DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 member- ship 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 compris- ing 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?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SEMINAR DER FRIEDRICH-NAUMANN-STIFTUNG (3.-5.7.81) "Frauen Und Bundeswehr"
    INHALTSVERZEICHNIS • SEITE Vorwort 3 I - SEMINAR DER FRIEDRICH-NAUMANN-STIFTUNG (3.-5.7.81) "Frauen und Bundeswehr" . Programm 8 . Teilnehmerliste 1o • Referate: Monika Faßbender-IIge 13 Wolf R. Leenen 17 Tjarck Rößler 26 Hans Vorländer 36 Hans-Erich Seuberlich 49 Sibylle Plogstedt 54 Mechthild Jansen 61 Berthold Meyer 69 Eva Ehrlich 75 Heide Hering 81 Gisela Nischelsky 86 Elke Leistner 92 Brigitte Traupe 95 Rita Fromm 99 Petra Kelly 1o1 . Ergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe I 1o5 . Ergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe II 1o9 . Ergebnisse der Arbeitsgruppe III 112 . Erfahrungsbericht 115 . Brief des Bundesverteidigungsministeriums 118 II - HISTORISCHE ENTWICKLUNG . Franz W. Seidler - Von der Antike bis zum stehenden Heer - 122 III - GESETZLICHE GRUNDLAGEN . Regelung im Grundgesetz 13o IV - MATERIALIEN ZUR DISKUSSION . Ariane Barth, - Etwas anderes als Sex - aus:"Spiegel'',46/1978 136 . Auszüge aus:''dpa-hintergrund'',11.4.1979, - Wehrdienst für Frauen ? - 142 . Lippert/Rößler - Weibliche Soldaten für die Bundeswehr ? - aus:"beilage zur wochenzeitung das parlament", B8/1981 148 . Ekkehard Lippert, - Soldat ohne Waffen ? - aus:"Frau und Gesamtverteidigung,Bulletin des Schweizerischen Arbeitskreises Militär + Sozialwissenschaften",Nr.2/1982 154 . Karin Hempel-Soos, - Karbolmäuschen und Stöpselmädchen - aus:"Die Zeit",Nr.28,9.7.1982 16o . Gerste/Hempel-Soos/Roggenkamp, - Ende der Schonzeit - aus:"Die Zeit",Nr.23,3.6.1983 162 . Bonner Redaktion, - Wegen des "Pillenknicks"... aus:"Süddeutsche Zeitung",Nr.184,12.8.1983 166a Jürgen Möllemann, ...zu den Vorschlägen des BW-Verbandes - aus:"fdk-tagesdienst",Nr.681/78,19.9.1978 167 http://d-nb.info/209502614 . Liselotte Funcke, aus:"Die Welt",22.8.1979 , • - 168 . Gisela Nischelsky/JürgenMöllemann, - Pro und Contra - aus:"Neue Bonner Depesche",Nr.2/198o r .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Final Report for NATO Fellowship March 1998 Mary N Hampton
    1 Final Report for NATO Fellowship March 1998 Mary N Hampton University of Utah I have completed the work for my 1997-1998 NATO Research Fellowship. Because of the fellowship, I was able to finish critical secondary research and conduct many useful discussions in Germany with relevant academics and with current and past German foreign policy and security elites. My project, "The German Conception of Security: an Examination of Competing Views", has resulted in three major research papers, one which is already published, and two that are accepted for publication or under contract. I will return to these research papers below. Aside from NATO's generous assistance, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Sankt Augustin and the Hessische Stiftung fuer Friedens und Konflikt Forschung (HSFK), Frankfurt, were especially helpful in allowing me to carry out my research. I had offices in both institutes. The libraries in both were very useful. The HSFK has a fine collection of security journals, including the most important ones in English and German. It also has a good collection of the German party publications, which were most helpful to my work. However, most important to my project was the interaction I had with analysts and scholars at the two institutions. I am very grateful to Dr. Harald Mueller, the Director of the HSFK, for his generous assistance, and to other analysts at the institute who read my work and discussed it with me, and who helped me obtain interview partners critical to my work. Among those that assisted me most and to whom I am grateful were Drs.
    [Show full text]
  • Hertkorn.Pmd
    The Impact of September 11th on European Security and Defense Policy and Coercive Prevention: The German Perspective by Michaela C. Hertkorn INTRODUCTION Upon entering office, the newly elected Bush Administration put issues such as missile defense on top of its foreign and security policy agenda.1 However, given transatlantic discourse up to the attacks of September 11th, topics like the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) still seemed relevant to partners on both sides of the Atlantic. This paper shall argue that while the focus of conflict prevention lies in the prevention of the outbreak of violence, preventive diplomacy and its coercive elements also strive at preventing further regional escalation and the re-occurrence of violence. In that sense, conflict prevention is strongly linked with post-conflict peacekeeping. Transatlantic relations, particularly in the late 1990s, served as a context to organize and coordinate peacekeeping in the Balkans, with the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the main diplomatic, political, and economic platforms in the absence of corresponding UN mandates. How are transatlantic relations relevant to the topic of conflict prevention? Given European interest in institutionalizing conflict prevention within the bodies of the EU in the second half of the 1990s, they do matter. While there were intentions to incorporate conflict prevention within the Council of Ministers, today within the EU, conflict prevention is a strong focus of the EU Commission. To mainstream conflict prevention, cooperation between the High Representative of EU Foreign and Security Policy on the one side and the EU Commission on the other side seems necessary to successfully link issues of conflict prevention with the common foreign and security policy of the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011
    The French Institute of International Relations Annual Report 2011 27 rue de la Procession - 75740 Paris Cedex 15 Phone: 33 (0) 1 40 61 60 00 - Fax : 33 (0) 1 40 61 60 60 Rue Marie-Thérèse, 21 - 1000 - Bruxelles Phone: 32 (2) 238 51 10 - Fax : 32 (2) 238 51 15 www.ifri.org Knowledge for action Contents Message from the President 2 Ifri, a Leading French Think Tank on International Questions 4 2011: An Intense Year on All Fronts 6 In 2011, Ifri Notably Hosted… 10 Ifri’s 2011 Publications 12 Two Flagship Publications: Politique étrangère and RAMSES 13 Ifri’s Business Partners 14 Ifri and the Media: An Ongoing Dialogue 18 The 4th World Policy Conference 19 The Team 20 Research 21 Regional Programs 22 Cross-cutting Programs 37 Publications 45 Conferences and Debates 48 Board of Directors and Advisory Board 50 Financial Appendix 51 Annual Report 2011 • 1 Message from the President rom revolutions in the Arab world, crises in Europe and catastrophic events in Japan, to the intervention in Libya and the announcements of withdrawal from Afghanistan, F2011 did not lack turmoil, nor is there a shortage of questions to be asked. Even more than previous years, 2011 certainly confirmed the need for a broad view of the world in order to support political and economic decision-makers working under the pressure of events that are becoming more and more difficult to control. Such wide vision allows for analytical distance to be introduced into decision-making processes. As a unique think tank in France, and through the range of subjects it covers (international and otherwise), its long history of bringing experience and successful metho- dologies to light, and the networks it has built with partners throughout the world, Ifri seeks to promote this kind of perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructivism in International Relations the Politics of Reality
    Constructivism in International Relations The politics of reality Maja Zehfuss University of Warwick 25579CCB 42:58 84 ,2:581:B:C.2:/2CBD4CCC9 ,2:58,CB7DB22:22CCambridge Books9CCB Online 42:58© Cambridge 84CB University 9CCB5: Press, 8 2009 ,0 PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org© Maja Zehfuss 2004 First published in printed format 2002 ISBN 978-0-511-49179-5 OCeISBN ISBN 0-521-81544-4 hardback ISBN 0-521-89466-2 paperback 25579CCB 42:58 84 ,2:581:B:C.2:/2CBD4CCC9 ,2:58,CB7DB22:22CCambridge Books9CCB Online 42:58© Cambridge 84CB University 9CCB5: Press, 8 2009 ,0 Constructivism in International Relations Maja Zehfuss’ book offers a fundamental critique of constructivism, fo- cusing on the work of Wendt, Onuf and Kratochwil. Using Germany’s shift towards participation in international military operations as an illustration, she demonstrates why each version of constructivism fails in its own project and comes apart on the basis of its own assump- tions. Inspired by Derridean thought, this book highlights the political consequences of constructivist representations of reality. Each critique concludes that constructivist notions of key concepts are impossible, and that this is not merely a question of theoretical inconsistency, but of politics. The book is premised on the notion that the ‘empirical’ and the ‘theoretical’ are less separate than is acknowledged in inter- national relations, and must be read as intertwined.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Kosovo: German Politics and Policies in the Balkans
    THE LEGACY OF KOSOVO: GERMAN POLITICS AND POLICIES IN THE BALKANS Wolfgang-Uwe Friedrich editor GERMAN ISSUES 22 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University THE LEGACY OF KOSOVO: GERMAN POLITICS AND POLICIES IN THE BALKANS Wolfgang-Uwe Friedrich Wolfgang Ischinger Rudolf Scharping GERMAN ISSUES 22 The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) is a center for advanced research, study, and discussion on the politics, culture, and society of the Federal Republic of Germany. Established in 1983 and affiliated with The Johns Hopkins University but governed by its own Board of Trustees, AICGS is a privately incorporated institute dedicated to independent, critical, and comprehensive analysis and assessment of current German issues. Its goals are to help develop a new generation of American scholars with a thorough understanding of contemporary Germany, deepen American knowledge and understanding of current German developments, contribute to American policy analysis of problems relating to Germany, and promote interdisciplinary and comparative research on Germany. Executive Director: Jackson Janes Research Director: Carl Lankowski Board of Trustees, Cochair: Steven Muller Board of Trustees, Cochair: Harry J. Gray The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©2000 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-51-2 Additional copies of this AICGS German Issue are available from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2217. Telephone 202/332-9312, Fax 202/265-9531, E-mail: [email protected], Web: http://www.aicgs.org C O N T E N T S Foreword ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Frostpolitik'? Merkel, Putin and German Foreign Policy Towards Russia
    From Ostpolitik to ‘frostpolitik’? Merkel, Putin and German foreign policy towards Russia TUOMAS FORSBERG* Germany’s relationship with Russia is widely considered to be of fundamental importance to European security and the whole constitution of the West since the Second World War. Whereas some tend to judge Germany’s reliability as a partner to the United States—and its so-called Westbindung in general—against its dealings with Russia, others focus on Germany’s leadership of European foreign policy, while still others see the Russo-German relationship as an overall barometer of conflict and cooperation in Europe.1 How Germany chooses to approach Russia and how it deals with the crisis in Ukraine, in particular, are questions that lie at the crux of several possible visions for the future European order. Ostpolitik is a term that was coined to describe West Germany’s cooperative approach to the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries, initiated by Chan- cellor Willy Brandt in 1969. As formulated by Brandt’s political secretary, Egon Bahr, the key idea of the ‘new eastern policy’ was to achieve positive ‘change through rapprochement’ (Wandel durch Annäherung). In the Cold War context, the primary example of Ostpolitik was West Germany’s willingness to engage with the Soviet Union through energy cooperation including gas supply, but also pipeline and nuclear projects.2 Yet at the same time West Germany participated in the western sanctions regime concerning technology transfer to the Soviet Union and its allies, and accepted the deployment of American nuclear missiles on its soil as a response * This work was partly supported by the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence for Choices of Russian Modernisation (grant number 250691).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013-2014
    The A Assppeenn IInnssttiittuuttee GGeerrmmaannyy ANNUAL REPOORRT 2013 2007 2014 The Aspen Institute Germany ANNUAL REPORT 2013 2014 Zlatko Lagumdžija, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bosnia and Herzegovina Ditmir Bushati, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Albania Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, United Kingdom Nikola Poposki, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Macedonia Dr. Frank Walter Steinmeier, Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany Ivica Dačić, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Serbia Prof. Dr. Vesna Pusić, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia Dr. Enver Hoxhaj, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kosovo Dr. Igor Lukšić, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Montenegro Hoyt Yee, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ASPEN INSTITUTE Annual Report 3 GERMANY 2013/2014 PREFACE Dear Friend of the Aspen Institute Germany, The past year marked a very special occasion for the Aspen Institute Germany as it celebrated its 40th an- niversary. Founded in 1974 in the midst of the Cold War, the Institute was envisioned as a bulwark against dicta- torship and a symbol of freedom in the divided city of Berlin. Under the charismatic leadership of its first di- rector Shepard Stone, the Institute established a unique track record of building German-U.S. cooperation and dialog with the former Soviet Union. Ever since, it has been continuing this tradition of building bridges be- tween East and West and enabling constructive dialog amongst conflicting parties, promoting Euro-Atlantic co- operation, and enhancing a strong open society. To highlight the accomplishments of these four decades, Aspen Germany hosted its first Berlin Transatlantic Forum in October 2014, dedicated to opening new per- spectives for the Transatlantic partnership and for the fu- ture of European-American relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Challenges and Opportunities Inaugural
    Politikwissenschaft Germany and the foreign policies of Norway and Sweden - strategic challenges and opportunities Inaugural - Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster (Westf.) vorgelegt von Elisabeth Tanev aus Oslo, Norwegen 2012 Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 11. Februar 2010 Dekan der Philosophischen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Christian Pietsch Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reinhard Meyers Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Johannes Varwick Contents List of Abbreviations v List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Introduction 1 I. Nordic Security 5 1. General conditions of Nordic security 7 2. Germany as a strategic partner? 17 3. The foreign policies of Norway and Sweden 33 3.1. Historical developments . 35 3.2. Security and defence cooperation . 42 3.2.1. Norway ............................ 42 3.2.2. Sweden............................. 47 3.3. National defence structure and budget . 52 3.3.1. Norway ............................ 52 3.3.2. Sweden............................. 56 3.4. European policy . 62 3.4.1. Norway ............................ 62 3.4.2. Sweden............................. 74 3.5. Other aspects of Norwegian and Swedish foreign policy . 86 3.5.1. Norway ............................ 86 3.5.2. Sweden............................. 89 ii Contents 3.6. Conclusions . 91 4. Strategic challenges and opportunities 95 4.1. Norway ................................ 95 4.1.1. Economic and security interests . 106 4.1.2. Factors of strategic importance and threat perceptions . 116 4.1.3. The strategic environment . 123 4.1.4. The necessity of political and military allies . 130 4.2. Sweden................................. 137 4.2.1. Economic and security interests . 143 4.2.2. Factors of strategic importance and threat perceptions . 152 4.2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Weight of History: Change and Continuity in German Foreign Policy Towards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship 2010 The weight of history: change and continuity in German foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Anne-Kathrin Kreft Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Kreft, Anne-Kathrin, "The weight of history: change and continuity in German foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (2010). WWU Graduate School Collection. 28. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/28 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE WEIGHT OF HISTORY: CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN GERMAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT By Anne-Kathrin Kreft Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Moheb A. Ghali, Dean of the Graduate School ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair, Dr. Amir Abedi-Djourabtchi Dr. Bidisha Biswas Dr. Vernon Johnson MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non- exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU. I represent and warrant this is my original work, and does not infringe or violate any rights of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Show Publication Content!
    Kalendarium KRONIKA STOSUNKÓW REPUBLIKI FEDERALNEJ NIEMIEC Z EUROPEJSKIMI KRAJAMI SOCJALISTYCZNYMI maj-lipiec 1988 dzić RFN w niewielką ilość potrzeb­ nych pieniędzy. m aj 4 V — W Bonn doszło do wymiany not między RFN a ZSRR. Minister Hans- I V — Sekretarz generalny Związku -Dietrich Genscher przekaeał ambasado­ Wypędzonych Hartmut Koschyk zaape­ rowi Jurijowi Kwicińskiemu notę, w lował do rządu federalnego, by tylko której rząd radziecki został oficjalnie wtedy przyznać Polsce kredyty, gdy „po­ poinformowany o nowych zachodnionie­ nad milion Niemców żyjących na obsza­ mieckich ustaleniach prawnych umożli­ rze polskiego panowania otrzyma pra­ wiających radzieckim inspektorom nad­ wa mniejszości. (...) Można będzie mó­ zorowanie likwidacji amerykańskich ra­ wić o dobrych stosunkach z Warszawą kiet na terytorium RFN, z wykorzysta­ dopiero wówczas, gdy przestanie się niem immunitetu dyplomatycznego. Obie przerzucać odpowiedzialność za kryzys strony podkreśliły przy okazji swą wolę zadłużeniowy, jaki zaistniał w Polsce, „dobrej i pogłębionej współpracy”. na Republikę Federalną. W tym wzglę­ 4 V — Minister gospodarki Martin Ban- dzie sama Warszawa musi przyznać się gemann (FDP) oznajmił, iż dla RFN do winy”. handel ze Wschodem jest ważny bar­ 2 V — Według monachijskiego dzienni­ dziej ze względów politycznych, aniżeli ka „Suddeutsche Zeitung’’ został już ekonomicznych. Mimo że udział tego ustalony termin wizyty kanclerza Kohla handlu w ogólnych obrotach handlo­ W Moskwie. Wizyta ta nastąpi w końcu wych RFN z zagranicą stale w ostat­ Października lub na początku listopada nich latach malał, to Bonn jest „w sumie tego roku. Jednocześnie Urząd Kancler­ zadowolone ze stanu tych stosunków”. ski nie przewiduje już podróży Kohla Bangemann przyznał też, że wobec złej do Warszawy, planowanej początkowo sytuacji gospodarczej Polski, Republika na jesień.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany and the Use of Force: the Evolution of German
    www.ssoar.info Germany and the use of force: the evolution of German security policy 1990-2003 Longhurst, Kerry Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Monographie / monograph Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Longhurst, K. (2004). Germany and the use of force: the evolution of German security policy 1990-2003.. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-271218 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de Longhurst, Germany and the use of force.qxd 30/06/2004 16:25 Page i Germany and the use of force Longhurst, Germany and the use of force.qxd 30/06/2004 16:25 Page ii ISSUES IN GERMAN POLITICS Edited by Professor Charlie Jeffery, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham Dr Charles Lees, University of Sheffield Issues in German Politics is a major series on contemporary Germany. Focusing on the post-unity era, it presents concise, scholarly analyses of the forces driving change in domestic politics and foreign policy. Key themes will be the continuing legacies of German unification and controversies surrounding Germany’s role and power in Europe. The series includes contributions from political science, international relations and political economy.
    [Show full text]