl will sich zum Streit um Ost–Erweiterung nicht äußern,” dpa Pressebrief, 7 October 1994. “Martti Ahtisaari: International Mediator,” NATO Review, vol. 49, Autumn 2001, pp. 24–25. “NATO Enlargement/Kohl: Developing a Concept in Close Contact with Russia,” Atlantic News, 22 December 1994. “NATO Issues Study on Enlargement of Alliance” (Text of Enlargement Study), United States Information Service Wireless File, 29 September 1995. Bibliography 297

On Kohl’s relaxed meeting with Yeltsin in July 1996, see http://www. cnn.com/WORLD/9609/07/kohl.yeltsin/. “Rücksicht tut Not,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 9 December 1993. “The Republicans Know How to Frame Issues and Keep the Democrats on the Defensive,” BuzzFlash Interview with “Framing” Expert, UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff, available at http://www.opednews.com/buz- zflash0104_lakoff_interview.htm. “Rühe gegen Veto-Recht Rußlands,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 9 December 1993. “Schach dem Bündnis: Russland setzt bei der NATO-Osterweiterung ein lukratives Tauschgeschäft durch, und die Deutschen helfen dabei,” Focus, 17 May 1997, pp. 60–62. “Schlagabtausch Clinton–Jelzin,” Die Welt, 6 December 1994. “Süddeutsche Zeitung: NATO Botschafter kritisiert USA,” dpa Pressebrief, 30 November 1994. “Vereinigte Staaten: Langsamere Gangart Rußlands wegen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 January 1994. “Vier Minister sollen erreichen, was die NATO als Ganzes nicht kann: Rühe reist nach Amerika—Treffen mit Perry, Rifkind, Leotard, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 February 1995. “Washington will Osterweiterung der NATO voranbringen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9 November 1994. “Wie weiter zwischen dem Westen und Russland? Amerika, Europa, Bonn denken nach,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 May 1995.

Documents

The Unification of Germany in 1990—A Documentation, Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, Bonn, April 1991. Londoner Erklärung vom 6. Juli 1990; Erklärung des Nordatlantischen Kooperationsrates vom 20. Dezember 1991; Die Erklärung von Rom und das neue Strategische Konzept vom 20. Dezember 1991, Die Nordatlantische Allianz im Wandel, Teil II, Dokumente, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, September 1997. First Clinton–Yeltsin Summit, 3–4 April 1993 (Vancouver, Canada), Vancouver Declaration available at http://www.ceip. org/programs/npp/summits1.htm. Erklärung der Staats- und Regierungschefs des Nordatlantikpaktes, 10–11 January 1994, Europa-Archiv, vol. 49, no. 2, 1994, pp. D132–134. Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, no.3, 1994, p. 17. NATO Handbook, Brussels: NATO Office of Information and Press, October 1995. “NATO: Herbsttagung der Außenminister,” Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, 10 December 1996, 41641. “Russische Diskussionen über die NATO-Osterweiterung: Solana in Moskau,” Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, 20 January 1997, 41734. “Gipfeltreffen in Helsinki,” Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, 20 March 1997, 41898–41900. 298 Bibliography

“Grundakte über die Beziehungen Rußlands zur NATO unterzeichnet,” Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, 27 May 1997, 42056. “NATO-Gipfelkonferenz in Madrid,” Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, 9 July 1997, 42175. “Aufbruch und Erneuerung – Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert”, Koalitionsvereinbarung zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands und Bündnis90/Die Grünen, Bonn, 20 Oktober 1998, at http://archiv.spd.de/koalition/uebersicht.html Internationale Politik, “Kontinuität oder Wandel?,” 53, no. 12, December, 1998. Transatlantic Trends 2003, Topline Data, July 2003 available at www.worldviews.org. INDEX

Afghanistan, 3, 15–16, 35, 237 Clinton, William Jefferson, Ahtisaari, Martti, 46–7, 50, 240–1 see United States, Clinton Argumentative rationality, see Logic administration of arguing Cohen, Raymond, 85–6, 246 Asmus, Ronald, 122–5, 151–2, 156, Cold War, 1, 8–10, 16, 27, 34, 37, 158, 162–6, 199–200, 210–11, 71, 95, 99, 105, 112, 126, 129, 249–51, 253–5, 258–9, 264 192, 200–2, 217, 222–3, 238, Aspin, Les, 131–2, 140, 143–4, 251, 254 146, 167 Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF), 130–1, 150, 154, 257 Balkans, 14, 16, 29, 32, 45–6, 53, 78, Communicative action, ix, 7, 17, 107, 126, 157, 191, 197, 201, 240 58–75, 77, 81–5, 87–8, 92, 94, 97, bargaining, 82–4, 88–9, 229, 246–8 99–100, 116, 199, 222, 229–30, Bosnia, 128, 130, 161, 165–6, 170, 237, 243–6 177, 183, 213, 255 common lifeworld, 69–71, 73, Brzezinski, Zbigniew, 146, 153, 83–4, 88, 97, 99–100, 251, 263 116, 223 equality, 69–74, 97, 223 Christopher, Warren, 127–9, 133–4, Communism, 32, 107, 154, 171, 182 138–9, 146, 165, 167, 170, 185, complex interdependence, 5, 12, 204–5, 252, 254 39–40, 42, 44 Civilian/Civilianizing Conference on Security and Civilianization, 13, 31, 39–40, 42, 48, Co-Operation in Europe (CSCE), 54, 83, 229 119, 173, 175, 203, 253 definition of, 37–45 continuity, 4–5, 10, 21, 25–8, 44, 45, diplomacy, 54, 77–9, 81–5, 92, 53–4, 228–9, 240 229–30 power, ix, 4–17, 26, 28–9, 31, democracy, 17, 39, 71, 107, 109, 114, 33–54, 77–9, 81–5, 92, 101, 127, 137, 143, 150, 157, 165, 233, 229–30, 235, 238–42, 245 247, 249 300 Index diplomacy, ix, 5–11, 14–15, 27, 35, 40, game theory, 61, 63–5, 89–90 46, 48–9, 52, 54, 62, 77–88, genocide, 17, 32, 47, 51, 107 92–101, 175–6, 179–80, 186, 190, Germany 194, 199, 214–15, 219–20, 225–7, diplomatic influence, 6–7, 11, 15, 229–30, 236, 246–8, 252 27, 49, 77–9, 81, 93, 188, and civilian/civilianizing power, 7, 230–1 8, 10, 14, 17, 40, 48, 54, 83, 92 foreign policy of, see Foreign policy, coercive, 86, 236, 247 German German, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 27, historical legacy, 10, 22, 27, 29, 78, 46, 48–9, 52, 54, 77–81, 92, 94, 98, 217 92–101, 179–80, 190, 194, humanitarianism, 32–3, 39, 45, 199, 214–15, 219–20, 225–7, 48, 231 229–30, 252 location of, 10, 22, 42, 77–8 low-profile, ix, 7, 35 military force (use of), see Military force, German Economic policy, 6, 12, 14, 31, 38–40, national interest, 9–11, 23–4, 42–3, 41, 44, 241 45, 94–5, 98, 216, 225 negotiating behavior, see negotiation, Fischer, Joschka, 14–15, 32, 35, German behavior 46–7, 238 postwar experiences/culture, 5, 11, Foreign policy 32, 38, 52–3, 78, 92, 230 change, 25–8, 34, 39, 53, 242 security policy, see Security policy, continuity, see continuity Germany German, ix, xiii, 2–15, 17–18, as “threat,” 2–3, 5, 28, 156, 234 21–45, 48–9, 53, 77–83, 92, unification, see Unification 94, 100, 109, 111–12, 135, West Germany, 5, 9, 27–8, 38, 145, 155–7, 162–3, 174–6, 179, 78, 237 185, 188, 202–3, 219, 229–31, Gesamtkonzept, 95–7, 99, 113, 143, 234–5, 237–8, 240–2, 264–5, 210, 217, 220–2, 224–7, 251 see Civilian/Civilianizing Globalization, 5, 11–12, 15, 37–8, power 235–6 national interests, 10, 24, 27, 42–3, Goldgeier, James, 206, 253–7, 45: normality, See Normality; 259, 263 self-confident, 8–10, 24, 27, 29, Group of Seven/Eight 33, 35, 49, 236 Industrialized Nations (G7/8), United States, 8–10, 12–15, 34, 46, 168, 175, 183, 193, 196, 49, 79–80, 92, 94, 105–7, 219, 227 111, 122–3, 125–6, 128–34, Gulf War, 3, 22, 29–31, 33, 112, 201 136–7, 146, 149–54, 159–72, 174, 176–7, 186, 188, 190–7, Habermas, Jürgen, 61, 64, 72, 96 199–215, 218–21, 224–8, Social theory of Communicative 230–1 Action, see Communicative FOTL (Lance short-range ballistic Action missile) dispute, 9–10, 223 Hard power, 12–13, 15, 38, 40 Index 301

Havel, Vaclav, 121, 136, 151, 204 Kinkel, Klaus, 110, 120, 138–9, Hellman, Gunther, 24–31, 33, 53–4, 146, 155–8, 170, 175, 179, 181, 235–40, 242 184–6, 189–91, 194, 219, 227, Helsinki Summit, 191–4, 263 260–1, 263 Holbrooke, Richard, 162–8, 171, 200, Kissinger, Henry, 146, 153, 193, 210–12, 225–6, 255, 259–60 247, 263 Human rights, 32–3, 39, 47, 71, 109, Kohl, Helmut, 23, 25, 30–1, 108–11, 192, 244 120, 124, 154–9, 164, 167, 169, Hunter, Robert, 131, 205, 254 175–6, 179, 181–4, 186–7, 189–90, 194, 196, 208–9, 212–15, 220–8, IISS, 116, 121, 125, 128, 131, 137, 230, 249, 252, 258–9, 262 203–4, 210, 217 Kohl–Genscher government, 23, 31, International change, xiii, 1, 6, 8, 81, 100–101, 203, 208–9, 212, 16–17, 21, 38, 44, 52, 222 223, 226, 230 International law, 14, 16–17, 29, 40, Kosovo war, 3, 14, 22, 24–5, 28–9, 32, 47, 50–1, 80, 83, 109, 231 35, 46–9, 51–2, 78, 231, 240–1 International norms, 16–17, 40–1, 83, 229–31, 244 Lake, Anthony, 121, 128, 133, International Relations (IR), ix, 4, 136–7, 146, 150–2, 166, 12, 23, 26–8, 34, 38–9, 42, 44–5, 204–7, 253–4, 258 51, 53, 57–64, 84–5, 237, 242, Language, 60–4, 75, 85, 91, 138, 151, 244–6 207–9, 244, 264 Germany’s contribution to, ix, 6, Logic of appropriateness, 58–9, 66, 10–11, 39, 60 84, 246 Theory, 25, 31, 35, 48, 57–9, 61–4, Logic of arguing, 59–75, 82–4, 92, 75, 84, 229, 242–5: 101, 223, 225, 242–6 Constructivism, 26, 57–60, Logic of consequentiality, 58–60, 65–6, 63, 68–9, 84, 242, 244; 68, 82, 84 Prescription, 6, 38, 228–9, 240; Lugar, (Senator) Richard, 123–7, 133, Rationalism/Rational-choice, 146, 153, 160, 162, 210, 254 26, 57–75, 82, 84, 98, 246; rationalist–constructivist Maull, Hanns W., 5–7, 9, 11–15, 26, debate, ix, 26, 84, 245; 35, 37–45, 48–54, 77–84, 92, 101, Realism, 4, 23, 26–8, 34, 229, 235–7, 238–42, 245–6, 38–9, 42, 44–5, 51, 53, 57–8, see Civilian power 61, 237, 242 Military force (use of), 6, 14–15, 22, 24, Iraq, 3, 16–17, 29–31, 42, 50, 79, 28–9, 44–7, 49–51, 79, 131, 188 231, 235 German, 3, 22, 24, 28–32, 40–1, 45, Ischinger, Wolfgang, 176–7, 48–51, 53, 78,109 187–8,190, 194–5, 214, 220–1, United States, 13, 49–50, 53, 105, 258, 262 115, 132, 200–1 Milosevic, Slobodan, 14, 29, 47, 51, 78 Jönsson, Christer, 85–6, 89, 91–2, Müller, Harald, 60–4, 66, 70, 80–1, 84, 246–8 243–5, 246 302 Index

Multilateral cooperation, ix, 2, 4–6, 7, Organization for Security and 14, 52, 54, 79, 97, 99, 101 Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE), Multilateralism, 7, 11, 16–17, 21–2, 180, 185, 203, 249 24, 30, 32, 53, 79, 90–1, 97–8, 101, 109, 153, 218–19, 220, 229, Partnership for Peace (PFP), 132–4, 241–2, 244 136, 140–6, 149–50, 152–5, 160, 166, 175, 183, 191, 206, 212–13, National Security Council (NSC), 218, 256–7 130, 140–4, 151–2, 163, 205–6, Persuasion, 60, 67, 69, 74, 86, 164, 208, 254 186, 210, 244–5, 247 Nationalism, 2–3, 32, 85, 98, 118, 127, Primakov, Yevgeny, 180–1, 185–7, 170–1, 182 189–95, 214 Negotiation, ix, 15, 49, 61, 63–8, 70–1, 74–5, 77–8, 86–101, 176, RAND, 112–14, 116, 122–7, 132, 182, 188–94, 196, 199, 209, 162–5, 209–11, 250, 253–4 215–25, 228, 246–9, 262 “The Twin Arcs of Crisis,” 122, German behavior, 77–8, 92–101, 125–6, 209–10, 253 176, 182, 188–94, 196, Reasoning, 7, 17, 24, 59–75, 83–4, 199, 209, 215–25, 228, 94–5, 98, 101, 113, 123, 164, 217, 236, 245 222–4, 228, 230 International, 63–4, 68, 73, 82, 85, German, 94, 98, 113, 123, 217 88–91, 244 Rhetorical action, 66–8, 82, 96, 223, United States, 93–4 225, 229 Normality, 4–6, 8–10, 21–5, 27–9, Risse, Thomas, 59–60, 65–8, 72–3, 91, 33–7, 41, 44–5, 48, 52–4, 66, 237, 240, 242–5, 248 228–30, 234, 236–7, 240 Rühe, Volker, 109–13, 116–21, and “self-confidence,” 8–10, 29, 123–5, 127–9, 134, 137–40, 33, 35 142–4 146, 153, 155–6, 158, Normality versus continuity 162–4, 169–70, 174, 176–7, 199, debate, 4–6, 8–10, 21–2, 44, 45, 203–6, 209–10, 217–19, 227, 53–4, 228–9, 234, 240 249–54, 256, 260, 264 North Atlantic Co-Operation Council Rühle, Michael, 108, 138, 199, 249, (NACC), 107, 119, 120, 127–32, 251, 254, 264 140–1, 166, 204, 212 Russia, see NATO–Russia negotiations North Atlantic Council (NAC), 100, 132, 170, 174, 195, 223 Schmidt, Helmut, 97, 117, 217, 251 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Schröder, Gerhard, 25, 31–2, 47, 240 (NATO) Schröder–Fischer government, 23, 29, Brussels Summit, 149–50, 31–3, 78–9, 81 155, 157 Security, 13, 16, 25, 38, 42, 44, 50, 57, NATO–Russia negotiations, 16, 115, 118, 180, 189, 194, 196, 203, 173–4, 185–97, 213–14, 220–1, 225, 236, 240 225, 227–8 European, 1–2, 37, 44, 49–51, 107, Travemünde, 139–40, 142–5, 112, 118, 125, 127, 137, 146, 205, 256 149–51, 156, 171, 180, 194, Nye, Joseph, 11–15, 230, 236–7 196, 201 Index 303

German, 2–3, 8, 16, 22, 25–6, 28–9, United States (U.S) 31, 37–8, 42, 45, 48–3, 108–9, Bush administration, 79–81, 112, 118, 203, 225, 227 129, 147, 200–1, 231, 250 International, 1–3, 8, 12–13, 15–17, Clinton administration, 105–6, 31, 37, 49–52, 92, 107, 118, 121–4, 126, 128–37, 139, 174, 201–4, 237 141–2, 144, 146–7, 149–75, Russian, 156, 180, 183, 185, 176–7, 181, 183, 186, 189–91, 226 188, 190–7, 200, 202, United States., 8, 12, 34, 49–51, 53, 204–6, 209–10, 212–15, 106, 124, 151–2, 202–4 218–21, 224–8, 230, Self-confidence, 8–10, 24, 27, 29, 33, 249–50, 256–8, 261 35, 49, 236 foreign policy, see Foreign policy, Serbia, 17, 22, 45, 47, 52, 231 United States Shalikashvili, General John, 129–32, German influence on, 9–10, 18, 140, 151–2, 206 77, 81, 92, 101, 112, 121–6, Smyser, William, 77–8, 92–101, 199, 137–45, 152, 156, 158–72, 215–22, 230, 236, 245, 248 174, 176–7, 183–4, 186, 188, Soft power, 11–13, 15, 38–9, 81, 190–7, 199–216, 218–21, 230, 239 224–8, 230 Soviet Union, 38, 51, 83, 99, 121, Iraq, see Iraq 125, 133, 223, 236, 250 Military force, see Military force, United States Talbott, Strobe, 133–4, 147, 153–4, national interest, 93, 117, 131, 149, 161–2, 165–6, 184, 187–8, 154, 165, 196, 202 190, 211–12, 219–20, 226, and NATO enlargement, 77, 92, 228, 258 101, 120–7, 156–72, 174, 176–7, 183–4, 186, 188, Ukraine, 127, 133, 150, 169, 180, 190–7, 199–216, 218–21, 185, 227 224–8, 230, 252 Unification, ix, 1–5, 9, 11, 21, 24–7, “War on Terror,” 1, 208, 264 29–30, 52, 92, 99, 107, 109, 111, 113, 136, 181, 193, 202, 223, Walesa, Lech, 121, 134–6, 151, 153, 228, 249–50 204, 253 post-unification, 24–7, 29, 34, 37, Weisser, Ulrich, 110–13, 116, 42, 52, 78, 92, 107, 111, 113, 122–4, 127, 140–4, 151–2, 223, 238 158, 162, 164, 167–8, 177, United Nations (UN), 3, 15–17, 22, 188, 205, 209–10, 218, 250–1, 29–30, 32–3, 35, 45–7, 51–2, 253–64 71, 106, 109, 119, 137, 231, Wörner, NATO Secretary General 239, 253: mandate (or lack Manfred, 129, 131, 137–9, 142–5, thereof), 17, 22, 29, 33, 51, 205, 250, 254, 256 231; peacekeeping missions, 29–30, 46, 105–6, 109, 128–9 Yeltsin, Boris, 122, 133–6, 155–6, United Nations Security Council 168–9, 171, 173, 175, 181–6, (UNSC), 3, 17, 33, 35–6, 51–2, 189–92, 194, 212, 216, 218–19, 71–2 221, 224–6, 256, 261–2