Introduction

Notes

Introduction

1. It is important to note that whilst the international context of German foreign policy changed virtually overnight with the end of the Cold War, the content of German foreign policy was resistant to wholesale changes. To this end Eberwein and Kaiser state, ‘To a certain extent, when Germany was unified and attained full sovereignty, its position in international politics changed overnight’, in Eberwein, W.-D. and Kaiser, K. (eds) (2001), p. 3, Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision-making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Banchoff contends that, ‘The collapse of the Soviet bloc and reunifi- cation transformed the context of German foreign policy’ in Banchoff, T. (1999), p. 131, The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics and Foreign Policy, 1945–1995 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). 2. Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of domestic politics and institutions: the case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88; Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) (2003), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345; Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske Budrich); Schmalz, U. (2004), Deutschlands europäisierte Aussenpolitik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag); Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4: 613–631; Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo. 3. Bulmer, S. and Burch, M. (2000), ‘Coming to Terms with Europe: Europeanisation, Whitehall and the Challenge of Devolution’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation, No. 9/2000, Queens University Belfast, http://www.qub. ac.uk/ies/onlinepapers/poe9.pdf 4. Art 17 Treaty on European Union – humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking. 5. Cornish, P. and Edwards, G. (2001), ‘Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The Beginnings of a European Strategic Culture’, International Affairs, 77/3: 587–603; Meyer, C. O. (2005), ‘Convergence towards a European Strategic Culture? A Constructivist Framework for Explaining Changing Norms’, European Journal of International Relations, 11/4: 523–549. For a more elaborated version of this argument see also, Meyer, C. O. (2006), The Quest for a European Strategic Culture (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Longhurst defines strategic culture as, ‘ … a distinctive body of beliefs, attitudes and practices regarding the use of force, which are held by a collective (usually a nation) and arise gradually over time, through a unique and protracted historical process.

199 200 Notes

Strategic culture is persistent over time, tending to outlast the era of its original inception, although it is not a permanent or static feature. It is shaped and influenced by formative periods and can alter, either fundamentally or piece- meal, at critical junctures in that collective’s experiences.’ See, Longhurst, K. and Zaborowski, M. (eds) (2005), Old Europe, New Europe and Transatlantic Security (London: Routledge). 6. Garton-Ash, T. (1993), ‘Germany’s Choice’, in Foreign Affairs, 73/4: 65–81; Zimmer, M. (1997), ‘Return of the Mittelage? The Discourse of the Centre in German Foreign Policy’, German Politics, 6/1: 23–38; Wallace, W. (1990), ‘Deutschlands zentrale Rolle: Ein Versuch die europäische Frage neu zu definieren’, Integration 13. Jg, 1/90, Beilage zur Europäischen Zeitung; Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72/1: 9–32; Bach, J. P. G. (1999), Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity After 1989 (New York: Lit Verlag/St.Martin’s Press); Bulmer, S., Jeffrey, C. and Paterson, W. E. (1997), ‘Shaping the regional milieu’, Gutachten für die Forschungsgruppe Europa und die Bertelsmann Wissenschaftsstiftung, München; Janning, J. and Meyer, P. (1998), Deutsche Europapolitik: Vorschläge zur Effektivierung (Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung); Pond, E. and Schoenbaum, D. (1996), The German Question and other German Questions (Basingstoke: Macmillan) Marsh, D. (1995), Germany and Europe: The Crisis of Unity (London: Mandarin); Rometsch, D. (1995), ‘The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union: Patterns of Institutional and Administrative Interaction’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Paper 95/2, University of Birmingham; Garton-Ash, T. (1994), In Europe’s Name (London: Vintage); Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of A Semi-Sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press); Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community, (London: Allen and Unwin); Collins, S. D. (1998), Managing the Agenda? German Policy-Making with Regard to Eastern Enlargement of the European Union, PhD Study, Institute for German Studies, University of Birmingham; Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1997), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press); Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press); Banchoff, T. (1999), The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics and Foreign Policy, 1945–95 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). 7. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen and Unwin); Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72/1: 9–32; Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press); Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). 8. For three excellent studies tackling German conceptions of European security see, Remmert, M. (1994), Westeuropäische Zusammenarbeit in der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik: Positionen von Regierung und Koalitionsparteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1982–1991), (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag); Rühl, L. (1995), Deutschland als Europäische Macht, Bouvier Verlag, Bonn; Sauder, A. (1995) Souveränität und Integration (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag). Notes 201

9. Eliassen, K. A. (ed.) (1998), Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union (London: Sage); Hill, C. (ed.) (1996), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge); Hill, C. (ed.) (1983), National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (Hemel Hempstead: Allen and Unwin); AICGS (1999), Franco-German relations and European Integration: a transatlantic dialogue – Challenges for German and American Foreign Policy, Conference Report, 16th September 1999, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies; Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Macmillan); Ifestos, P. (1987), European Political Cooperation: Towards a Framework for Supranational Diplomacy (Aldershot: Avebury); Carlsnaes, W. and Smith, S. (1993), European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe (London: Sage); Howorth, J. and Menon, A. (eds) (1997), The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge); Aybet, G. (1997), The Dynamics of European Security Co- operation, 1945–91 (Basingstoke: Macmillan); Nuttall, S. (1992), European Political Co-operation (Oxford: Clarendon Press); Regelsberger, E., De Schoutheete de Tervarent, P. and Wessels, W. (eds) (1997), From EPC to CFSP and Beyond (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers); Tsakaloyannis, P. (1996), The European Union as a Security Community: Problems and Prospects (Baden- Baden: Nomos Verlag); Van Eekelen, W. (1998), Debating European Security, 1948–1998 (The Hague: Sdu Publishers). 10. Lüdeke, A. (2002), ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik? (Opladen: Leske Budrich) Schmalz, U. (2004), Deutschlands europäisierte Außenpolitik, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden. 11. For an excellent survey see, Olsen, J. P. (2002), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952. 12. For example, Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/ 1: 69–88; Croft, S. (2000), ‘The EU, NATO and Europeanisation: The Return of Architectural Debate’, European Security, 9/ 3: 1–20; Solana, J. (1996), ‘NATO: Shaping up for the future’, Speech to the IISS, 19 September 1996, London, http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s960919b.htm 13. Miskimmon, A. J. (2001), ‘Recasting the Security Bargains: Germany, European Security and the Transatlantic Relationship’, in D. Webber, (ed.) New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy: German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Frank Cass and Co.). 14. Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003), Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/ Oxford University Press); Ladrech, R. (1994) ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88; Olsen, J. P. (2002), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952; Tonra, B. (2001), The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy (Aldershot: Ashgate). 15. Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo. 16. They include, Lüdeke, A. (2002) ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik?: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht 202 Notes

und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske Budrich); Manners, I. and Whitman, R. (2001), The Foreign Policies of European Member States (Manchester: Manchester University Press); Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003) ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/ Oxford University Press); Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo. 17. Rosenau, J. N. (1981), p. 29, The Study of Political Adaptation: Essays on the Analysis of World Politics (London: Frances Pinter). 18. Gourevitch, P. (1978), p. 882, ‘The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics’, International Organization, 32/4: 881–912. 19. Rosenau uses the terms adaptation and maladaptation in his study of 1981. Rosenau, J. N. (1981), The Study of Political Adaptation: Essays on the Analysis of World Politics (London: Frances Pinter). 20. Duffield, J. S. (1998), World Power Forsaken: Political Culture, International Institutions, and German Security Culture after Unification (Stanford: Stanford University Press). 21. Putnam, R. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organisation, 42/3: 427–460. 22. Key texts include, Anderson, J. J. (2002), ‘Europeanization and the Transformation of the Democratic Polity – 1945–2000’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41/5: 793–822; Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (2000), ‘Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heiniken Test?’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization No.2/2000, Queen’s University, Belfast, http://www.qub.ac. uk/ies/onlinepapers/poe2.html; Börzel, T. A. (1999), ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation in German and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/4: 573–596; Börzel, T. A. (2001), The Domestic Impact of Europe: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Börzel, T. A. and Risse, T. (2000), ‘When Europe hits home: Europeanization and Domestic Change’, European University Institute, RSC Working Paper, 2000/56; Goetz, K. H. and Hix, S. (eds) (2001), Europeanised Politics. European Integration and National Political Systems (London: Frank Cass); Harmsen, R. (1999), ‘The Europeanization of National Administrations: A Comparative Study of France and the Netherlands’, Governance, 12/1: 81–113; Green-Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Dyson, K. (2000a), ‘Europeanization, Whitehall Culture and the Treasury as Institutional Veto Player: A Constructivist Approach to Economic and Monetary Union’, Public Administration, 78/4: 897–914; Dyson, K. (2000b), ‘EMU as Europeanization: Convergence, Diversity and Contingency’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38/4: 645–666; Knill, C. (2001), The Europeanization of National Administrations, Patterns of Institutional Change and Persistence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Kohler-Koch, B. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999), The Transformation of Governance in the European Union (London: Routledge). 23. Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/ 1: 69–88; Ladrech, R. Notes 203

(2001), ‘Europeanization and Political Parties: Towards a Framework of Analysis’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization, No.2/2001, Queens University, Belfast. However, Ladrech has more recently appeared to accept the signifi- cance of uploading within Europeanisation. See, Ladrech, R. (2004), p. 64, ‘Europeanization and the Member States’, in M. Green Cowles and D. Dinan (eds) (2004), Developments in the European Union: 2 (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 47–64. 24. Ladrech, R. (1994), p. 69, ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: the Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/ 1: 69–88. 25. Börzel, T. A. (2003), ‘Shaping and taking EU Policies: Member State Responses to Europeanization’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation, No. 2/2003. 26. Koenig-Archibugi explains government preferences on institutional change in CFSP by the analysis of four central factors: relative power capabilities, foreign policy interests, Europeanised identities and domestic multilevel governance structures. Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004), ‘Explaining Government Preferences for Institutional Change in EU Foreign and Security Policy’, International Organization, 58/1: 137–174. This study factors in these four cri- teria to its analysis of German participation in the development of CFSP. 27. Dunleavy, P. (1991), Democracy, Bureaucracy and Public Choice, (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf). Russell Holden has charted the development of the Labour Party’s European Policy in these terms. See, Holden, R. (2002), The Making of New Labour’s European Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave). For an analysis of how Member States contribute to the bottom-up aspect of Europeanisation, see also, Beyers, J. and Trondal, J. (2003), ‘How Nation-States “hit” Europe: Ambiguity and Representation in the European Union’, European Integration Online Papers (EIOP), 7/5, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/ 2003-005.pdf 28. Bomberg, E. and Peterson, J. (2000), ‘Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heineken test?’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation No.2/2000, Queen’s University, Belfast. 29. Moravcsik, A. (1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Moravcsik, A. (1993), ‘Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31: 473–524. 30. On this point see, Majone, G. (1989), Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process (New Haven: Yale University Press). 31. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), 325–425. 32. However, Smith has noted some aspects of a legal order creeping into the CFSP process – Smith, M. E. (2001), ‘Diplomacy by Decree: The Legalization of EU Foreign Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/1: 79–104. See also, Tilikainen, T. (2001), ‘To Be or Not To Be?: An Analysis of the Legal and Political Elements of Statehood in the EU’s External Identity’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 6: 223–241. 33. Moravcsik, A. (1993), ‘Armaments Among Allies: European Weapons Collaboration, 1975–1985’, in P. B. Evans, H. K. Jacobson and R. D. Putnam 204 Notes

(eds) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp.128–168. 34. For example, Wincott, D. (1995), ‘Institutional Interaction and European Integration: Towards an Everyday Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 33: 597–609; Forster, A. (1998), ‘Britain and the Negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty: A Critique of Liberal Intergovernmentalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36/3: 347–368. 35. Aggestam, L. (2004), ‘Role Identity and the Europeanisation of Foreign Policy: A Political-Cultural Approach’, in B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds) (2004), Rethinking European Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 81–98; Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske Budrich); Torreblanca, J. I. (2001). ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo. However, Irondelle paints a more explicit picture of the mechanisms through which Europeanisation occurs. See, Irondelle, B. (2003), ‘Europeanization Without the European Union? French Military Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/2: 208–226 and Rieker, P. (2004), ‘Europeanization of Nordic Security: The European Union and the Changing Security Identities of the Nordic States’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39/4: 369–392. 36. For example, Lübkemeier, E. (1997), ‘Europäisierung der NATO?’, Die Neue Gesellschaft, Frankfurter Hefte, 44/1: 16–21. 37. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’ in Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–425. 38. Smith, M. E. (2000) ‘Conforming to Europe: the Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Cooperation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4, pp. 613–631. Smith concentrates on European Political Co-operation in this article but the classifications of adaptation which he employs have relevance for CFSP. 39. Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press). 40. Olsen, J. P. (2002), p. 936, ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/5: 921–952. 41. Haftendorn, H. (2001), Deutsche Außenpolitik zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehauptung, (Stüttgart und München: DVA Verlag). 42. Ibid. 43. Indeed Hellmann describes Germany’s participation in Europe as a ‘symbi- otic relationship’ (eine symbiothische Beziehung) Hellmann, G. (2002), ‘Deutschland in Europa: Eine symbiothische Beziehung’, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, December 2002, B48/2002: 24–31. 44. An exception is, Irondelle, B. (2003), ‘Europeanization without the European Union? French Military Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/2: 208–226. Irondelle outlines indirect pressures, institutional mediations, socialisation and learning as the three key mechanisms of Europeanisation in Notes 205

his study of French military doctrine. Yet, this study focuses on domestic adaptation and not on the ability of the nation-state to influence policy development. 45. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2004), ‘The Logic of Appropriateness’, Arena Working Paper, WP04/09, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf. See also, their landmark work, March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press). 46. Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/ 4: 613–631. See also, Smith, M. E. (2004), ‘Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Co-operation’, European Journal of International Relations, 10/1: 95–136; Smith, M. E. (2004), Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Co-operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 47. See, Checkel, J. T. (1999), ‘Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43/1: 83–114. Checkel highlights the importance of ‘norm diffusion’ as part of this socialisation/social learning process. On the conditions for the successful acceptance of a norm, Kratochwil states, ‘The decisive criterion is whether direct communication takes places among the parties in regard to the norm, or whether its operation is unilaterally inferred or imputed from each others’ actions’, see, Kratochwil, F. (1989), p. 55, Rules, Norms and decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 48. Hill, C. (2003), The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 262–268. 49. The final aspect of exaggerated multilateralism/institution building draws on Nina Phillipi’s concept of ‘salami tactics’ where Germany seeks to achieve policy objectives with small, incremental steps. Philippi, N. (1997), Bundeswehr-Auslandseinsätze als außen- und sicherheitspolitisches Problem des geeinten Deutschland (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang Verlag); Philippi, N. (2001), Civilian Power and War: The German Debate About out-of-Area Operations’, in S. Harnisch and H. W. Maull (eds) Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 49–67. 50. See, Hayes–Renshaw, F. and Wallace, H. (1996), The Council of Ministers, (Basingstoke: Macmillan); Tallberg, J. (2003), ‘The Agenda-shaping Powers of the EU Council Presidency’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/1: 1–19. 51. See, Larsen, H. (1997), Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe (London: Routledge); Larsen, H. (2004), ‘Discourse Analysis in the Study of European Foreign Policy’, in B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds) Rethinking European Union foreign policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 62–80. Also Howorth, J. (2004), ‘Discourse, Ideas and Epistemic Communities in European Security and Defence Policy’, West European Politics, 27/2: 211–234. 52. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. 206 Notes

53. Genscher, H.-D. (1998), Rebuilding a House Divided (New York: Broadway Books). 54. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), p. 44, The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community, (London: Allen and Unwin). Musterknabe can also have the connotation of ‘swat’ or of being ‘out of touch with reality’, which is illuminating the dichotomous attitude often displayed by Germany in CFSP affairs. Interview with German Civil Servant, Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin, 7 July 2003. 55. Siwert-Probst, J. (2001), p. 19, ‘Traditional Institutions of Foreign Policy’, in W.-D. Eberwein and K. Kaiser (eds) Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision- making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 19–37. 56. For more information on the role and organisation of the German Foreign Ministry, see, Brandt, E. and Buck, C. (2002), Auswärtiges Amt: Diplomatie als Beruf, 2. Auflage (Opladen: Leske Budrich). 57. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003) ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp Between Transformation and Accommodation’, Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. 58. A Spiegelabteilung is effectively a department which amongst its tasks is to monitor the work of another ministry – the European Department in the Chancellery is perhaps the best example of this in monitoring the work of other ministries involved in European affairs, notably the Auswärtiges Amt. Discussion with a researcher in the House of Commons, London, July 2003. 59. Treaty on European Union, Title V, Article J.4.1, ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.’ 60. See, Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen and Unwin); Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72: 9–32; Bulmer, S., Maurer, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2001), ‘The European Policy Machinery in the Bonn Republic: Hindrance or Handmaiden?’, German Politics, 10/1: 177–206; Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-Sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press); Johnson, N. (1983), State and Government in the Federal Republic of Germany: The Executive at Work, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Derlien, H.-U. (2000), ‘Failing Successfully?’, in K. Kassim, B. G. Peters and V. Wright (eds) The National Co-ordination of EU Policy: The Domestic Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 54–78; Maurer, A. and Wessels, W. (2001), ‘The German Case: A key Moderator in a Competitive Multi-level Environment’, in H. Kassim, A. Menon, B. G. Peters and V. Wright (eds) The National Co- ordination of EU Policy: The European Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 101–128. 61. Kassim, H. (2001) ‘Representing the United Kingdom in Brussels: The Fine Art of Positive Co-Ordination’, in Kassim, H., Menon, A., Peters, B. G. and Wright, V. (eds) The National Co-Ordination of EU Policy: The European Level (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 47–74. Notes 207

62. Interview in the Europa Abteilung (Abteilung V), Kanzleramt, Berlin, 8 July 2003. 63. Axel Lüdeke also makes the important distinction between constitutive and operative policy in German CFSP. Lüdeke, A. (2002) ‘Europäisierung’ der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik?: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam, (Opladen: Leske und Budrich). 64. Interviews in the Ständige Vertretung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Brussels 2nd and 3rd July 2003. Maurer and Wessels pinpoint the ineffective- ness of Germany’s Permanent Representation to the European Union as being down to difficulties arising from the vertical and horizontal diffusion of power in Germany which is out of step with the policy-making style in Brussels. Maurer, A. and Wessels, W. (2000), ‘Die Ständige Vertretung Deutschlands bei der EU – Scharnier im administrativen Mehrebenensystem’, in B. Kohler-Koch and M. Knodt (Hrsg.) Deutschland zwischen Europäisierung und Selbstbehauptung (Frankfurt/Main: Campus), pp. 293–324. 65. Interview with German diplomat, Ständige Vertretung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Brussels, 3rd July 2003. See, Table 1. 66. Wallace, H. and Wallace, W. (1996), p. 427, Policy-making in the European Union, 3rd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 67. Interview with German diplomat, Ständige Vertretung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 3 July 2003. Interview with British diplomat, UKREP, Brussels, 30th June 2003. 68. Cited in Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), p. 202, The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Macmillan). 69. See, Figure 3. 70. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), p. 78, Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press). 71. Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capabilities-expectations Gap or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328. See also, Hill, C. (1998), ‘Closing the Capabilities-expectation Gap?’, in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge); Ginsberg, R. H. (1999), ‘Conceptualizing the European Union as an International Actor: Narrowing the Capability-Expectations Gap’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37/3: 429–454. 72. Smith, M. (2001), p. 297, ‘The EU as an International Actor’, in J. Richardson (ed.) European Union: Power and Policy-making (London: Routledge), pp. 283–301. See also, Elgstöm, O. and Smith, M. (eds) (2001), ‘Negotiation and Policy-making in the European Union: Process, System, Order’, Special Issue of the Journal of European Public Policy, 7/5. 73. Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capability-expectations Gap, or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328. 74. As Joachim Bitterlich stated, ‘It can no longer be the case that some EU Member States benefit from the military status of others’, cited in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Schengen eine Katastrophe – eine gemeinsame Außenpolitik gibt es nicht’, 9 October 1995. 208 Notes

1 Germany, the European Community and the Challenges of the End of the Cold War

1. Smith, M. E. (2003), p. 176, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 2. Anderson, J. (1997), ‘Hard interests, Soft Power, and Germany’s Changing Role in Europe’, in P. Katzenstein (ed.) Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), pp. 80–107. 3. Garton-Ash, T. (1993), p. 262, In Europe’s Name (London: Vintage). 4. Anderson, J. and Goodman, J. (1993), ‘Mars or Minerva? A United Germany in a Post-Cold War Europe’, in R. Keohane, J. Nye and S. Hoffmann (eds) After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). 5. Wallace, W. (1983), p. 10, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European policy’, in C. Hill (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Allen and Unwin): 1–16. 6. Ifestos, P. (1987), p. 285, European Political Cooperation: Towards a Framework for Supranational Diplomacy (Adershot: Avebury). 7. Remmert, M. (1994), p. 24, Westeuropäische Zusammenarbeit in der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag). 8. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72/1: 9–32. 9. Hedetoft, U. cited in, Aggestam, L. (1999), ‘Role Conceptions and The Politics of Identity in Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Paper 99/8, http://www.sv.uio.no/ arena/publications/wp99_8.htm 10. Becher, K. (2004), p. 404, ‘German Forces in International Military Operations’, Orbis, 48/3: 397–408. 11. Preamble to the Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (The Brussels Treaty) Brussels, 17 March 1948. 12. Fursdon, E. (1980), The European Defence Community: A History (Basingstoke: Palgrave); Ruane, K. (2000), The rise and fall of the European Defence Community (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 13. The European Defence Community Treaty, Paris, 27 May 1952, Part I, Chapter I, Article I. 14. Brombart, S. N. (1993), p. 140, ‘Uneasy Partners in Foreign Policy-Making: European Political Cooperation and the European Community’, Vierteljahresberichte, Nr.132: 139–160. 15. North Atlantic Council (1967) Ministerial Communiqué, Brussels, 13–14 December 1967, http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49–95/c671213b.htm (The Harmel Report). 16. Report on the Future Tasks of the Alliance (Harmel Report), Brussels, December 1967, paragraph 8. 17. Genscher, H.-D. (1998), p. 49, Rebuilding a House Divided (New York: Broadway Books). 18. Wallace, W. (1983), p. 5. ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European Foreign Policy’, in C. Hill (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Allen and Unwin), pp. 1–16. Notes 209

19. Soetendorp, B. (1994), p. 115, ‘The Evolution of the EC/EU as a Single Foreign Policy Actor’, in W. Carlsnaes and S. Smith (eds) European Foreign policy. The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe (London: Sage), pp. 103–119. 20. Brombart, S.-N. (1993), p. 141, ‘Uneasy Partners in Foreign Policy-Making: European Political Cooperation and the European Community’, Vierteljahresberichte, Nr.132: 139–160. 21. Wallace, W. (1983), p. 1, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European Foreign Policy’, in C. Hill (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Allen and Unwin), pp. 1–16. 22. Tsakaloyannis, P. (1996), p. 50, The European Union as a Security Community: Problems and Prospects (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft). 23. Wallace, W. (1983), p.2, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European Foreign Policy’, in C. Hill (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Allen and Unwin), pp. 1–16. 24. Tindemans, L. (1975), Report of the European Union (The Tindemans Report), 29 December 1975. 25. Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), p. 102, The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 26. Statement by Mr Giulio Andreotti, Italian Foreign Minister and President-in- Office of the Council of Ministers, before the European Parliament, 11 Jun 1985, Strasbourg, in, European Foreign Policy Bulletin Online, 85/096, http://www.arc1.iue.it/iue/efpball?nd85%2f096 27. Wallace, W. (1983), p. 2, ‘Introduction: Cooperation and Convergence in European Foreign Policy’, in C. Hill (ed.) National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Allen and Unwin): 1–16. 28. Salmon, T. (1992), ‘Testing Times for European Political Co-operation: the Gulf and Yugoslavia, 1990-1992’, International Affairs, 68/2: 233–253. 29. The London Report, 1981. 30. Solemn Declaration on European Union, 1983. 31. Nuttall, S. (1992), p. 189, European Political Cooperation (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 32. Aybet, G. (1997), p. 137, The dynamics of European Security Cooperation, 1945–91 (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Limited). 33. Nuttall, S. (1992), p. 245, European Political Cooperation (Oxford: Clarendon Press). 34. Ibid., p. 246. 35. SEA Title III, Art.30 (5) cited in Brombart, 1993, p. 139. 36. Salmon, T. (1992), p. 234. 37. Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), p. 110, The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 38. Edwards, G. and Regelsberger, E. (1990), Europe’s Global Links: The European Community and Inter-regional Co-operation (London: Pinter). 39. Wessels, W. (2002), ‘Hans Dietrich Genscher: Initiator des interregionalen Dialogs – Architekt einer Zivilmacht Europe’, in H.-D. Lucas (Hrsg.) Genscher, Deutschland und Europa (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 185–200. 40. Garton-Ash, T. (1994), In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent (London: Vintage); Jarausch, K. (1994), The Rush to German Unity (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Fritsch-Bournazel, R. (1992), Europe and German unification (Oxford: Berg); Gaddis, J. L. (1987), The Long Peace: Inquiries Into 210 Notes

the History of the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Gaddis, J. L. (1997), We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Hogan, M. (1992), The Ending of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); Westad, O. (2000), Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory (London: Frank Cass); Blacker, C. (1990), ‘The collapse of Soviet power in Europe’ Foreign Affairs, 70/1: 88–103; Kaiser, K. (1990), ‘Germany’s Unification,’ Foreign Affairs, 70/1: 179–206; Nixon, R. (1988), ‘American Foreign Policy: The Bush Agenda,’ Foreign Affairs, 68/1: 199–220. 41. Glaessner, G.-J. (1992), The Unification Process in Germany: From Dictatorship to Democracy, (London: Pinter); Anderson, J. J. and Goodman, J. B. (1993), ‘Mars or Minerva? A United Germany in a Post-Cold War Europe’, in R. O. Keohane J. S. Nye and Hoffmann, S. After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 23–62. 42. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990), ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15/1: 5–56; Layne, C. (1993), ‘The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security, 17/4: 5–51; Waltz, K. (1993), ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, 18/2: 44–79. 43. Bach, J. P. G. (1999), p. 15, Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity After 1989 (New York: Lit Verlag/St.Martin’s Press). 44. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990), ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15/1: 5–56; see also, Layne, C. (1993), ‘The Unipolar Vision: Why Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security, 17/4: 5–51; Bergner, J. T. (1991), The New Superpowers: Germany, Japan, the USA and the New World Order (New York: St. Martin’s Press); Hacke, C. (1997) Weltmacht wider Willen: Die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Ullstein). 45. Pond, E. and Schoenbaum, D. (1996), p. 179, The German Question and other German Questions (Basingstoke: Macmillan). 46. Ibid., p. 187. 47. Marcussen, M. et al. (1999), p. 624, ‘Constructing Europe? The Evolution of French, British and German Nation State Identities’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6/4: 614–33. 48. Garton-Ash, T. (1993), p. 385, In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent (London: Vintage). 49. Paterson, W. E. (1998), ‘Germany and EMU’, in Lankowski, C. (ed.) AICGS Research Report No.8, Break Out, Break Down or Break in? Germany and the European Union after Amsterdam, pp. 31–38. 50. Anderson, J. J. (1997) p. 80, ‘Hard interests, Soft Power, and Germany’s changing role in Europe’, in Katzenstein, P. (ed.) Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), pp. 80–107. 51. Ibid., pp. 81–82. 52. Garton-Ash, T. (1993) pp. 74–79, ‘Germany’s Choice’, Foreign Affairs, 73/4: 65–81. 53. Hyde-Price, A. (1997), ‘Germany’s security policy dilemmas: NATO, the WEU and the OSCE’, in, Larres, K. (ed.) Germany since unification: The domestic and external consequences (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 203–231. See also, Notes 211

Chancellor Kohl’s explicit framing of German policy within the Sowohl – als Auch’ paradigm – Kohl, H. (1992), ‘Die Bedeutung der Westeuropäischen Union für die gemeinsame Sicherheitspolitik’, Ansprache des Bundeskanzlers vor den Chefs der Generalstäbe der WEU-Staaten am 27. Januar im Bundeskanzleramt in Bonn, Bulletin, Nr.11/S.77, Bonn den.31 Januar 1992. 54. Tewes, H. (2002), Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave). In relation to the choices facing Germany in Europe Gunther Hellmann has identified five schools of thought within the debate over the future course of German foreign policy; pragmatic multilateralist, euro- peanist, euroskeptics, internationalist and normalisation-nationalists. These groupings relate to policy preferences held by policy-makers as well as, in the case of the internationalist and the normalisation-nationalists, options for the pursuit of German grand strategy. Hellmann, G. (1996), ‘Goodbye Bismarck? The foreign policy of contemporary Germany’, Mershon International Studies Review, 40/1: 1–39. 55. Marsh, D. (1995), p. 138, Germany and Europe: The Crisis of Unity (London: Mandarin). 56. Kirchner, E. J. (1996) ‘Germany and the European Union: From Junior to Senior Role’, in Smith, G., Paterson, W. E. and Padgett, S. (eds) Developments in German Politics: 2 (Houndmills: Macmillan), pp. 156–172. 57. Pedersen, T. (1998), France, Germany and The Integration of Europe: A Realist Interpretation (London: Pinter). 58. Schmidt, M. (2003), Political Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 59. See, Wessels, W. (1992), ‘Staat und (westeuropäische) Integration. Die Fusionsthese’, in Kreile, M. (Hrsg.) Die Integration Europas, PVS-Sonderheft 23, Opladen, S. 36–61. 60. Prince, M. K. (1995), p. 3, ‘Germany, Europe and the Dilemma of Democratic Legitimation’, Aussenpolitik, 1/95: 3–13. 61. Bulmer, S. (1997), p. 49, ‘Shaping the rules? The constitutive politics of the European Union and German power’, in Katzenstein, P. (ed.) Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), pp. 49–79. 62. Ibid., pp. 14–15. 63. VonWeizäcker, R. (1990), cited in, Joffe, J. (1990), p. 84, ‘The Security implications of a United Germany’, in America’s role in a changing world, Part II, Adelphi Paper No. 257, IISS 32 Annual Conference Papers, pp. 84–91. 64. Genscher, H.-D. (1998), pp. 471–486. 65. Ibid. 66. Speech to the Bundestag by Foreign Minister Genscher, 23 August 1990, cited in, Genscher, H.-D. (1998), p. 474. 67. Crawford, B. (1996), ‘Explaining defection from international cooperation – Germany’s unilateral recognition of Croatia’, World Politics, 48/4: 482–521. 68. Ginsberg, R. H. (2001), p. 28, The European Union in International Politics: Baptism by Fire (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield). 69. Schoenbaum, D. and Pond, E. (1996), p. 178, The German question and other German questions (Houndmills: Macmillan Press). 70. Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), p. 748, The Road to Maastricht (Oxford: Oxford University). 212 Notes

71. For example, Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Mazzucelli, C. (1997) France and Germany at Maastricht (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.). 72. Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), p. 751, The Road to Maastricht (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 73. VanEvera, S. (1990/1991), ‘Primed for Peace: Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, 15/3: 7–57. 74. Smith, M. E. (2003), p. 179, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalization of Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 75. For an examination of issue linkage and bargaining within the European integration process see, Huelshoff, M. G. (1994) ‘Domestic Politics and Dynamic Issue Linkage: A Reformulation of Integration Theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 38/2: 255–279. 76. Buzan, B. and Waever, O. (2003), p. 362, Regions and Powers: The structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 77. Kohl and Mitterrand’s leadership was also vital in negotiations surrounding EMU. As Dyson and Featherstone state, ‘Kohl and Mitterrand sought to escape the confines of EMU as negotiated by bureaucracies and constrained by bureaucratic politics and to focus on the big issues of creating a viable European structure to ensure a stable peace order in the wake of German unification. Without this political leadership, agreement would have proved protracted and quite possibly elusive’, in Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999) p. 757, The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Economic and Monetary Union (Oxford University Press). 78. Soetendorp, B. (1993), ‘The Evolution of the EC/EU as a Single Foreign Policy Actor’ in Carlsnaes, W. and Smith, S. (eds) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe (London: Sage), pp. 103–119; Hurd, D. (1994), ‘Developing the Common Foreign and Security Policy’ (in Setting an Agenda) International Affairs, 70/3: 421–428. 79. Gnesotto, N. (1991), ‘European Defence: Why not the Twelve?’, Chaillot Paper No.1, http://www.iss-eu.org/; Smith, M. and Woolcock, S. (1993), The United States and the European Community in a transformed World (London: Pinter); Regelsberger, E., De Schoutheete de Tervarent, P. and Wessels, W. (1997), ‘From EPC to CFSP: Does Maastricht Push the EU Toward a Role as a Global Power?’ in Regelsberger, E., De Schoutheete de Tervarent, P. and Wessels, W. (eds) Foreign Policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP and Beyond (London: Lynne Rienner); Sloan, S. R. (1990), ‘NATO’s future in a new Europe,’ International Affairs, 66/3; Ullman, R. (1990), ‘Enlarging the zone of peace,’ Foreign Policy, No. 80; Ullman, R. (1991), Securing Europe (London: Adamantime); Meuller, J. (1989), ‘A New Concert of Europe,’ Foreign Policy, No. 77, 1989–1990; Kupchan, C. and Kupchan, C. (1991), ‘Concerts, Collective Security and the Future of Europe,’ International Security, 16/1: 114–161. 80. Fink-Hooijer, F. (1994), ‘The Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union’, European Journal of International Law, 5/2: 1–26. 81. See, Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the cusp between Accommodation and Transformation’, in Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy 119/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. Smith argues, however, that over the course of the development Notes 213

of European foreign policy, aspects of legalisation have emerged. See Smith, M. E. (2001), ‘Diplomacy by Decree: The Legalization of EU Foreign Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/1: 79–104. 82. Fink-Hooijer, F. (1994) p. 9. Guidelines for Joint Actions were not outlined until the Lisbon Summit 26–27 June 1992 under the so-called ‘Lisbon goals’. See, Annexe I ‘Report to the European Council in Lisbon on the likely development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) with a view of identifying areas open to joint action vis-à-vis particular countries or groups of countries’, Conclusions of the Presidency, European Council, Lisbon, 26–27 June 1992, http://www.europarl.eu.int/summits/lisbon/li2_en.pdf. The Lisbon goals included strengthening democracy and human rights, help- ing establish economic and political stability in a region or state, conflict prevention, co-operating in international emergency situations, building on existing international co-operation in counter-terrorism, anti-drug traffick- ing and arms proliferation and promoting and supporting good government. See also, Regelsberger, E. and Wessels, W. (1996), ‘The CFSP Institutions and Procedures: A Third Way for the Second Pillar’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 1/1: 29–54. 83. Duke, S. (1996), ‘The Second Death (or Second coming) of the WEU?’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 34/1: 167–190. 84. North Atlantic Council (1991), ‘The Rome Declaration on Peace and Co- operation’, Press Communiqué S-1(91) 86 Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Rome 8th Nov. 1991, http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49–95/c911108a.htm; The Economist (1991), ‘Of Bridges, Pillars and Canals’, 9 February 1991. 85. Gnesotto, N. (1992), ‘European Union after Minsk and Maastricht’ (in European Union) International Affairs, 68/2: 223–231; Taylor, T. (1994), ‘West European Security and Defence Cooperation: Maastricht and Beyond’ (in Securing Europe) International Affairs, 70/1: 1–16. For a discussion of linkage politics see, Lohmann, S. (1997) ‘Linkage Politics’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41/1, New Games: Modeling Domestic-International Linkages, pp. 38–67. 86. Hort, P. (1991), ‘Der Golf-Krieg entzweit die Europäer’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 Janurary 1991. 87. For an excellent study of the interaction between Genscher and Kohl in foreign policy see, Fröhlich, S. (2001), “Auf der Kanzler kommt es an”: Helmut Kohl und die deutsche Außenpolitik, Schöningh, Paderborn. 88. DPA ‘Golfkrieg/Bundesrepublik: Genscher für “tiefgreifende Eingriffe” gegen Waffenexport, 27 January 1991. (bas 150 3 pl 308 vvvvb dpa 126) dpa cg 271224 Jan 91 nnnn. 89. DPA Bundestag/Regierungserklärung: Kohl: Für die Deutschen keine Nische inder Weltpolitik – Regierungsziele: Einheitliche Lebensverhältnisse – Politische Union, 30 January 1991, (bas150 3 pl 360 vvvvb dpa 132). 90. Ibid. 91. DPA Bundestag/Regierungserklärung: (Kohl drei und Schluß) – Rechtstaaliche Bewältigung der SED Vergangenheit, 30 January 1991, (bas 177 3 pl 445 vvvvb dpa 160 zu 132). 92. Baun, M. J. (1995–1996), ‘The Maastricht Treaty as High Politics: Germany, France, and European Integration’, Political Science Quarterly, 110/4: 605–624. 214 Notes

93. DPAEG/Außenminister: Bonn und Paris starten Initiative für EG Sicherheitspolitik, 4 February 1991, (bas291 3 317 vvvvb dpa 267) 041439 Feb 1991. 94. Ibid. 95. Interview with a former British Foreign Secretary, 14 May 2002. 96. DPAEG/Sicherheitspolitik: Parteien begrüßen Initiative zur europäische Sicherheitspolitik, 5 February 1991, (bas261, 4 pl 215 vvvvb dpa 239). 97. Germany proposed the creation of an agency for arms control, arms export control and economic aspects of security as a means to reduce German exposure to national differences in arms export rules. See, Kremp, H. (1991), ‘Doch ein Sonderweg’, Die Welt, 16 February 1991. 98. Ibid. 99. Klepsche, E. A. (1991), ‘Die Politische Union voranbringen: Rechtuend Konpetenzen des Europäischen Parlaments stärken, Deutschland-Union- Dienst, Nr.26, 45.Jhrg, 6 February 1991, p. 2. 100. Kremp, H. (1991), ‘Doch ein Sonderweg’, Die Welt, 16 February 1991. 101. Handelsblatt (1991), ‘EG/Die Diskussion um den Ausbau zur Politischen Union gewinnt klarere Konturen: Westeuropäische Union und Kontrollen für Rüstungsexporte rücken ins Blickfeld’, 21. Februar 1991. 102. Interview with former British Foreign Secretary, 14 May 2002. 103. Handelsblatt (1991), ‘EG/Die Diskussion um den Ausbau zur Politischen Union gewinnt klarere Konturen: Westeuropäische Union und Kontrollen für Rüstungsexporte rücken ins Blickfeld’, 21. Februar 1991. 104. SüddeutscheZeitung (1991), ‘Neues Konzept für WEU’ 28 March 1991. 105. DPA, (1991), ‘Kohl und Major bekräftigen Ziel der europäischen Union – Unterschiede in Verteidigungsfragen – Hilfe für Gorbatschow’, bas446 3 pl324, vvvvb dpa 441, 21 March 1991. 106. Hadler, W. (1991), ‘Die “Vereinigten Staaten von Europa” im Visier: Nur die Briten zieren sich’, Die Welt, 17 June 1991. 107. DPA, (1991), ‘Kohl und Major bekräftigen Ziel der europäischen Union – Unterschiede in Verteidigungsfragen – Hilfe für Gorbatschow’, bas446 3 pl324, vvvvb dpa 441, 21 March 1991. 108. Ibid. 109. Hauser, E. (1991), ‘London bremst Entwicklung zur politischen Union’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 18 June 1991. 110. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (1991), ‘Den früheren Gleichklang gibt es nicht: Chirac beklagt mangelende Zusammenarbeit beim Aufbau Europas’, 3 July 1991. 111. DPA, (1991) ‘Portugal/Deutschland; ‘Genscher fordert europäische “Blau- und Grünhelme”’, 12 July 1991 (bas506 3 p1 199 vvvvb dpa 501). 112. Genscher, H.-D. (1995), p. 394, Erinnerungen, Siedler, Berlin. 113. Dregger, A. (1991), ‘Dregger zur deutschen WEU Präsidentschaft’, CDU/CSU Fraktion im deutschen Bundestag, Pressedienst, 21.6.1991. See also, Luoma- aho, M. (2004) ‘Arm Versus Pillar: The Politics of Metaphors of the Western European Union at the 1990–1991 Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 11/1: 106–127. 114. Dregger, A. (1991), p. 3. 115. For an examination of the role of Political Union in Kohl’s thinking on CFSP in the 1990s, see, Chapter 4. Notes 215

116. Kohl, H. (1991), Speech to the Bundestag, Bundestag Drucksache, Deutsche Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 53. Sitzung, 6 November 1991, S.4367C. 117. Ibid. 118. Handelsblatt (1991) ‘Konrad Adenauer Stiftung: Meinungsunterscheide zwischen Christdemokraten: Der Weg zur Europäischen Politischen Union wird steinig und langweilig sein’, 9 March 1991. 119. Johansson, K. M. (2002) ‘Another Road to Maastricht: The Christian Democrat Coalition and the Quest for European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40/3: 871–893. 120. The Schäuble-Lamers paper is one such example of this strategy. 121. For a more detailed examination of the role of the junior coalition partner in German foreign policy see, Kaarbo, J. (1996) ‘Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The role of Junior Coalition Partners in German and Israeli Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 40/4: 501–530. 122. BPA Informationsfunk, Nr.62, 15.3.1991, Bundesrepublik Deutschland/ Europa ‘Kohl: Europäische Union als Kernanliegen des Vereinten Deutschlands’, 2183d/0–1403. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. GemeinsameErklärung der Außenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher und Roland Dumas, Anläßlich ihrer Gespräche am 21.03.91 in Paris, p.27, Fernseh-/Hörfunkspiegel Ausland, Genscher/Dumas 1, AND/5102/22.03.91/ 16.47/gl, pp. 27–28. 126. The Bartholomew Telegram – reprinted in van Eekelen, W. F. (1998), Debating European Security, 1948–1998 (The Hague: SDU Publishers), Appendix II. 127. Nonnenmacher, G. (1991), ‘Die hinkende Union’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 6 April 1991. 128. European Council, (1991), Conclusions of the Presidency, Luxembourg, 28–29 June 1991, reproduced at http://www.europarl.eu.int/summits/luxembourg/ default_en.htm 129. Interview with former British Foreign Secretary, 14 May 2002. 130. Hornhues, K.–H. (1991), ‘Zum Luxemburger Entwurf für gemeinsame EG- Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik erklärt der stellvertretende Vorsitzende der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion, Prof. Dr. K-H Hornhues, MdB’, CDU/CSU Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag, Pressedienst, 16.04.1991. 131. Lederer, A. (1991), Speech to the Bundestag, Bundestag Drucksache, Deutsche Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 53. Sitzung, 6 November 1991, S.4382B. 132. Ibid S.4381D. 133. Gansel, N. (1991), ‘Speech to the Bundestag’, Bundestag Drucksache, Deutsche Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 53. Sitzung, 6 November 1991, S.4373A. 134. Wieczorek-Zeul, H. (1991), ‘Speech to the Bundestag’, Bundestag Drucksache, Deutsche Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 53. Sitzung, 6 November 1991, S.4391D. 135. Poppe, G. (1991), ‘Speech to the Bundestag’, Bundestag Drucksache, Deutsche Bundestag, 13. Wahlperiode, 53. Sitzung, 6 November 1991, S.4386C. 216 Notes

136. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003) pp. 643–644, ‘The Polls-Trends: Having it Both Ways: European Defence Integration and the Commitment to NATO’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 627–659. 137. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003) p. 646. 138. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003) pp. 652–653. 139. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003) pp. 655–656. 140. Putnam, R. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two- level Games’, International Organisation, 42/3: 427–460. See also, König, T. and Hug, S. (2000), ‘Ratifying Maastricht: Parliamentary Votes on International Treaties and Theoretical Solution Concepts’, European Union Politics, 1/1: 93–124. 141. See also, Wagner, W. (2001), Die konstruktion einer europäischen Außenpolitik: Deutsche, franzöische und britsche GASP-Politiken im Vergleich, Doctoral Dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main. 142. Hornhues, K.-H. (1992), ‘EG vor der Schaffung der Politischen Union’ Deutschland-Union-Dienst, Nr.84, 45. Jhrg, 6.5.1991, Seite 2. 143. Article 45, Basic Law; Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the cusp Between Accommodation and Transformation’, in Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy 119/ Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. 144. Sterzing, C. and Tidow, S. (2001), ‘Die Kontrolle der deutschen Europapolitik durch den EU-Ausschuss des Bundestags: Bilanz und Reformpotentiale’, in Integration, 3/1, 24.Jg., pp. 274–288. Also, interview with CDU member of the EU Committee of the Bundestag, 10 July 2001, Berlin. 145. Kohl, H. (1991), quoted in DPA ‘Kohl: Erweiterte Bundeswehreinsätze not- falls Wahlkampfthema – Polenvertrag “gewaltiger Fortschritt” – Bonner Koalition stabil’, 17 May 1991 (bas 277 3 pl 466 vvvvb dpa 934). 146. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, (1991), ‘SPD verlangt Realismus und Verantwortung in der deutschen Außenpolitik’, 15 May 1991. 147. Ibid. 148. Hänsch, K. (1991), p. 8, ‘Thema des Monats: Vor einer Reform der Europäischen Gemeinschaft’ Europa Info, Informationsdienst des Internationalen Sekretariats Nr.8/91, SPD. 149. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (1991), ‘Wie kann die Kontrolle durch die Parlamente gewahrt werden?: Anfrage der SPD zu den Verhandlungen über die Politsche Union’, 22 June 1991. 150. DPA, ‘EG/SPD: Engholm warnt vor Armutsgrenzen in Europa – EG keine Ersatz-NATO’, 4 September 1991, bas454 4 pl 239 vvvvb dpa 428. 151. DPA, ‘Modrow: Vereinigung Deutschlands kein Vorbild für Europa’, 14 June 1991 (bas216 4 pl 119 vvvvb dpa 911). 152. Ibid. 153. Gysi, G. (1992), Rede von Gregor Gysi in der Maastricht-Debatte des Bundestages am 8.10.92, Quelle: Pressebuero der PDS/LL, 09.10.1992, http://www.glasnost.de/db/Europa/92maastgysi.html 154. Interview with PDS Foreign Policy spokesperson, 11 June 2001, Berlin. Notes 217

155. Lamers, K. (1991) p. 3, ‘Unsere Ziel: Vereinigte Staaten von Europa’, Deutschland-Union-Dienst, Nr.112, 45.Jhrg, 1.6.1991. 156. See, ‘Prioritäten der EVP-Fraktion für die Regierungskonferenzen’, Europa im Blickfeld, 7. Ausgabe, 28 August 1991, pp. 25–27. 157. CDU Pressemitteilung (1991) p.1, ‘Rühe: Union Europas braucht eine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik’, Bonn, 13 September 1991. 158. Ibid., p. 2. 159. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (1992), ‘Lambsdorff auch für WEU-Einsätze’, 24 April 1992. 160. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (1992), ‘Deutliche Kritik an Lafontaines Ansichten zu Europa’, 7 March 1992. 161. Präsidiumder SPD (1992), ‘Mitteilung für die Presse: Zu den Verträgen von Maastricht hat das Präsidium der SPD die folgende Erklärung verabschiedet’ Presseservice der SPD, Bon, den 9. März 1992, Nr.162/92. 162. Schäuble, W. (1992), p. 2, ‘Ohne Europa gibt es keine Sicherheit: Keine Pause im europäischen Einigungsprozeß’, Deutschland-Union-Dienst, Nr.38, 46. Jhrg, 26 February 1992. 163. Rattinger, H. (1994), ‘Public Attitudes to European Integration in Germany after Maastricht: Inventory and Typology’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/4, pp. 525–540. 164. Piepenschneider, M. (1995), p. 353, ‘Deutsche Einheit als Motor der europäischen Einigung: Deutschlands Weg nach Europa’, in Altenhof, R. and Jesse, E. (Hrsg.) Das wiedervereinigte Deutschland: Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven, Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf. 165. Baring, A. (ed.) (1994) Germany’s new position in Europe (Oxford: Berg); Janning, J. (1996) ‘A German Europe – a European Germany’, International Affairs, 72/1: 33–41; Schöllgen, G. (1993) Angst vor der Macht. Die Deutschen und ihre Außenpolitik (Berlin: Ullstein); Senghaas, D. (1993) ‘Was sind der deutsche Interessen?’ Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Nr.38 Heft 6. 166. Layne has argued that the rise of Japan and Germany as great powers is inevitable. Layne, C. (1993), ‘Primacy and Its Discontents The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise’, International Security, 17/4: 5–51. 167. Mazzucelli, C. (1997), p. 137, France and Germany at Maastricht: Politics and Negotiations to Create the European Union (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.). 168. Guérin-Sendelbach, V. (1999), pp. 136–142, Frankreich und das vereinigte Deutschland: Interessen und Perzeptionen im Spannungsfeld, Leske und Budrich, Opladen, 1999. 169. Moravcsik, A (1999), The Choice for Europe: Social purpose and State power from Messina to Maastricht (London: UCL Press Ltd.), pp. 384–385.

2 Reforming the Common Foreign and Security Policy

1. Hill, C. and Smith, K. E. (eds) (2000), p. 168, European Foreign Policy: Key Documents (London: Routledge). See also, Hill, C. (1998) ‘Closing the Capabilities-expectations Gap’, in, J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 18–38. 218 Notes

2. Kohl, K. (1996), ‘Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl hielt beim VI. Europäischen Bankenkongreß am 22. November 1996, in, der Alten Oper in Frankfurt am Main folgende Rede’, Bulletin Nr.99, 5th December 1996, Bulletin 2003: Bulletin 1996–2003, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, CD- ROM; Hoyer, W. (1997), ‘Der Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, Dr. Werner Hoyer, hielt bei dem Niedersächsischen Rat der Europäischen Bewegung am 28. Januar 1997 in Hannover folgenden Vortrag’, Bulletin, Nr.9, 30th January 1997, Bulletin 2003: Bulletin 1996–2003, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, CD-ROM. 3. Bonvicini, G. (1998), p. 70, ‘Making European Foreign Policy Work’, in M. Westlake (ed.) The European Union beyond Amsterdam: New Concepts of European Integration (London: Routledge), pp. 61–75. 4. Edwards, G. (1992), ‘European Responses to the Yugoslav Crisis: An Interim Assessment’, in R. Rummel (ed.) Toward Political Union (Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft), pp. 165–190; Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capabilities- Expectations Gap or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328. Schäuble, W. and Lamers, K. (1994), Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik, 1 September 1994, reproduced at http://www.cdu.de/ 5. Fella, S. (1999), ‘The 1996/97 Intergovernmental Conference and the Treaty of Amstedam – a thwarted reform’, South Bank European Papers, 1/99, http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/cibs/european-institute-papers/papers1/199.PDF; Weiler, J. (1997), ‘Editorial: Amsterdam, Amsterdam’, European Law Journal, 3/4: 309–312. 6. Schlußfolgerungendes Vorsitzes des Europäischen Rates, in, Korfu vom 24./25. Juni 1994, Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung Nr. 73 vom 4. August 1994; Cohen, M. D., March, J. D. and Olsen, J. P. (1972), ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 1–25; For the application of the ‘garbage can’ model to EMU and its relationship to Political Union, see, Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), pp. 28–33, The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Economic and Monetary Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 7. Presidency Conclusions (1994) Section IV, Preparations for the Intergovernmental Conference 1996, European Council at Corfu, 24–25 June 1994, http://www.europarl.eu.int/summits/cor1_en.htm#igc 8. Article II paragraph 4 outlined the so-called Petersberg Tasks of ‘humanitarian and rescue tasks; peacekeeping tasks; tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking’. Western European Union Council of Ministers (1992) Petersberg Declaration, 19 June 1992, reprinted at, http://www.weu.int/; Murray, I. (1992), ‘Bonn Pact Allows Peace Role for European Armies’, The Times, 20 June 1992. 9. Jopp, M. (1999), p. 40, ‘Germany and the Western European Union’, in C. Lankowski and S. Serfaty (eds) Europeanizing Security: NATO and an Integrating Europe, AICGS Research Report No.9: 35–52, http://www.aicgs.org/Publications/ PDF/weu.pdf. The Lisbon Declaration also added greater detail to the CFSP in the sphere of ‘joint actions’, Report to the European Council on the Likely Development of the Common Foreign and Security Council (CFSP) with a view to Identifying areas open to Joint Action vis-à-vis Particular countries or groups of countries, Lisbon, 26–27 June 1992, reprinted, in C. Hill and Notes 219

K. E. Smith (2000), European Foreign Policy: Key Documents (London: Routledge), pp. 162–168. 10. See, Eurocorps Website, http://www.eurocorps.org/site/index.php?language en&contenthistory; Wassenberg, P. (1999), Das Eurokorps: sicherheit- srechtliches Umfeld und völkerrechtliche Bedeutung eines multinationalen Grossverbands (Baden-Baden: Nomos). 11. For ESDI, see, Press Communiqué M-NAC-2 (96) 165 held at NATO HQ Brussels 10 December 1996, http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1996/p96–063e.htm; for CJTF, see also, Final Communiqué of the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, M-NAC-1(96)63, 3 June 1996, http://www.nato.int/docu/ pr/1996/p96–063e.htm; Final Communiqué of the Defence Planning Committee and Nuclear Planning Group in Ministerial Session, M-DPC/ NPG-1(94)38, Brussels, 24 May. http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49–95/ c940524a.htm; Statement issued at the Meeting of the Defence Ministers M-DPC/NPG-1(94)39, 25 May 1994, Brussels, http://www.nato.int/docu/ comm/49–95/c940525a.htm. 12. Cameron, F. (1998), p. 61, ‘Building a Common Foreign Policy: Do Institutions Matter?’, in, J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 59–76. 13. Dalton, R. (ed.) (1996), Germans Divided: The 1994 Bundestagswahl and the Evolution of the German Party System (Oxford: Berg); Phillips, A. L. (1995), ‘An Island of Stability – The German Political Party System and the Elections of 1994’, in West European Politics, 18/3: 219–229. 14. Palmer, J. (1994), ‘Bonn Plans Brisk EU Programme: Germany’s Priorities are Environmental and Social Issues’, The Guardian, 4 July 1994. 15. Kinkel, K. (1994), p. 20779D, ‘Speech to the Bundestag on the Agenda for the German Council Presidency’, Bundestag, Bonn, 29 June 1994, Drucksache, 237. Sitzung, 12. Wahlperiode. 16. European Council (1994), Presidency Conclusions Essen Summit, 9–10 December 1994, Bulletin of the European Communities, No.12/1994; Marshall, A. (1994), ‘The Essen Summit: EU faces tough truths at summit’, The Independent, 9 December 1994; Boyes, R. (1994), ‘Lame-duck Leaders Held Hostage by Domestic Agendas’, The Times, 10 December 1994; Bundesregierung (1994), 54. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die Integration der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in die Europäischen Union (Berichtszeitraum 1. Januar bis 30. Juni 1994), 8 December 1994, Bundesrat Drucksache, 1099/94. 17. Kinkel, K. (1994), p. 631B, Speech to the Bundesrat on the results of the German Council Presidency, Drucksache, 678. Sitzung, German Bundesrat, Bonn, 16 December 1994. 18. Larres, K. (2004), ‘ “Bloody as Hell”: Bush, Clinton and the Abdication of American Leadership in the Former Yugoslavia, 1990–1995’, Journal of European Integration History, 10/1: 179–202; McAllister, R. (1997), From EC to EU: An Historical and Political Survey (London: Routledge), pp. 233–234. 19. Schäuble, W. and Lamers, K. (1994), Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik, CDU/CSU Bundestag Fraction, 1 September 1994, http://www.wolfgang- schaeuble.de/positionspapiere/schaeublelamers94.pdf; Confidential Interview with Bundestag member, 10 September 2001. 20. Ibid. 220 Notes

21. Duke, S. (1996), ‘The Second Death (or the Second Coming) of the WEU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36/2: 167–190. 22. Boyes, R. and Bremner, C. (1994), ‘Balladur Softens Kohl’s Version of Hard- core Europe’, The Times, 8 September 1994. 23. Central to this federal project was the Franco-German core. See, Schäuble, W. (1994), ‘Deutsche und französische Konzeptionen für die institutionelle Zukunft der Europäischen Union’, Speech to the European Movement of France colloquium, 21st December 1994, Paris, CDU/CSU Fraktion im deutschen Bundestag Pressedienst, Nr.11436, 21st December 1994. 24. Herzog, R. (1995), p. 31, ‘The Globalization of German Foreign Policy is Inevitable’, Speech to the German Society for Foreign Affairs, March 13, 1995, reprinted in Roman Herzog: Lessons from the past and visions for the future, German Issues, No.18, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, pp. 26–39. 25. Clarke, B. (1995), ‘Each State for Itself’, Financial Times, 6 January 1995. 26. Blair backed, ‘new ways to give reality to joint military forces, while remain- ing within the “crucial” NATO alliance’, Brown, K. (1995), ‘Labour Leader Backs Full Role for Britain in Europe’, Financial Times, 11 January 1995. Within Germany, Blair was seen as a potential hope for Europe by improving the UK’s contribution to the European project, see, for example, Nonnenmacher, G. (1996), ‘Kleine Brötchen für Europa’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 November 1996. 27. Kornblum, J. (1995), ‘Speech by John Kornblum, the State Department’s Senior Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Canadian Affairs, 30 January 1995 at the Opening of NATO’s Annual Seminar on Alliance Public Opinion’, USA Embassy, Brussels, Newsbrief, 1 February 1995. 28. Berichtdes Rates über das Funktionieren des Vertrages über die Europäische Union vom 6. April 1995. 29. Entschließungdes Europäischen Parlamentes über das Funktionieren des Vertrages über die Europäische Union vom 17. Mai 1995, ABl. der EG, C 151 vom 19. Juni 1995. 30. Stürmer, M. (2001), ‘Europa – An Open Relationship’, Financial Times, 27 January 2001. 31. Bellamy, C. (1995), ‘Defence Memo Outlines UK’s Euro-strategy’, The Independent, 2 March 1995. 32. Clarke, B. (1995), ‘Hurd Rejects Idea of European Army’, Financial Times, 1 March 1995. 33. Schäuble, W. (1995), ‘Germany’s Vision of Europe’, The Wall Street Journal Europe, 15 March 1995. 34. Mortimer, E. and Buchan, D. (1995), ‘Balladur Makes Plea for a European Defence Force’, Financial Times, 21 March 1995. 35. Münchau, W. (1995), ‘Santer Seeks Right to Shape Foreign Policy for Europe’, The Times, 22 March 1995. 36. Atlantic News (1995), ‘Dutch Proposals on CFSP’, 20 April 1995. 37. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 76–77. 38. Kempe, F. (1995), ‘A Peek Inside Germany’s Vision for Europe’, Wall Street Journal Europe, 25 April 1995. Notes 221

39. See, Lim, J. H. (2000) p. 70, Die Weiterentwicklung der gemeinsamen Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Europäischen Union unter besonderer Brücksichtigung der Haltung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1995–1999) (München: Hertbert Utz Verlag). 40. FrankfurterAllegemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Vor Maastricht II eine deutsch-franzö- sische Inititative: Bonn und Paris woollen der Regierungskonferenz den Weg weisen – Vorschlag mit drei Säulen’ 9 October 1995. 41. Deubner, C. (1995), Deutsche Europapolitik: Von Maastricht nach Kerneuropa? (Baden-Baden: Nomos). 42. Dregger, A. (1995), ‘Ein transatlantische Vertrag ist nötig’, Die Welt, 2 February 1995. Volker Rühe also called for the creation of a transatlantic ‘problem solving community’ as part of a reinvigorated ‘Atlantic Community’, in, Frankenberger, K-D. (1995), ‘Eine breitere Brücke über den Atlantic’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 10 February 1995. This sentiment was echoed by Malcom Rifkind on taking office as Foreign Secretary and stating there was a real need for the creation of an ‘Atlantic community’, see, Financial Times (1995), ‘Rifkind in search of an Atlantic Community’, 7 July 1995. 43. For Lamers especially, the centrality of the Franco-German tandem was of key importance in the IGC, see, Lamers, K. and Schockenhoff, A. (1995), ‘Gründung des Arbeitskreises Frankreich der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion zur Intensivierung der deutsch-französischen Beziehungen – Schwerpunkte der Zusammen arbeit und des Dialogs’, CDU/CSU Pressemitteilung, 9 October 1995. 44. At a CSU conference on military policy in Munich, Waigel stated that, ‘The co-ordination and decision-making procedures must be streamlined and sped-up in order to secure the presentation of the EU’s political position in the event of a crisis.’ Die Welt (1996), ‘Waigel fordert Stärkung der EU- Außenpolitik’, 21 October 1996. 45. Seiters, R. (1996), ‘Bald sind Entscheidungen fällig’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9th May 1996. 46. Norman, P. (1996), ‘Kohl looks at EU foreign policy troika’, Financial Times, 17 September 1996; Rohwedder, C. and Coleman, B. (1996), ‘German Party Rejects “Mr Europe” Idea’, The Wall Street Journal, 17 September 1996. 47. CDU Bundesfachausschuß Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (1996) ‘Die Weiterentwicklung der Gemeinsamen Außen, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik der Europäischen Union in der Regierungskonferenz 1996’, 16 September 1996. 48. See, Philippi, N. (2001), ‘Civilian Power and War: The German Debate About Out-of-Area Operations 1990–99’, in, S. Harnisch and H. W. Maull (eds) Germany as a Civilian Power: The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 49–67; Gow, D. (1992), ‘Move to take shackles off Bundeswehr’, The Guardian, 24 August 1992. 49. Fraktionder, SPD (1995) ‘Forderungen zur Reform des Vertrages von Maastricht 1996 und der Europapolitik’, Bundestag Drucksache 13/1739, 21 June 1995. 50. Ibid., p. 7. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid., p. 8. 222 Notes

53. Wieczorek-Zeul, H. and Verheugen, G (1996), Weiterentwicklung der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Europäischen Union, SPD Diskussionspapier, 9 December 1996. 54. See also, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1996), ‘Die SPD denkt über integrierte Streitkräfte in Europa nach’, 19 December 1996. 55. Kinkel, K. (1995), ‘Fünf Ziele für Europapolitik’, Die Zeit, Nr.11, 10 March 1995; Kinkel, K. (1995), ‘Speech to the Bundestag on the Upcoming Intergovernmental Conference’, 22 June 1995, 13. Wahlperiode, 44. Sitzung, Bundestag Drucksache 13/3542B. 56. Ibid., p. 13/3545B 57. Ibid. 58. The FDP security policy spokesperson for the FDP Bundestag fraction Günther Nolting, cited in, Die Welt (1995), 6 October 1995. 59. Wieczorek-Zeul, H-M. (1995) Bundestag Drucksache, 13. Wahlperiode, 44. Sitzung, 13/3549A B. 60. Ibid. 61. Sterzing, C. and der Fraktion der Bündnis, 90/ Die Grünen (1995), ‘Aktuelle Fragen der Europapolitik, insbesondere Vorschau auf die tagung des Europäischen Rates am 26/27. Juni 1995’, Bundestag Drucksache 13/1734, 21 June 1995. See also, Die Bundesregierung (1998), ‘Antwort auf die groß Anfrage der Abgeordneten Beer, A., Nachtwei, W., Sterzing, C. and der Fraktion der Bündnis, ‘90/Die Grünen (1998) Die künftige Rolle der Westeuropäischen Union’, Drucksache 13/7949, Bundestag Drucksache 13/10106, 11 March 1998. 62. Volmer, L. (1995), 59. Bundestag Sitzung, 29 September 1995, 13. Wahlperiode, 4979/D–4981/D; Volmer, L., Beer, A., Lippelt, H. and der Fraktion der Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen (1995), Neue europäische Sicherheitsarchitekteur und die Rolle der französische Atomwaffen’, Bundestag Drucksache 13/2456, 27 September 1995. 63. Die Gruppe der PDS (1995), ‘Europapolitik der Bundesregierung’, Bundestag Drucksache 13/1728, 21 June 1995. 64. Ibid. 65. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), pp. 643–644, ‘The Polls-Trends: Having it Both Ways: European Defence Integration and the Commitment to NATO’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 627–659. 66. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), p. 646. 67. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), p. 648. 68. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), pp. 652–653. 69. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1993), ‘Deutsche und Franzosen bilden Kern der Europäischen Union’, 14 October 1993. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Kohl, H. (1996), ‘Current Issues in European Policy in Light of the Summit of the European Council in Dublin on 13–14 December 1996’, Speech to the Bundestag, Bulletin, Nr.103, 16 December 1996. 73. Ibid. 74. Kohl, H. (1996), ‘Speech to the 6th European Banking congress’, 22 November 1996, Frankfurt am Main, Bulletin, Nr.99, 5 December 1996; Kohl, H. (1996), ‘Eine Partnerschaft für Europa, Bundeskanzler’, Dr. Helmut Kohl, Notes 223

Le Nouvel Observateur, Ausgabe vom 28 November 1996, Bulletin Nr.99, 5 December 1996; Hennes, M. (1997), ‘The Future of Europe: Monetary or Political Union’, Aussenpolitik, 48/1: 11–21. 75. Le Gloannec, A.-M. (1998), p. 24, ‘Embracing the “British” Vision’, in, C. Lankowski (ed.) Break Out, Break Down, or Break in?: Germany and the European Union after Amsterdam, AICGS Research Report 8: 21–30. 76. This is akin to Kohl’s role in the negotiation of EMU at Maastricht, see, Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999) The Road to Maastricht (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Kohl, H. (1996), ‘Rede des Bundeskanzlers, in, Bonn, Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl, Wirtschaftstag 1996 des Wirtschaftsrates der CDU am 13. Juni 1996’, Bulletin, Nr.56, 1 July 1996. 77. Kohl, H. (1997) Rede des Bundeskanzlers in Mannheim, Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl hielt anläßlich des 25jährigen Bestehens der SAP AG am 11. April 1997, in Mannheim, Bulletin, Nr.31, 28 April 1997. 78. See, Paterson, W. E. (1993), pp. 153–154, ‘The Chancellor and Foreign Policy’, in, S. Padgett (ed.) Adenauer to Kohl: The Development of the German Chancellorship (London: Hurst), pp. 127–156; Hanns, W. Maull also points to Kinkel’s lack of success in influencing Germany’s foreign policy direction at this time reflected in the influence of the Kanzleramt under Kohl; Maull, H. W. (1997) p. 1248, ‘Quo vadis, Germania?: Außenpolitik in einer Welt des Wandels’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, 10: 1245–1256. 79. Kinkel, K. (1996), ‘Speech at the German-American Chamber of Commerce, 27 February 1996, in, Stuttgart’, Bulletin, Nr.17, 28 February 1996; see also, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Kinkel will Reform die EU- Außenpolitik: Der deutsch-französische Motor stottert nicht’, 13 October 1995. 80. Kinkel, K. (1996), Speech to the European Forum, Alpbach, Austria, 28 August 1996, Bulletin, Nr.68, 3 September 1996. 81. FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Kinkel fordert “Runderneuerung” der EU’, 22 February 1995. 82. Nonnenmacher, G. (1996), ‘Kleine Brötchen in Europa’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 November 1996. 83. Kinkel, K. (1996), ‘Speech at the Opening of the Centre for the Advanced Study of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford, 17 January 1996’, Bulletin, Nr.7, 26 January 1996. 84. On this point Kinkel had the support of the Federal Council of the CDU, see, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Mehrheitprinzip für europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik gefordert’, 3 Jul 1995. 85. Germany had suggested the appointment of a political personality to head the Council Secretariat back in 1987, see, Rummel, R. (1996), p. 50, ‘Germany’s role in the CFSP: Normalität or Sonderweg?’, in, C. Hill (ed.), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 40–67. However, there was disagreement between France and Germany over the proposed Mr CFSP with France wanting a more high profile appointment than Germany. Germany compromised with France that the PPEWU and the Mr CFSP should be based in the Council Secretariat, but that efforts should be made to improve co-ordination with the Commission on the full range of foreign policy issues which the EU was engaged in. State Secretary Hoyer pressed these matters with his EU colleagues. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 224 Notes

(1996), ‘Bonner Vorschläge zur Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik’, 8 May 1996; Handelsblatt (1996), ‘Bewegung in der Gemeinsamen Außenpolitik’ 8 May 1996. 86. Rühe, V. (1996), Speech before the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Chatham House, London, 19 November 1996, Bulletin, Nr.94, 22 November 1996. 87. Rühe, V. (1996), Speech to the Johns Hopkins school for Advanced International Studies/American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, 30 April 1996, Washington D.C., Bulletin, Nr.34, 2 May 1996. 88. For an excellent analysis of Rühe’s role in the debates concerning NATO enlargement, see, Tewes, H. (2002), Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe (Houndmills: Palgrave), pp. 140–197. 89. Rühe, V. (1996) Speech to the Bundeswehr staff college, Hamburg, 26 January 1996, Bulletin, Nr.15, 14 February 1996; Rühe, V. (1996) Speech to the Centre for International Relations in the institute for Public Affairs in Warsaw, 13 May 1996, Bulletin, Nr.39, 17 May 1996. 90. Rühe, V. (1996), ‘Speech at the ceremonial swearing in of Soldiers from the army, air force and marines on 12 March 1996 in Bordenau’, Bulletin, Nr. 93, 20 November 1996; Rühe, V. (1996), Speech to the 14th meeting of federal delegates of the reservists of the German Armed forces in Würzburg on 10 November 1996, Bulletin, Nr.91, 14 November 1996; Rühe, V. (1996), ‘Order of the Day on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the passing of the conscription law in the German Bundestag on 7 July 1956, 5 July 1996’, Bulletin, Nr.58, 9 July 1996; ‘Conscription remains irreplaceable. The Bundeswehr is a central factor in European stability’, Rühe, V. (1996), ‘Declaration by Federal Minister Volker Rühe, Bonn, 5 July 1996’, Bulletin, Nr.58, 9 July 1996; Rühe, V. (1997), ‘Stability in Europe’ Speech at the 9 Forum of the Bundeswehr and Society, 2 June 1997, Bulletin, Nr.47, 9 June 1997. 91. Die Welt (1995), ‘Großer Tag für die Bundsewehr’, 4 February 1995. 92. Wette, W. (1994), p. 984, ‘ Rückkehr zu “Normalität” und Weltmachtdenken: Die Renaissance des Militärischen im neuen Deutschland’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, 8: 981–990. 93. Gow, D. (1992), ‘Bonn to save 10bn in army shake-up’, The Guardian, 16 December 1992; Lieven, A. (1992), ‘Kohl Seeks to Widen Field of Bundeswehr operations’, The Times, 19 December 1992. 94. Der Spiegel (1995), Spiegel Gespräch, ‘Wir drängeln uns nicht vor’, Der Spiegel, Vol. 12. 95. For an excellent and detailed analysis of Germany’s participation in the former Yugoslavia, see, Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der detuschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske Budrich), pp. 217–370. 96. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995) ‘Kabinett stimmt Einsatz deutscher Soldaten in Bosnien zu’, 26 June 1995. The government decided to commit headquarters staff, 8 ECR Tornados, 6 RECCR Tornados, 600 logistical soldiers to Split, and 12 Transall transport aircraft. The government agreed to commit up to 5,000 soldiers, mainly used in a support role in Croatia. Rühe argued that Germany’s wartime legacy in the Balkans during WWII meant that German troops would be unacceptably exposed to attack from Serb forces, necessitating a support role and not front line involvement. Notes 225

See, Cowell, A. (1995) ‘Germany will send soldiers to Balkans’, Herald Tribune, 12 October 1995. For the impact of Bosnia on European security cooperation, see, Wright, J. (1997), ‘European Security – Post Bosnia’, European Security, 6/2: 1–17. 97. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Kabinett stimmt Einsatz deutscher Soldaten in Bosnien zu’, 26 June 1995. 98. Moniac, R. (1995), ‘Bonn schicht 4000 Soldaten nach Kroatien: Scharping signalisiert Unterstützung für die Pläne der Bundesregierung – Pioner- Einsätze in Bosnien vorgesehen’, Die Welt, 23 October 1995. Throughout the early to mid-1990s the SPD went through a fierce internal debate concerning Germany and the use of military force, eventually agreeing with the elite consensus which emerged after the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision of 12 July 1994. See, Ehrhart, H.-G. (2000), Rudolf Scharping and the formation of Social Democratic foreign and security policy in the 1990s’, in Les Cahiers de l’IFRI Nr. 30: 73–109, http://www.ifsh.de/dokumente/ artikel/ scharping.pdf 99. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Der Bundestag mit großer Mehrheit für die Entsendung der Bundeswehr-Soldaten nach Bosnien’, 7 December 1995. 100. Shrwastava, A. (1995), ‘Germany’s Tortured Debate Over its Military’, Wall Street Journal Europe, 10 February 1995. 101. Financial Times (1995), ‘The FT Interview – Volker Rühe, Front Row Defender’, 10 February 1995. In the same interview, Rühe also outlined his reluctance to consider permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council because of the unwelcome extra responsibility this would bring in his view. This ran contrary to the aims of both Kohl and Kinkel. 102. Philippi, N. (2001), p. 54, ‘Civilian Power and War: The German Debate About Out-of-area Operations 1990–99’, in, S. Harnisch and H. W. Maull (eds) (2001), Germany as a Civilian Power: The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 49–67. 103. Stürmer, M. (1995), ‘Europa: ‘Germany’s Defence Role’, Financial Times, 25 April 1995. Stürmer also contends in this article that ‘ … the Bundeswehr has acquired an importance far greater than the subsidiary role it held in previous decades’, further stressing the adaptational pressures impacting upon the Bundeswehr and German foreign policy from the international level. 104. Many thanks to Dr. Kerry Longhurst for drawing my attention to the wider implications of these deployments. 105. Baumann, R. and Hellmann, G. (2001), ‘Germany and the Use of Military Force: Total War, the Culture of Restraint and the Quest for Normality’, in, D. Webber (ed.) New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy?: German Foreign Policy since Unification, Special Issue of German Politics, 10/1: 61–82. See also, Baumann, R. (2001), ‘German Security Policy Within NATO’, in, Rittberger, V. (ed.) German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 141–184. 106. The Economist (1995), ‘Britain, France and Germany: The Return of Triangular Diplomacy’, 4 November 1995. 107. A report commissioned by Commissioner van den Broek written by Jean Durieux entitled ‘European Security Policy in the run-up to 2000 – ways and 226 Notes

means of achieving real credibility’, suggested the following steps in CFSP: Ending unanimity in decision-making except in troops deployments; appointment of a figurehead for CFSP; a new clause stating the common goal of creating an intervention force of 150,000–200,000 troops; agreement to work towards common defence in conjunction with NATO and finally, the creation of an CFSP budget. See, Barber, L. (1995), ‘EU Must End “rudderless” Foreign Policy’, Financial Times, 28 January 1995; Commission President Santer, was reported as saying, ‘What people clearly resent is the gulf between the expectations, which derived from the announcement of a common foreign policy and the everyday reality of chaos’, in, Münchau, W. (1995), ‘Santer Seeks Right to Shape Foreign Policy for Europe’, The Times, 22 March 1995. 108. On issues relating to Franco-British co-operation in foreign and security policy, one British official was quoted as saying, ‘We get along fine with the French so long as we can stop them talking about fancy architecture.’ Quoted in, The Economist (1995), ‘The Defence of Europe – it Can’t be Done Alone’, 25 February 1995. 109. A degree of suspicion characterised the bilateral contacts within the triangular diplomacy of the Franco-German-British lead group. As one British diplomat stated, ‘A lot of people in all three capitals still see each bilateral relationship as a zero-sum game, that any extra energy in French-British relations has to come at the expense of Bonn’s ties with Paris and London’s links with Bonn.’ Cited in, Fitchelt, J. (1996), ‘Toward a European Triumvirate?’, Herald Tribune, 31 July 1996. 110. Through its involvement in efforts to strengthen CFSP/ESDI Rühl asserts, ‘Through this, the German partner should in no way be shut out, rather be an equal partner in a military-political triangle and thereby be bound to it.’ Rühl, L. (1996), ‘Europas militärische Handlungsfähigkeit wieder starker: neue Perspektiven für eine gemeinsame Sicherheitspolitik von London, Paris und Bonn’, Die Welt, 2 August 1996. 111. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1994), ‘Deutschland und Frankreich wollen ein gemeinsames Regierungsprogramme für Europa’, 25 March 1994. In a speech in Paris Kinkel sought to overcome difficulties in Franco-German relations since unification and the Maastricht Treaty by proposing the IGC 1996/97 as a project in which both states could work together. 112. Graham, R. and Simonian, H. (2003), ‘Prospects for the Franco-German Relationship: The Elysée Treaty and after’, AICGS Policy Report No.4, http://www.aicgs.org/Publications/PDF/frgerm2003.pdf 113. Howorth, J. (1997), ‘France’, in, J. Howorth and A. Menon (eds) The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 23–48. 114. Kay, S. (1998), p. 124, NATO and the Future of European Security (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield). 115. See, Hendriks, G. and Morgan, A. (2001), The Franco-German Axis in European Integration (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 111–117. 116. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union verbessern’, 8 December 1995. This was also reinforced by a joint article by Werner Hoyer and Michel Barnier in the Frankfurter Allegemine Zeitung calling for developments in CFSP, see, Hoyer, W. and Notes 227

Barnier, M. (1995), ‘Existiert Europa’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 December 1995. 117. Chirac, J. and Kohl, H. (1995), p. 116, ‘Gemeinsamer Brief des deutschen Bundeskanzlers und des französischen Staatspräsidenten an den Vorsitzenden des Europäischen Rates vom 06.12.1995’; überreicht vom Bundespresseamt, reprinted in M. Jopp and O. Schmuck (eds) (1996), Die Reform der Europäischen Union: Analysen – Positionen – Dokumente zur Regierungskonferenz 1996/1997 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag), pp. 115–117. 118. De Charette, H. and Kinkel, K. (1996), ‘Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Leitlinien, verabschiedet anläßlich des Seminars der Außenminister Frankreichs und Deutschlands, am 27. February 1996 in Freiburg, überreicht vom Auswärtigen Amt, Bonn’, in, M. Jopp and O. Schmuck (eds) Die Reform der Europäischen Union: Analysen – Positionen – Dokumente zur Regierungskonferenz 1996/1997 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag), pp. 118–120. 119. Norman, P. (1996), ‘Paris and Bonn agree EU Foreign Policy opt-out Pact’, Financial Times, 28 February 1996. 120. Bell, S. and Sage, A. (1995), ‘Chirac offers to share nuclear shield with EU’, The Times, 1 September 1995; Goldsmith, C. (1995), ‘EU Foreign Ministers reject France’s Nuclear Umbrella’, Wall Street Journal, 11 September 1995; Moisi, D. (1995), ‘Europa: The bomb won’t go away’, Financial Times, 26 September 1995; Juppé had stated in Le Figaro that, ‘ … the future European defence will not exist without in some way the French – and the British – deterrence playing a role.’ Cited in, Rühl, L. (1995), ‘Frankreich’s Kernwaffen und die europäische Sicherheit’, Die Welt, 4 September 1995; Stürmer, M. (1995), ‘Europa: A Defence Initiative: Chirac’s Offer to Share Nuclear Strategy with Germany May Shift Weight Towards a Common European Defence Policy’, Financial Times, 14 November 1995. The nuclear issue had been problematic since the inception of the Federal Republic. The Brussels Treaty and Germany’s internal sensitivities towards nuclear weapons made this a particularly touchy issue for German foreign policy. See, Hoppe, C. (1993), Zwischen Teilhabe und Mitsprache: Die Nuklearfrage in der Allianzpolitik Deutschlands 1959–1966 (Baden-Baden: Nomos); Messemer, A. (1999), ‘Konrad Adenauer: Defence Diplomat on the Backstage’ in J. L. Gaddis, P. H. Gordon, E. R. May and J. Rosenberg (eds) Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 236–259. 121. Rohwedder, C. (1995), ‘Kohl’s Party Lists Frictions with France’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 October 1995. 122. Witney, C. (1995), ‘Paris Spurns Italians and Belgians for nuclear vote: Allies’ action in UN to condemn testing arouses French anger’, International Herald Tribune, 20 November 1995. On announcing the nuclear tests, Chirac defi- antly declared, ‘I feel today that I have accomplished one of the chief duties of my office, by endowing France with the means of her independence and security in the coming decades.’ Cited in, Financial Times (1996), ‘Disarming Chirac’, 1 February 1996. 123. For an examination of French military reforms in the early to mid 1990s, see, Irondelle, B. (2003), ‘Europeanization Without the European Union? 228 Notes

French Military Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10/2: 208–226; McKenna, J. (1997), ‘Towards the Army of the Future: Domestic Politics and the End of Conscription in France’, West European Politics, 20/4: 125–145. 124. Webster, P. (1996), ‘France to Slash Defence Forces’, The Guardian, 18 July 1996; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1996), ‘Französische Soldaten verlassen Deutschland bis 1999’, 18 July 1996. 125. Ibid. 126. Ibid. 127. Bozo, F. (1998), ‘France’, in, M. Brenner (ed.) (1998), NATO and Collective Security (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 39–80; Le Gloannec, A.-M. (1997), ‘Europe by Other Means’, International Affairs, 73/1: 83–98; Menon, A. (1995), ‘From Independence to Co-operation: France, NATO and European Security, International Affairs, 71/1: 19–34; Menon, A. (1997), France, NATO and the Limits of Independence, 1981–1997 (Basingstoke: Macmillan); Pond, E. (1999); p. 82, The Rebirth of Europe (Washington D.C.: Brookings); Rynning, S. (2001), Changing Military Doctrine: Presidents and Military Power in Fifth Republic France, 1958–2000 (New York: Praeger); Sloan, S. R. (2003), NATO, The European Union and the Atlantic Community: The Transatlantic Bargain Reconsidered (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield). 128. Wise, E. (1995), ‘Alliance Breaks New Ground’, European Voice, 24 November 1995. France decided to resume its seat on the NATO military committee, at the NATO situation centre, at NATO’s Defence College in Rome and at Oberammergau and to re-establish its mission to NATO headquarters in Brussels. France did not rejoin the Defence Planning Committee or the Nuclear Planning Group, see, Evans, M. (1996), ‘France and NATO ease nuclear rift’, The Independent, 18 January 1996. France also signalled its intention to construct closer working relations with SHAPE and SACEUR and were willing to discuss nuclear issues within the North Atlantic Council should NATO members wish this. Through its decision to rejoin NATO France was sending a double signal to its partners – do you want to build ESDI, and if yes, are you willing to make the necessary reforms within NATO to make this possible? See, Atlantic News (1996), ‘France/NATO: Paris to par- ticipate fully in military committee and is willing to speak out on nuclear questions within the Council’, 17 January 1996. 129. See, Sloan, S. R. (2003), NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community: The transatlantic bargain reconsidered (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield), pp. 98–100. 130. International Herald Tribune (1997), ‘6 EU Nations Draft Defence Plan’, 25 March 1997; Buerkle, T. (1997), ‘Make the EU a Defence Alliance? Debate Deepens Security Policy rifts’, International Herald Tribune, 28 March 1997; See also, Gourlay, C. and Remacle, E. (1998), p. 87, ‘The 1996 IGC: The Actors and Their Interaction’, K. A. Eliassen (ed.) Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union (London: Sage), pp. 59–93. 131. LeGloannec, A.-M. (1998), ‘Embracing the “British” Vision’, in, Lankowski, C. (ed.) Break Out, Break Down, or Break in?: Germany and the European Union after Amsterdam, AICGS Research Report No. 8: 21–30. 132. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1997), ‘Abstimmung zwischen Bonn und Paris’, 4 March 1997. Notes 229

133. Ibid. 134. Ibid. 135. Wallace, W. (1995), ‘Balancing Act’, The Guardian, 8 July 1995. This positive interpretation of the bilateral relationship was counteracted by Rees-Mogg who states; ‘The truth is that Chancellor Kohl has got it wrong. He has almost intentionally, converted Britain from friendship towards Germany and the European idea to a scepticism not unmixed with hostility.’ Rees- Mogg, W. (1995), ‘A German Union’, The Times, 21 December 1995. 136. Howe, G. (1995), ‘A Defining Moment’, Financial Times, 3 July 1995. 137. Davis, D. (1996), ‘WEU und EU: Grossbritanniens Ambitonen für eine europäische Verteidigung, Speech to the Reflection Groups seminar in Oslo, 22 January 1996’, Britische Dokumentation, D 2/96, 26 January 1996, British Embassy, Bonn; Hurd, D. and Kinkel, K. (1994), ‘Eine Strategische Vision für Europa’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 26 April 1994; Major, J. (1994), ‘Europe: A Future that Works’, William and Mary Lecture given by the Prime Minister the RT HON John Major MP at the University of Leiden, 7 September 1994’, 10 Downing Street Press Notice; Portillo, M. (1995), ‘1996: Substanz und Symbolismus’, Speech tp the WEU Assembly, 5 December 1995, Britische Dokumentation, D 36/95, 8 December 1995, British Embassy, Bonn; WEU Council of Ministers (1994) The Kirchberg Declaration, Luxembourg, 9 May 1994, http://www.weu.int/documents/940509en.pdf; Cutileiro, J. (1995), ‘WEU’s operational development and its relationship to NATO’, NATO Review, 43/5: 8–11, http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1995/9505-2.htm; WEU Council of Ministers (1995), The Lisbon Declaration, 15 May 1995, http://www.weu.int/documents/950515en.pdf 138. The Wall Street Journal/Associated Press (1995), ‘German-UK Clash on Group’s Future Mars WEU Meeting’, 16 May 1995. At the summit, UK defence minister, Malcolm Rifkind, was reported as saying, ‘I couldn’t find a single minister from any country who expressed the view that it is possible to merge the WEU and the EU now or in the next years.’ 139. Clarke, M. (1998), p. 143, ‘British Security Policy’, in K. A. Eliassen, (ed.) Foreign and Security Policy in the European Union (London: Sage), pp. 124–146. 140. Unpublished Memorandum (1995) ‘Memorandum on the United Kingdom Government’s Approach to the Treatment of European Defence Issues at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference’, cited in, Clarke, M. (1998) pp. 11–12, ‘Britain’, in, Brenner, M. (ed.) NATO and Collective Security (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 6–38. 141. Commissioner van den Broek vented his frustrations at the creation of this rival grouping stating, ‘The paralysis (of foreign policy) has not only blocked effective action in the prolonged crisis facing post-Cold War Europe, but has lead to a plethora of ad hoc groupings, which themselves have proved ineffective and have weakened the Union’s identity’, in, Marshall, A. (1995), ‘Veto Blocks EU Foreign Policy’, The Independent, 10 July 1995. 142. Croft, S., Redmond, J., Wyn Rees, G. and Webber, M. (1999), p. 107, The Enlargement of Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press). 143. Gourlay, C. and Remacle, E. (1998), p. 64. 144. Tams, C. (1999), ‘The functions of a European Security and Defence Identity and its Institutional Form’, in, H. Haftendorn, R. O. Keohane and 230 Notes

C. Wallander (eds) (1999), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions Over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 80–103. 145. Brown, K., Clarke, B. and Kupar, S. (1995), ‘Retreat on European Army’, Financial Times, 3 November 1995. Schäuble confirmed that he had not suggested the break-up of NATO, rather, ‘It should be our goal to integrate the WEU into the EU – if required, step-by-step and through increased structural integration – and thereby to create a European army.’ 146. Kinkel stated, ‘We cannot deny it: we have not succeeded in convincing the British to accept at least the second option (that of gradual WEU/EU integration) … It would be a difficult thing … We Germans want the Council to have the ability to issue guidelines to the WEU; in the long term we are in favour of a common defence policy and a common defence, which would require the full integration of the WEU into the European Union’, cited in, Atlantic News (1995), ‘WEU Council: Large Majority in Favour of WEU’s Integration into the EU – Creation of Crisis Centre at WEU Secretariat’, 15 November 1995. The UK’s insistence to maintain WEU autonomy led to deep frustration among WEU members, with the Italian Foreign Minister Susanna Agnelli defining the UK’s position as ‘extremist’, in International Herald Tribune/Reuters (1995), ‘Britain Blocks EU on Defence Identity’, 15 November 1995. 147. Major, J. (1996), ‘Die europäische Sicherheit als Thema der Regierungskonferenz und darüber hinaus’, Speech by, John Major to the WEU Parliamentary Assembly in Church House, London, 23 February 1996, Britische Dokumentation, D 10/96, British Embassy, Bonn, 28 February 1996; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1995), ‘Großbritannien gegen Integration der WEU’, 6 December 1995; Tigner, B. and Hitchens, T. (1996), ‘EU Nations Split on Defence Policy’, Defence News, 2 July 1996. The British position was further bolstered by Sir Dudley Smith, President of the WEU Assembly. 148. AUK House of Commons Defence Committee report reinforced the centrality of NATO and stressed the WEU should be built up to effectively conduct Petersberg Tasks, but that the WEU should not assume a defence role and not be subsumed into the EU. See, Fairhall, D. (1996), ‘WEU Dismissed in British Report’, The Guardian, 22 May 1996; Lord Carrington (1996), ‘Die Atlantische Allianz muß Vorrang behalten’, Handelsblatt, 15 May 1996. 149. WEU Council of Ministers (1996), ‘The Birmingham Declaration’, Birmingham, 7 May 1996, http://www.weu.int/documents/960507en.pdf; Lichfield, J. (1996), ‘European lays the foundation for EU defence arm’, The Independent, 8 May 1996. 150. Smith, M. E. (2004) p. 232, Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalisation of Co-operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 151. Financial Times (1996), ‘EU Neutrals to Join Defence Initiative: Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden Give Maastricht Review its First Breakthrough’, 23 July 1996. 152. Evans, M. (1996), ‘NATO Approves European-led Joint Task Forces’, The Times, 16 May 1996; Clark, B. (1996), ‘NATO Seeks to Bridge Ambiguity Gap’, Financial Times, 6 June 1996. 153. The future British Foreign Minister Robin Cook felt the UK’s Conservative government, ‘ … has fashioned a foreign policy which takes on the whole of Notes 231

Europe at the same time.’ Cited in, Webster, P. (1996) ‘Rifkind’s Warning Heralds Fresh Problems in EU’, The Times, 25 October 1996. 154. Süddeutsche Zeitung (1996), ‘Die Problem mit den Briten sind nicht lösbar: Gespräch mit Werner Hoyer, dem deutschen Unterhändler in der EU- Regierungskonferenz’, 13 March 1996; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1996), ‘Lamers: Großbritannien ist europapolitisch handlungsfähig’, 16 March 1996. 155. Schmitt, B. (2000), p. 2, ‘From Co-operation to Integration: Defence and Aerospace industries in Europe’, Chaillot Papers No.40, Western European Union, Institute for Security Studies, Paris. 156. Buchan, D. (1995), ‘Britain Joins Arms Agency’, Financial Times, 28 September 1995. 157. Hayward, K. (1997), ‘Towards a European Weapons Procurement Strategy: The shaping of common European requirements for new arms pro- grammes’, Chaillot Paper No.27, Western European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, http://www.iss-eu.org/ 158. James, B. (1996), ‘Britain Now Ready to Join the Eurofighter’, Herald Tribune, 3 September 1996; Die Welt (1996), ‘Eurofighter: Bonn und London einig’, 22 January 1995; see also, Taylor, T. (1997), ‘Arms Procurement’, in J. Howorth, and A. Menon (eds) The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 121–140. 159. Atlantic News (1996), ‘German budget threatens Eurofighter’, 27 September 1996. 160. Lindemann, M. (1996), ‘Rühe faces further defence cuts. Minister deter- mined to discuss “unacceptable” move with Kohl’, Financial Times, 29 June 1996; Die Welt (1996), ‘Kohl: Streit um Wehretat beigelegt’, 5 July 1996. The decision to cut the defence budget by $700m substantially undermined Rühe’s attempts to reform the Bundeswehr and commit to collaborative defence procurement projects. 161. Fitchett, J. (1995), ‘Help with a Spy Satellite: Germany Poised to Join French Project’, Herald Tribune, 19 October 1995. The first Helios 1A satellite was launched on 7 July 1995. France had committed 79%, Italy 14% and Spain 7% to the cost of the project. Germany’s decision to join the project was a significant financial boon to Helios’ development. See, IISS (1995), p. 34, The Military Balance 1995–96, International Institute for Strategic Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 162. Norman, P. (1997), ‘Fighter Funding Still in the Air’, Financial Times, 7 January 1997; Gray, B. (1997), ‘Dogfight Over Funding: Ministers Will This Week Try to Break the Impasse Over Finance for the Much-delayed Eurofighter Project’, Financial Times, 2 June 1997. 163. Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), Article J.7.1. 164. Kohl sought to take advantage of the new government’s honeymoon period in the UK’s position on Europe. See Wallace, I. (2000), p. 22. ‘A United Germany in a New Europe: Some British Perceptions’, Studien zur Internationalen Politik, Heft 2000/1 (Hamburg: Universität der Bundeswehr). 165. Cited in Holden, R. (2002), p. 149, The Making of New Labour’s European Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Cook also stated that, ‘We want there to be three main players in Europe, not two’, cited in, Kampfner, J. and Norman, P. (1997), ‘Cook Pledges End to Battles with Europe: Foreign Secretary Seeks 232 Notes

New Relations with France and Germany’, Financial Times, 8 May 1997. In response to Cook’s overtures, Kinkel stated that Bonn had a, ‘vital interest in good relations’ with the UK. 166. Leading Conservative politicians in Germany, Karl Lamers (CDU) and Hans- Gert Pöttering (Chairman of the European Peoples’ Group in the European Parliament) sought to reduce any possible co-ordination problems in the Franco-German tandem by encouraging the new government to commit to its ‘European destiny’. See, Union in Deutschland (1997) ‘Das Wahlergebnis in Frankreich darf den europäischen Zug nicht verlangsam’, Informationsdienst der CDU, 5 June 1997. 167. Naumann, K. (1997), ‘Schlanker, flexibler, europäischer: Die Herausforderungen an die neue NATO’, Das Parlament, 16 May 1997. 168. WEU Council of Ministers (1997), Paris Declaration, 13 May 1997, http://www.weu.int/ 169. Paragraph six stated, ‘Ministers recalled their commitment to continue to develop WEU’s relations with the European Union in order to build up WEU in stages as the defence component of the Union.’ However, Paragraph seven stated, ‘Ministers noted with satisfaction that, without prejudice to the ongoing work of the IGC, a real impetus has been given to operational co-operation between WEU and the European Union’. 170. The Amsterdam Treaty (1997), Article J.7.1. 171. Die Welt (1997), ‘WEU beschließt Militärausschuß’, 14 May 1997. 172. See also, Wittke, T. (1997), Am Zeitplan darf nicht gerüttelt werden’, General Anzeiger, Bonn, 21st May 1997. In this interview, Werner Hoyer was keen to point out that although there was still disagreement on the decision-making process in CFSP, it did not represent a major strategic disagreement and therefore should not be overblown. 173. Die Welt (1997), Stabschefs gründen Militärausschuß’, 29 October 1997; Kinkel, K. (1997), Speech by Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel at the autumn meeting of the WEU Assembly in Paris, 1st December 1997, Bulletin, Nr.96, pp. 1235–1237. 174. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1997), ‘Für die Schaffung einer europäischen Schutztruppe’, 15 May 1997. 175. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1997), ‘Genügend Zeit für die Fusion’, 6 June 1997. 176. Ibid. 177. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1997), ‘Trotz allem: Kinkel erwartet “sub- stantielles Ergebnis” vom Amsterdam Gipfel’, 12 June 1997. 178. Ibid. 179. Bundestag Drucksache (1997), Nr.180, Sitzung des Bundestags, 13. Wahlperiode, 11. Juni 1997. 180. Ibid., 16158/C 181. Ibid., 16061/A 182. Ibid., 16162/A – 16165/D 183. Ibid., 16166/A – 16169/A 184. Ibid., 16169/C. In the run up to the debate, the Greens group in the Bundestag had published their aims for the CFSP reform in, Sterzing, C., Beer, A., Nachtwei, W., Saibold, H., Nicehls, C. and der Fraktion Bündnis Notes 233

‘90/Die Grünen (1997), ‘Die Europäischen Union muß zum Motor für eine Zivile Außenpolitik werden’, Bundestag Drucksache, 13/7825, 5 June 1997. 185. Hoyer, W. (1997), ‘Speech by Werner Hoyer, Minister of State in the Foreign Office in front of the WEU-Assembly in Paris on 19 June 1997’, Mitteilung für die Presse Nr.1076/97, Auswärtiges Amt, Bonn. 186. Ibid. 187. Enhanced co-operation was designed to allow an inner group of actors in foreign and security policy to forge ahead with co-operation in a stronger form than the whole may wish, i.e., differentiated integration. Flexibility was seen as a mechanism to allow different groupings of states to co-operate in foreign and security policy using different procedures depending on the case in hand. See, Missiroli, A. (2000), p. 5, CFSP, Defence and Flexibility, Chaillot Paper No.38, WEU Institute for Security Studies, Paris, http://www.iss-eu. org/chaillot/chai38e.pdf. See also, Stubb, C.-G. (1996), ‘A Categorization of Differentiated Integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 36/2: 283–295; Phillippart, E. and Edwards, G. (1999), ‘The Provisions on Closer Co-operation in the Treaty of Amsterdam: The Politics of Flexibility of the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37/1: 87–108. 188. The PPEWU was to be made up of representatives from the Commission, The WEU, the General Secretariat and the Member States. 189. Missiorli, A. (2000), p. 5, CFSP, Defence and Flexibility, Chaillot Paper No.38, WEU Institute for Security Studies, Paris, http://www.iss-eu.org/chaillot/ chai38e.pdf 190. Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (1999), The European Union as a Global Actor (London: Routledge), pp. 188–193. 191. Cameron, F. (1998), p. 68, ‘Building a Common Foreign Policy: Do Institutions Matter?’, in, J. Peterson, and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 59–76. 192. Allen, D. (1998), p. 54, ‘Who Speaks for Europe?: The Search for an Effective and Coherent External Policy’, J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 41–58. 193. Maull, H. W. (1997), p. 1254, ‘Quo vadis, Germania?: Außenpolitik in einer Welt des Wandels’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, 10: 1245–1256. 194. Ischinger, W. (1998), ‘Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik nach Amsterdam – Praxis und Perspektiven’, ZEI Discussion Paper, C.14, Bonn. 195. Bremner, C. (1997), ‘London to Challenge “Dog’s Dinner” Treaty’, The Times, 26 June 1997. 196. Schroedter, E. (2003), ‘Zivilmacht Europa? Illusion und Chancen’, in P. Schlotter (Hrsg.) Europa – Macht – Frieden? Zur Politik der ‘Zivilmacht Europa’, AFK-Friedensschriften Band 30 (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 179–190. Elizabeth Schroedter is a Green MEP. 197. Wagner, W. (2001), p. 217, Die Konstruktion einer europäischen Außenpolitik: Deutsche, französische und britische GASP-Politiken im Vergleich, PhD Thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt am Main. 198. Volgy, T. J. and Schwarz, J. E. (1991), ‘Does Politics Stop at the Water’s Edge? Domestic Political Factors and Foreign Policy Restructuring in the Cases of Great Britain, France and West Germany’, Journal of Politics, 53/3: 615–643. 234 Notes

199. Meimeth, M. (1998), ‘Germany’ in, M. Brenner (ed.) NATO and Collective Security (Basingstoke: Macmillan), pp. 81–115. 200. Hacke, C. (1997), ‘Die Bedeutung des Nationalen Interesses für die Außenpolitik der Bundesrepublik’, in, G. Niedhart, D. Junker and M. W. Richter (eds) Deutschland in Europa: Nationale Interessen und internationale Ordnung im 20. Jahrhundert (Mannheim: Palatium), pp. 18–35. 201. Hill, C. (1998), p. 36, ‘Convergence, Divergence and Dialectics: National Foreign Policies and the CFSP’, in, J. Zielonka (ed.) Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy (Kluwer Law International), pp. 5–51. 202. The Guardian (1995), ‘Germany’s creeping “boss-politik”’, 27 November 1995.

3 Learning to Lead: Germany, Kosovo and the Development of the Common European Security and Defence Policy

1. Maurer, A. (2000), p. 43, ‘The German Presidency of the Council: Continuity or Change in Germany’s European Policy?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38 (Annual Review): 43–47. 2. Ibid. 3. Miskimmon, A. J. (2001), ‘Recasting the Security Bargains: Germany, European Security and the Transatlantic Relationship’, in D. Webber (ed.), New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy: German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Frank Cass and Co.), pp. 83–106. 4. See, for example, Maull, H. W. (2000), ‘Germany and the Use of Force: Still a “Civilian Power”?’, in Survival, 42/2: 56–80. 5. Hill, C. (2004), ‘Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11 September 2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42/1: 143–163. 6. Rudolf, P. (2000), p. 131, ‘Germany and the Kosovo Conflict’, in P. Martin and M. R. Brawley (eds) Alliance Politics, Kosovo and NATO’s War: Allied Force or Forced Allies (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 131–143. 7. Ibid., p. 132. 8. Garton-Ash, T. (1993), p. 71, ‘Germany’s Choice’, Foreign Affairs, 73/4. 9. Clark, W. K. (2001), Waging Modern War (New York: Public Affairs). 10. Hofmann, G. (1999), ‘Wie Deutschland in den Krieg geriet’, Die Zeit, 20/1999, 12 May 1999, http://www.zeit.de/, accessed 28th July 2004. Hofmann claims that in the end, Germany had little choice but to partici- pate in the Kosovo campaign. 11. Putnam, R. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two- level Games’, International Organization, 42/3: 427–460. 12. For an examination of the debates concerning the use of military force in German foreign policy from a constructivist perspective, see, Zehfuss, M. (2002), Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 13. Schröder, G. (1998), ‘Weil wir Detuschlands Karft vertrauen … ’, Regierungserklärung, Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder vor dem deutschem Bundestag am 10. November 1998, Bulletin vom 11.11.1998. 14. Interview in German Embassy, London, 4 December 2000. Notes 235

15. Simonian, H. (1999), ‘Comment and Analysis: The Rebirth of Confidence: Fifty Years on, a Post-War Generation of Germans is Able to Move on from its Tainted Past and Assert Itself Once Again in International Politics and Business’, Financial Times, 25 May 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 16. Siemon-Netto, U. (2004), ‘The 68er Regime in Germany’, Orbis, 48/4: 641–656. 17. Hyde-Price, A. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy’, in S. Padgett, W. E. Paterson and G. Smith (eds) Developments in German Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 184–205. 18. Meiers, F.-J. (2002), p. 196, ‘A Change of Course? German Foreign Policy after Unification’, German Politics, 11/3: 195–216. 19. Some of Grant’s working papers on the topic – Grant, C. (1998), ‘Can Britain Lead in Europe?’, Centre for European Reform Working Paper, http://www. cer.org.uk/; Grant, C. (2000), ‘European Defence Post-Kosovo’, Centre for European Reform Working Paper, http://www.cer.org.uk. Blair also saw, CFSP as a way to develop a ‘step change’ in British European policy, an overall strategy of providing for a greater leadership role within the EU in an area where the UK had clear strengths and could forge strategic partnerships with leading EU member states. See, Smith, J. and Tsatsas, M (2002), The New Bilateralism: the UK’s Relations Within the EU (London: The Royal Institute for International Affairs). 20. Réflexion sur le mode d’emploi pour la mise en oeuvre practique de l’article J.4.2. du Traité de Maastricht, compt-rendu officieux de séminaire 17.4.1997 organisé par la présidence francaise réunissant les directeurs des affairs stratégiques des ministieres des affaires étrangeres des pays de l’UEO. This flow chart demonstrated the immensely cumbersome decision-making process needed in order to conduct a WEU mission. Reprinted in Meier- Walser, R. C. and Harke M. (Hrsg.) (1999), ‘Neue Herausforderungen für die Sicherheit Europas’, Argumente und Materialien zum Zeitgeschehen 6, Hanns Seidel Stiftung, Akademie für Politik und Zeitgeschehen, pp. 29–30. 21. Interview with a Senior Ministry of Defence official, Ministry of Defence, 29 January 2001. 22. Ibid. 23. ‘Franco-British Declaration on European Defence’, 4 December 1998, reproduced in, Hill, C. and Smith, K. E. (eds) (2000), European Foreign Policy: Key Documents (London: Routledge), pp. 233–234. 24. Roper, J. (2000), ‘Keynote Article: Two Cheers for Mr. Blair? The Political Realities of European Defence Co-operation’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38/3: 7–24. 25. Howorth, J. (2000), p. 4, ‘European integration and defence: the ultimate challenge?’, Chaillot Paper 43, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union, November 2000. Emphasis in the original. 26. Prime Minister Tony Blair quoted in, ‘UK Politics: Anglo–French Military Pact’ (1998) BBC Online Network, 4 December 1998, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/uk_politics/227598.stm 27. Niblett, R. (2001), p. 101 ‘France and Europe at the End of the Cold War: Resisting Change’, in R. Niblett and W. Wallace (eds) Rethinking European Order: West European Responses 1989–1997 (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 89–123. 236 Notes

28. Pedersen, T. (1998), Germany, France and the Integration of Europe: A Realist Interpretation (London and New York: Pinter). 29. Interview with an official in the British Embassy in Berlin, 13 March 2001. 30. Howorth, J. (2000), pp. 28–29. 31. Interview British Embassy, Berlin, 21 March 2001. 32. Interview French Embassy, London, 14 March 2002. 33. Fischer, J. (1999), Rede zum Ende der deutsche Präsidentschaft in der Europäische Union: Rede des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen Joschka Fischer vor dem Europäischen Parlament am 21.Juli 1999 in, Sträßburg, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/6_archiv/2/r/r990721/htm 34. Oakes, M. (2000), p. 18, ‘European Defence: From Pörtschach to Helsinki’, House of Common Research Paper 00/20, 21 February 2000. 35. Many of the inconsistencies within the CFSP were highlighted by Hill’s con- ception of the ‘Capabilities-expectations gap’ within EU foreign and security policy. 36. Hellman, G. (1999), ‘Beyond Weltpolitik, Self-containment and Civilian Power: United Germany’s Normalising Ambitions’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Paper 99/10, University of Birmingham. See also, Sloam, J. (1999), ‘Germany: President of the EU, Keeper of the Peace – The German Presidency of European Council and the summits at Berlin and Cologne’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Paper 99/14, University of Birmingham. 37. See, the interview with Joschka Fischer, Die Zeit (2001), ‘Die Antwort ist auf fast alle fragen: Europa’, 13/2001, http://www.zeit.de/ 38. Schröder, G. (1998), pp. 47–67, 14/3 Bundestag Deutscher Bundestag – 14. Wahlperiode – 3. Sitzung. Bonn, Dienstag, den 10. November 1998 Plenarprotokoll 14/3. 39. SPD – Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen (1998), Aufbruch und Erneuerung – Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert Koalitionsvereinbarung zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands und Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen, Bonn, 20. Oktober 1998, Chapter 11, Part 3, Reproduced at http://www. datenschutz-berlin.de/doc/de/koalo/index.htm#01 40. Schröder, G. (1998), ‘Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder hielt anläßlich des Jahresempfangs für das Diplomatische Corps am 23. November 1998 im Palais Schaumburg in Bonn folgende Rede’, Bulletin Nr.77, 25 November 1998. 41. Bach, J. P. G. (1999), Between Sovereignty and Integration. German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989 (Münster: Lit Verlag); Bredow, W.von and Jäger, T. (1993), Neue deutsche Außenpolitik. Nationale Interessen in internationalen Beziehungen (Opladen); Eberwein, W.-D. and Kaiser, K.(Hrsg.) (1998), Deutschlands neue Außenpolitik, Bd. 4: Institutionen und Ressourcen (München: Oldenbourg); Haftendorn, H. and Riecke, H. (Hg.) (1996), Die volle Macht des souveränen Staates. Die alliierten Vorbehaltsrechte als Rahmenbedingungen west- deutscher Außenpolitik 1949–1990 (Baden-Baden: Nomos); Hanrieder, W. F. (1989), 40 years of German Foreign Policy (New Haven); Katzenstein, P. (ed.) (1997), Tamed Power. Germany in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Markovitz, A. S. and Reich, S. (1997), The German Predicament: Memory and Power in the New Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press); Schwarz, H.-P. (1985), Die gezähmten Deutschen. Von der Machtbesessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit, 2. Aufl., (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt). Notes 237

42. Der Spiegel (1998), ‘Fischer’s Schläge’, Spiegel Vol. 49, p. 88. Fischer had called for the end of the right to first use of nuclear weapons during his first visit to Washington. See, Financial Times (1998), ‘Europe: Germany Seeks to Allay US NATO Fears’, 25 November 1998, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 43. Der Spiegel (1995), p. 27, ‘Das ware blutiger Zynismus’, Der Spiegel, Vol. 34, pp. 27–29. Fischer was provoking a debate within the Greens over the nature of armed force in German foreign policy in light of events in the former Yugoslavia, in particular in Srebrenica. The SPD’s Oskar Lafontaine had argued against a NATO operation in Bosnia as it did not correspond to NATO’s role as a self-defence organisation. 44. Norman, P. and Atkins, R. (1998), ‘Comment and Analysis: Germany’s moderniser: FT Interview Gerhard Schröder: The Social Democratic party’s chancellor candidate tells Peter Norman and Ralph Atkins of his plans to create a new beginning for the German model’, Financial Times, 10 May 1998, www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. See also, Hyde-Price, A. and Jeffery, C. (2001), ‘Germany in the European Union: Constructing Normality’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Nov 2001, 39/4: 689–718. 45. A publication of the Institut für europäische Politik (IEP) charted the growing pragmatism of German European policy under the Red/Green government: Schneider, H., Jopp, M. and Schmalz, U. (Hrsg.) (2001), Eine neue deutsche Europapolitik: Rahmenbedingungen – Problemfelder – Optionen (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag). 46. Der Spiegel (1998), p. 85, Spiegel Gespräch ‘Wir wollen keine Soli tanzen’, Vol. 48, pp. 84–87. See also, Fischer, J. (1998), ‘Die Selbstbeschränkung der Macht muß fortbestehen’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 10 August 1998. In this article Fischer outlined the continued structural and normative constraints on German foreign policy. 47. Lake, D. A. (2001), p. 136, ‘Beyond Anarchy: The Importance Of Security Institutions’, International Security, 26/1: 129–160. 48. For the linkage of domestic and international norm development, see, Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998), ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52/4: 887–917. 49. Satz, A. and Sterzing, C. (1999), ‘Grüne Perspektiven auf die deutsche Rat spräsidentschaft’, Integration, 22.Jg., 1/99: 21–37. 50. In a confidential interview with a leading CDU specialist on foreign-policy issues the interviewee rejected the description of the EU as a Civilian Power, claiming it was not representative of the EU’s role in international affairs. Interview, 10 July 2001, Bundestag, Berlin. The interviewee consistently argued throughout the 1990s for an increased German and EU role in crisis management as part of Germany’s contribution to transatlantic burden- sharing. 51. WEU Council of Ministers, Rome Declaration, 16–17 November 1998. 52. However according to one British MoD official, the UK’s role in smoothing over difficulties in this field was vital for the success of the Washington Summit. Interview 29 January 2001, Ministry of Defence, London. 53. Verheugen, G. Address by Mr. Verheugen, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany (Translation) WEU Assembly – 2nd part of the 44th session, Paris, 1 December 1998, http://www.weu.int/eng/documents.html 238 Notes

54. Jopp, M. (1999), p. 6, European Defence Policy: The Debate over Institutional Aspects, June/July 1999 (Berlin: Institut für Europäische Politik). 55. Hofmann, G. (1999), ‘Wie Deutschland in den Krieg geriet’, Die Zeit, 20/1999, 12 May 1999, http://www.zeit.de/ 56. Fischer, J. (1999), ‘Rede des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen Joschka Fischer in der französischen Nationalversammlung am 20. Januar 1999’, in Paris, http://www.eu-presidency.de/03/0302/00233/index.html, accessed 25 October 1999. 57. Jeffery, C. and Handl, V. (1999), ‘Blair, Schröder and the Third Way’, in L. Funk (ed.) The Economics and the Politics of the Third Way (Hamburg), pp. 78–87. See also, Miskimmon, A. and Sloam, J. (2003), ‘Assessing the Impact of Social Democracy on European Union Foreign Policy’, paper presented at the UACES 33rd Annual Conference and 8th Research Conference – The European Union: The First Ten Years, The Next Ten Years? University of Newcastle, 2–4 September 2003 and A. Giddens (2000), The Third Way and its Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press). 58. German European Council/WEU Presidency (1999), ‘Internal reflection of WEU on European Security and Defence’, 24 February 1999, reprinted in Rutten, M. (2001), pp. 14–16, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No.47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union. 59. Nicoll, A. (1999), p. 3, ‘Boost role, says Blair’, Financial Times, 9 March 1999. 60. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1999), ‘Limounsinen, Wasserwerfer und Traktoren: Dramaturgie eines Großereignisses: Europas Außenminister im Rheingau’, 15 March 1999, p. 65. 61. FrankfurterAllgemeine Sonntagszeitung (1999), ‘Außenminister warnen vor Gewalt-Eskalation im Kosovo: Keine weitere Fristverlängerung für Friedensabkommen’, 14 March 1999, p. 2. 62. German Council Presidency (1999), ‘Strengthening the Common Policy on Security and Defence’, Informal meeting of EU foreign ministers, Eltville (Schloß Reinhartshausen), 13–14 March 1999, German Proposal prepared on 8 March 1999 for discussion at the informal meeting, reprinted in, Rutten, M. (2001), pp. 17–19, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No.47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union; Walker, M. (1999), ‘Comment and Analysis: Inside Europe: Hand in Hand on the Western Front In the Discreet Belgian Suburbs, Two Powerful Men are Bonding’, The Guardian, 19 April 1999, p. 14. 63. Walker, M. (1999), ‘Comment and Analysis: Inside Europe: Hand in Hand on the Western Front In the Discreet Belgian Suburbs, Two Powerful Men are Bonding’, The Guardian, 19 April 1999, p. 14. 64. Ibid. 65. German Presidency (1999), ‘Presidency Conclusions, Berlin European Council, 24–25 March 1999’, Part III Statements on Kosovo, http://ue.eu.int/ ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/ACFB2.html 66. Schröder, G. (1999), ‘Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder im Deutschen Bundestag zur Aktuellen Lage im Kosovo am Donnerstag, 15. April 1999’, Bonn, http://www.eu-presidency.de/ accessed 25 October 1999. Notes 239

67. Cologne Declaration 3–4 June 1999, Annex III European Council Declaration on Strengthening the Common European Policy on Security and Defence, paragraph 2. 68. Verheugen, G. (1999), ‘Rede des Staatsministers im Auswärtigen Amt Günter Verheugen im Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris am 9 März 1999’. 69. Scharping, R. (1999), Speech at the first Meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers of the WEU, ‘Europe’s security and defence in the light of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Washington Summit’, 10 May 1999. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/ 70. Buckley, N. (1999), ‘Defence: Support for EU Army Grows’, Financial Times, 12 May 1999, http://www.ft.com/ 71. Scharping, R. (1999), Speech at the first Meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers of the WEU, ‘Europe’s security and defence in the light of the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty and the Washington Summit’, 10 May 1999. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/ 72. Graham, R. (1999), ‘Defence: France and Germany in talks’, Financial Times, 29 May 1999, http://www.ft.com/ 73. Ibid. 74. Franco–German Defence and Security Council (1999), ‘Franco–German Declaration’, 29 May 1999, reprinted in, Rutten, M. (2001) p. 40, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No.47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union. 75. The following data comes from BMVg (2000) Meinungsbild zur Sicherheitspolitischen Lage (SPL) 2000: Repräsentative Umfrage durch EMNID: Muendlich und telefonisch durchgefuehrt vom 11.02 bis 13.03.2000, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Presse- und Informationsstab, http:// www.bundeswehr.de/ 76. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. 77. BMVg (2000), Meinungsbild zur Sicherheitspolitischen Lage (SPL) 2000: Repraesentative Umfrage durch EMNID: Muendlich und telefonisch durchgefuehrt vom 11.02 bis 13.03.2000, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Presse- und Informationsstab, http://www.bundeswehr.de/ 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. 83. Interview House of Commons, 5 December 2000. 84. Ibid. 85. Brechtefeld, J. (1999), ‘Kosovo – eine Wendepunkt in der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik?’, Welt Trends, Nr.23: 121–127. 86. Interview British Embassy, Berlin, 13 March 2001. 87. Ibid. 88. Interview with member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Bundestag, Berlin, 29 March 2001. 240 Notes

89. Schröder, G. (1998), p. 65, 14/3 Bundestag Deutscher Bundestag – 14. Wahlperiode – 3. Sitzung. Bonn, Dienstag, den 10. November 1998 Plenarprotokoll 14/3. NATO eventually received a UNSC mandate for Operation Allied Force but had not secured one before 24 March when bombing began. 90. Wheeler, N. J. (2004), p. 195, ‘The Kosovo bombing campaign’, in C. Reus- Smit (ed) The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 189–216. 91. Financial Times (1999), ‘Purposeful Germans line up behind NATO’, 5 April 1999, http://www.ft.com, accessed 21 October 1999. 92. Hofmann, G. (1999), ‘Wie Deutschland in den Krieg geriet’, Die Zeit, 20/1999, 12 May 1999, http://www.zeit.de/ 93. Ibid. 94. Scharping, R. (1999), p. 35, Wir dürfen nicht wegsehen: Der Kosovo Krieg und Europa (Berlin: Ullstein). 95. Schröder, G. (1999), Rede von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder anläßlich der Münchner Tagung für Sicherheitspolitik am 6. Februar 1999, http:// ww.eu-presidency.de/03/0302/00428/index.html, accessed 25 October 1999. 96. Weller, M. (1999), ‘The Rambouillet Conference on Kosovo’, International Affairs, 75/2: 211–251. 97. For a very frank discussion on the conduct of the air campaign against Serbia, see, Clark, W. K. (2001) Waging Modern War (New York: Public Affairs). 98. Agence France Presse Intl. (AFM) (1998), Greens take hard-line positions but still seek to govern with left, http://www.globalarchive.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 99. Financial Times (1999), ‘War Takes its Toll on Pacifist Minister’, 10 April 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 100. Financial Times (1999), ‘Purposeful Germans line up behind NATO’, 5 April 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 101. Financial Times (1999), ‘War Tests Germany’s Red/Green coalition’, 23 April 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999 102. For an analysis of the development of German policy on the use of force, Baumann, R. and Hellmann, G. (2001), ‘Germany and the Use of Military Force: Total War, the Culture of Restraint and the Quest for Normality’, in D. Webber (ed) New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy?: German Foreign Policy since Unification, Special Issue of German Politics, 10/1: 61–82. 103. Klaus Naumann quoted in, Power, S. (2003), p. 455, ‘A Problem from Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide (London: Flamingo). 104. For an examination of the German and international opinions on the rationale of a ground offensive against Milosevic, see, Lantis, J. S. (2002), Strategic Dilemmas and the Evolution of German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Praeger), pp. 150–159. 105. Jelpke, U. and Pau, P. (1999), ‘Behandlung von Kosovo–Flüchtlingen durch deutsche Stellen vor und nach Beginn der NATO-Luftangriffe’, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 14/802, 16 April 1999; Jelpke, U. and Pau, P. (1999), ‘Keine Zurückweisung von Kosovo-Flüchtlingen an den Grenzen, die Erteilung von Visa für Familienangehörige sowie Notes 241

unbürokratische Ausstellung von Reisedokumenten und Aufnahme und Schutz von unbegleiteten Flüchtlingsund Waisenkindern’, Drucksache 14/1182, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, 17 June 1999; Jelpke, U. and Pau, P. (1999), ‘Anerkennung eines Asylanspruchs für jugoslawische Deserteure und Kriegsdienstverweigerer’, Drucksache 14/1183, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, 17 June 1999; Jelpke, U. and Pau, P. (1999), ‘Kleine Anfrage: Bewertung der Lage im Kosovo durch das Auswärtiges Amt (II)’, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 14/1378. 106. Fraktionder, PDS (1999), ‘Europäischer Sicherheitsarchitektur statt Dominanz der Nordatlantische Allianz’, Drucksache 14/454, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, 12 March 1999. 107. Entschließungsantragder Fraktion der PDS (1999), zur Abgabe einer Erklärung der Bundesregierung zu den Ergebnissen des Europäischen Rates am 3. und 4. Juni 1999 in Köln und zum Stand der Friedensbemühungen im Kosovo-Konflikt, Drucksache 14/1120, Deutsche Bundestag 14. Wahlperiode, 8 June 1999. 108. Interview with PDS Foreign-Policy Spokesman, 11 June 2001, Bundestag, Berlin. 109. Hough, D. (2001), The Fall and Rise of the PDS in Eastern Germany (Birmingham: Birmingham University Press), pp. 175–176. 110. In a speech to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Wolfgang Schäuble stated, ‘Without the change in Government in 1998 we would not have been able to carry out the Kosovo operations – if at all – without considerable and dra- matic internal differences. Even today if the leftist government of Schroeder and Fischer were to be in opposition, they would use all their powers to fulfil the promises which the chancellor had made to the Americans. Schroeder did in fact use the challenge posed by foreign policy in 1999 to gain new stature after the initial disaster of the red and green parties till the time that Lafontaine left the active political scene. I often ask myself nowadays, whether this could be his motivation for his inexplicable behaviour in foreign policy which can neither be explained nor be regarded as responsible’. Schäuble, W. (2003), ‘Continuity and Change – the Future of German Foreign Policy’, Speech to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Berlin, 10 March 2003, http://www.cducsu.de/upload/1eac85a463302c7f869224f38efc5fe511376- z0sfv1bh.pdf, accessed 1 September 2004. 111. Breuer, P. (1998), Deutscher Bundestag – 14. Wahlperiode – 6. Sitzung. Bonn, Freitag, den 13. November 1998, Plenarprotokoll 14/6, p. 360. 112. Schäuble, W. (1999), Deutscher Bundestag – 14. Wahlperiode – 30. Sitzung. Bonn, Donnerstag, den 25. März 1999, Plenarprotokoll 14/30, p. 2425B. 113. Simonian, H. (1999), ‘Comment and Analysis: The Rebirth of Confidence: Fifty Years on, a Post-war Generation of Germans is Able to Move on from its Tainted Past and Assert Itself Once Again in International Politics and Business’, Financial Times, 25 May 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999 114. Gerhardt, W. (1999), Debate over German Participation in the NATO Air Campaign in Yugoslavia, Plenarprotokoll 14/30, Drucksache 2426C. 115. Biermann makes the distinction between the Fischer Plan – the diplomatic efforts to bring the war in Kosovo to an end, and the Stability Pact for 242 Notes

South–Eastern Europe – which sought to establish long-term stability in the Balkans region. Biermann, R. (1999) p. 16, ‘The Stability Pact for South–east Europe: Potential, Problems and Perspectives’, ZEI Discussion Paper, No.C56, Bonn, http://www.zei.de/ 116. Schwegmann, C. (2000), ‘The Contact Group and its Impact on the European Institutional Structure’, WEU Institute for Security Studies, Occasional Paper No. 16, Paris. http://www.iss-eu.org/occasion/occ16.pdf 117. Interview Research Section, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, 13 August 2002. 118. SPD- Bündnis ‘90/Die Grünen (1998), ‘Aufbruch und Erneuerung – Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert’, Koalitionsvereinbarung zwischen der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN Bonn, 20. Oktober 1998, http://www.bundesregierung.de/ 119. Schröder, G. (1999), ‘Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder im Deutschen Bundestag zur Aktuellen Lage im Kosovo am Donnerstag, 15. April 1999’, Bonn, http://www.eu-presidency.de/, accessed 25 October 1999. 120. Buckley, M. (2001), ‘Russian Perceptions’, in M. Buckley and S. N. Cummings (eds) Kosovo: Perceptions of War and its Aftermath (London: Continuum): 156–175; Antonenko, O. (1999), ‘Russia, NATO and European Security after Kosovo’, Survival, 41/4: 124–144; Levitin, O. (2000), ‘Inside Moscow’s Kosovo Muddle’, Survival, 42/1: 130–140. 121. Financial Times (1999), ‘German Drive in Search of a Settlement’, Financial Times, 29 April 1999, http://www.ft.com/, accessed 21 October 1999. 122. Chef des Kanzleramts (1999), ‘Deutsche Beteiligung an einer internationalen Sicherheitspräsenz im Kosovo zur Gewährleistung eines sicheren Umfeldes für die Flüchtlingsrückkehr und zur militäsrischen Absicherung einer Friedensregelung für das Kosovo’, Drucksache 14/1111, 7 June 1999. 123. ‘The first papers for the Stability Pact were already drafted by the Fischer staff in the early weeks of 1999, long before the air campaign started on 24 March 1999. During a meeting with his State Secretaries and with the Heads of Department on the Petersberg near Bonn, Joschka Fischer discussed the Plan at length as part of a tour d’horizon. Two aspects were striking: Firstly, Joschka Fischer strongly favoured the Plan. (Second) From this point onwards, the German Foreign Minister was seriously committed to making the Stability Pact a real success’, in Biermann, R. (1999), p. 14, ‘The Stability Pact for south–east Europe: Potential, Problems and Perspectives’, ZEI Discussion Paper, No.C56, Bonn, http://www.zei.de/ 124. Ibid., p. 15. For an examination of the role of the Federal Security Council, see, Rühl, L. (2001), ‘Security Policy: National Structures and Multilateral Integration’, in W.-D. Eberwein, and K. Kaiser Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision-making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave): 102–116. 125. The roles of Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul (Minister for Economic Co-operation and Development) and Gerd Poppe (Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid, 1998–2003) were important in the framing of the Stability Pact and in forging domestic agreement on the plan within the German government. Interview, 28 February 2001, MRBB-B, Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin. Notes 243

126. Friis, L. and Murphy, A. (2000): p. 5, ‘Turbo-charged Negotiations: The EU and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/5: 767–786. 127. Schröder, G. (1999), ‘Regierungserklärung von Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder im Deutschen Bundestag zur Aktuellen Lage im Kosovo am Donnerstag, 15. April 1999’, Bonn, http://www.eu-presidency.de/, accessed 25 October 1999. The structure of the Stability Pact had yet to be agreed upon, but was scheduled for agreement on 17 May 1999. 128. Friis and Murphy described the negotiation of the peace and the Stability Pact as ‘Turbo-charged’. Friis, L. and Murphy, A. (2000), pp. 767–786. 129. Ibid. 130. Council (1999) ‘Common Position concerning the launching of the Stability Pact of the EU on South–Eastern Europe’, http://europa.eu.int/ comm/external_relations/see/docs/stability_pact_17_may_99.htm, accessed 6 September 2004. 131. Ibid. Preamble, paragraph 7. 132. Biermann, R. (1999) p. 18. 133. Schröder, G. (1999). 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid. 136. Peters, I. (1999), pp. 196–197, ‘OSCE and German Policy: a Study in How Institutions Matters’, in, H. Haftendorn, R. O. Keohane and C. A. Wallender, Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 195–220. 137. Anderson, J. J. and Goodman, J. B. (1993), p. 45, ‘Mars or Minerva? A United Germany in a Post-cold War world’, in R. O. Keohane, J. S. Nye and S. Hoffmann (eds) After the Cold War: International Institutions and State Strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), pp. 23–62. 138. Germany undertook 1.3% of the total of 38,004 sorties flown in the NATO operation against Serbia, which were predominantly flown by 14 Tornado aircraft with Electronic Combat Reconnaisance (ECR) technology. As there was a shortage of this technology within the alliance, ECR was termed a ‘Critical Asset’ in the operation. See, Rieks, A. and Weigold, D. (2000), p. 33, ‘Der Kosovo-Konflikt – eine militärpolitische Auswertung,’ in J. Krause (Hrsg.) Kosovo: Humanitäre Intervention und cooperative Sicherheit in Europa (Opladen: Leske und Budrich), pp. 13–53. 139. Fischer, J. (1999), ‘Bundesminister des Auswärtigen Joschka Fischer vor dem Deutschen Bundestag zur deutschen Beteiligung an dem internationalen Streitkräfteverband in Osttimor (Interfet), 07. Oktober 1999’, Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, October 1999, Nr.10, pp. 3–4. 140. Ischinger, W. (1999), ‘Staatssekretär Wolfgang Ischinger in der Zeitschrift Deutschland (Ausgabe Juli/August 1999) zu den Konturen einer neuen Außenpolitik’, in Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, Nr.8, August 1999, pp. 3–6. 141. Fischer, J. (1999), p. 30, ‘Südosteuropa am Wendepunkt’, Rede der Bundesminister der Auswärtigen, Joschka Fischer, bei der Vorbereitungskonferenz zum Stabilitätspakt für Südosteuropa auf dem Petersberg, Bonn, 27. Mai. 1999, Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, Nr.5, Juni 1999, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, pp. 28–30. 142. Ibid., p. 29. 244 Notes

143. Tewes, H. (2000), Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe: Enlarging NATO and the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 144. Verheugen, G. (1999), ‘Günter Verheugen, Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, am 08.06.1999 vor dem Deutschen Bundestag’, http://www.eu- presidency.de/, accessed 25 October 1999. 145. Auswärtiges Amt (2001), p. 43, Deutsche Aussenpolitik 2001, Berlin. 146. Volmer, L. (1999), ‘Dr. Ludger Vomer, Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt, am 08.06.1999 vor dem Deutschen Bundestag zur Deutschen EU- Ratspräsidentschaft’, http://www.eu-presidency.de/, accessed 25 October 1999. 147. Fischer, J. (2000), ‘Kosovo – Herausforderung auf dem Weg des Balkan nach Europa’, Regierungserklärung zum Kosovo abgegeben durch den Bundesminister des Auswärtigen Joschka Fischer am 5. April 2000, in Berlin, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/ 148. Ibid. 149. Ibid. 150. Fischer, J. (1999), Bundesminister Joshka Fischer am 18.11.1999 in der Stuttgarter Zeitung zur Außenpolitik der rot-grünen Bundesregierung (Auszüge), http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/ 151. Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU foreign policy co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4: 613–631. 152. See, Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003). 153. Mueller-Brandeck-Boucquet, G. (2002), p. 197, Deutsche Europapolitik von Konrad Adenauer bis Gerhard Schroeder (Opladen: Leske Budrich). See also, Allen, D. (1998), ‘Who Speaks for Europe?’ in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing Visions of CFSP, (London: Routledge) and Müller-Brandeck-Bocquet, G. (2002), ‘The New CFSP and ESDP Decision-Making System of the European Union’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 7/2: 257–282. 154. The Treaty of Nice (2000) formally inaugurated three new institutions as part of ESDP – the Political Security Committee, the EU Military Committee and the EU Military Staff. 155. Confidential Interviews in the German Permanent Representation to the European Union, Brussels on 2 and 3 July 2003 and in the Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin, on 7 July 2003. 156. Scharping, R. (1999), p. 15, ‘Grunlinien deutscher Sicherheitspolitik’ Rede des Bundesministers der Verteidigung Rudolf Scharping an der Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr in Hamburg, 08. September 1999, Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, September 1999, pp. 15–23. 157. GemeinsameSicherheit und Zukunft der Bundeswehr (2001), Bericht der Kommission an die Bundesregierung, 23 May 2001. See also, Sarotte, M. E. (2001), ‘German Military Reform and European Security’, Adelphi Paper No.301, IISS, London. 158. See, Table 3.10. 159. German Council Presidency (1999), ‘Strengthening the Common Policy on Security and Defence’, Informal meeting of EU foreign ministers, Eltville (Schloß Reinhartshausen), 13–14 March 1999, German Proposal prepared on 8 March 1999 for discussion at the informal meeting, reprinted in Rutten, M. (2001), pp. 17–19, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Notes 245

Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No.47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union. 160. European Parliament (2001), ‘Instruments of Conflict Prevention and Civilian Crisis Management Available to the European Union’, Directorate General for Research-Directorate A STOA – Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Briefing Note N 1/2001 PE nr. 296.707 March 2001; Swedish Presidency (2001) Results of the Swedish Presidency (final version), http://www.eu2001.se/; Lalumière, C. (2000) Report on the establishment of a common European security and defence policy after Cologne and Helsinki (2000/2005(INI)) Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy. 161. The UK has been clear in its support for Conflict Prevention as part of a strategy of influencing European security, but is more comfortable in using military force than Germany. See, Ministry of Defence (2001), Policy Paper No.1 ‘Defence Diplomacy’, p. 2, http://www.mod.uk/ – ‘Britain’s Armed Forces, and civilians working in defence, have a long and proud record of providing support to conflict prevention through a wide range of activities. During the SDR (Strategic Defence Review), conflict prevention and peacetime diplomacy were acknowledged as being core defence activities. A new defence mission called Defence Diplomacy was created to give greater priority, impetus and coherence to these types of activities, and to ensure alignment with the Government’s foreign and security policy objectives.’ Germany privileges CP above military capabilities. 162. Fischer, J. (2001), ‘Interview: Die Antwort auf fast alle Fragen ist: Europa’, Die Zeit, 12/2001, http://www.zeit.de/2001/12/Politik/200112_fischer. neu9.3.html. The title of this article is a misquote of what Fischer actually said in the interview which may lead to some misinterpretation. What Fischer acutally stated was, ‘Die Antwort auf fast alle internationale Fragen ist: Europa’ (my emphasis). This is a clear sign that despite the importance of the EU in many areas affecting Germany, the German national interest remains relevant, albeit in terms of Selbsteinschränkung within a multilateralist context. 163. Report Presented to the Nice European Council by the Secretary General/High Representative and the Commission, Nice, 8 December 2000, ‘Improving the Coherence and Effectiveness of the European Union Action in the Field of Conflict Prevention’, reprinted in Rutten M (2001), ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence: Core Documents’, Chaillot Paper No.47, EU ISS, Paris, pp. 212–221. 164. Cologne Declaration (1999) Annex III, paragraph 2. 165. See, Figure 3.1.166. von Ploetz, H.-F. (1999), ‘Europäische Union – Rußland: Partnerschaft für das 21. Jahrhundert’ Ansprache Staatssekretär/AA Dr. Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz vor dem Rat für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Moskau, 28. Mai 1999, in Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, Nr. 6 Juni 1999, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, pp. 3–7. ‘The security concept of the EU encompasses, like the suggestions for the Balkan stability pact show: Binding on and, if the prerequisites are fulfilled, inclusion into the space of common rights, common security and common prosperity, which are the model to which the EU professes itself.’ 167. See, for example, Cook, R. (2001), ‘Human Rights – a priority for Britain’s Foreign Policy’, Speech by the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, in the Foreign 246 Notes

Office, London, 28 March 2001. http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/speechtext. asp?4873 168. Blair, T. (1999), ‘Speech by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the Economic Club of Chicago’, Hilton Hotel, Chicago, USA, 22 April 1999, reproduced at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/politics/blair.htm, accessed 6 September 2004.

4 No Longer a ‘Reluctant Power’? Germany’s Emergent Leadership Role in ESDP

1. Dempsey, J. (2001), ‘Power to the Capitals’, Financial Times, 15 October 2001. 2. Confidential Interview, 8 July 2003, Kanzleramt, Berlin. 3. Hedetoft, U. (1998), p. 2, ‘Germany’s National and European Identity: Normalisation by Other Means’, in C. Lankowski (ed.) Break Out, Break Down or Break In? Germany and the European Union after Amsterdam, AICGS Research Report No.8, pp. 1–10. 4. Hacke, C. (2002), ‘Die Außenpolitik der Regierung Schröder/Fischer: Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 48/2002, available at, http://www.das-parlament.de/2002/48/Beilage/002.html; Hellmann, G. (2001), ‘Deutschlands Kraft und Europas Vertrauen oder: Die Selbstbewussten, die Befangenen und die Betroffenen der neuen deutschen Außenpolitik’, in C. Lammers and L. Schrader (Hrsg.) Neue deutsche Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik? Eine friedenswissenschaftliche Bilanz zwei Jahre nach dem rot-grünen Regierungswechsel (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 42–78. 5. Cornish, P. (ed.) (2004), The Conflict in Iraq, 2003 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 6. Clarke, M. (2004), ‘The Diplomacy that Led to War in Iraq’, in P. Cornish (ed.) The Conflict in Iraq, 2003 (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 27–58. 7. Reutter, W. (ed.) (2004), Germany on the road to Normalcy: Policies and Politics of the Red-Green Federal Government (1998–2002) (Basingtoke: Palgrave). 8. Spanish sponsored ‘Group of Eight Letter’ supporting America’s position on Iraq, Aznar, J. M. et al. (2003) Letter to The Times, The Times, 30 January 2003, http://www.timesonline.co.uk 9. Miskimmon, A. (2005) ‘Continuity in the face of upheaval – British Strategic Culture and the impact of the Blair government’, in K. Longhurst and M. Zaborowski (eds) Old Europe, New Europe and Transatlantic Security (London: Routledge). 10. Pond, E. (2004), Friendly Fire: The Near-death of the Transatlantic Alliance, European Union Studies Association (Pittsburgh, Brookings Institution); Daalder, I. H. and Lindsay, J. M. (2003) America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution); Gordon, P. H., and Shapiro, J. (2004) Allies at War: America, Europe and the Crisis over Iraq (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution). 11. The Economist (2001) ‘Solid, but for How Long?’, 20 September 2001. 12. The then National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, outlined her summation of how America should view its relations with Germany, France and Russia after the Iraq War in 2003 as that of, ‘Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia’, cited in, Hare, D. (2004) p. 116, Stuff Happens (London: Faber and Faber). Notes 247

13. Hedstück, M. and Hellmann, G. (2003) ‘Wir machen einen deutschen Weg’ Irak-Abenteuer, der transatlantische Verhältnis und die Risiken der Methode Schröder für die deutsche Außenpolitik’, in Kubbig, B. (Hrsg.) (2003) Brandherd Irak, US-Hegemonieanspruch, die UNO und die Rolle Europas, Campus, Frankfurt am Main, S.224–234. 14. Gemeinsame Erklärung Deutschlands, Frankreichs, Luxemburgs und Belgiens zur Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (2003) 29 April 2003, http://www.bundesregierung.de/, accessed 21 July 2003. 15. Interviews in the German Foreign Ministry, 7 July 2003. 16. Ibid. 17. Bacia, H. (2003), ‘Unnötige Eile: Das Treffen könnte der gemeinsame europäischen Sicherheitspolitik schaden’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 28 April 2003. See also, Doyle, L. (2003), ‘French Call for Military Co- operation divides EU’, The Independent, 28 April 2003; Financial Times Deutschland (2003) ‘Vierergipfel berät über EU-Verteidigungspolitik’, 29 April 2003. 18. Schweiger, C. (2004), ‘British–German Relations in The European Union after the War on Iraq’, German Politics, 13/1: 35–55. 19. The last time Germany had a Grand Coalition government was during the 1966–69 period. 20. Meiers, F.-J. (1995), ‘Germany: The Reluctant Power’, Survival, 37/3: 82–103. 21. Haftendorn, H. (2006), Coming of Age (London: Rowman and Littlefield). 22. Hyde-Price, A. and Jeffery, C. (2001), ‘Germany in the European Union: Constructing Normality’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/4: 689–718. 23. Szabo, S. (2004), Parting Ways: The Crisis in German-American Relations (Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution). 24. Cornish, P. and Edwards, G. (2003), ‘Beyond the EU/NATO Dichotomy: The Beginnings of a European Strategic Culture,’ International Affairs, 77/3: 587–603; Cornish, P. and Edwards, G. (2005), ‘The Strategic Culture of the European Union: A Progress Report,’ International Affairs, 81/4: 801–821. 25. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp between Transformation and Accommodation’, in K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press); Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2006), ‘Adapting to Europe? German Foreign Policy, Domestic Constraints And The Limitations of Europeanisation since Unification’, in H. W. Maull (ed.) Germany’s Uncertain Power (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 26. Hellmann, G. (ed.) (2006), Germany’s EU Policy on Asylum and Defence: De- Europeanization by Default? (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 27. NATO (2005), NATO-Russia Compendium of Financial and Economic Data Relating to Defence, http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-161.pdf, accessed 7 September 2006. 28. Ibid. In contrast, the UK figure currently stands at 2.3% of GDP and France stands at 2.5% GDP (Based on 2005 figures). 29. Meiers, F.-J. (2005), p. 159, ‘Germany’s Defence Choices’, Survival, 47/1: 153–166. 30. NATO (2005). The UK figure stands at 202,000 with French forces numbering 357,000 (On the basis of 2005 figures). 248 Notes

31. Figures from German Armed Forces Homepage (Figures correct as of 2 August 2006), http://www.bundeswehr.de/, accessed 10 August 2006. 32. As a result of Germany’s involvement in military crisis management, Germany has become much more at ease with deploying the Bundeswehr. See, Wagener, M. (2006), ‘Normalization in Security Policy? Deployments of Bundeswehr Forces Abroad in the Era Schröder, 1998–2004’, in H. W. Maull (ed.) Germany’s Uncertain Power: Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 79–92. 33. Confidential Interview, German Foreign Ministry, Berlin, 7 February 2007. 34. Die Welt (2006), ‘Jung halt Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Kongo für möglich’, 23 January 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 35. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2006), ‘NATO weitet Einsatz auf ganz Afghanistan aus’, 6 March 2006, www.faz.net, accessed 5 June 2006. 36. Die Welt (2006), ‘Jungs Reserven’, 23 January 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 37. Die Welt (2006), ‘Bundeswehr soll im Kongo nur mit Logistik helfen’, 28 January 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 38. Chirac’s initial suggestion that the proposed Franco-German EU Battlegroup should be readied for the mission was immediately rejected by the German government – the Franco-German Battlegroup consists of 1,500 German soldiers and only four French troops. 39. Stuttgarter Nachrichten (2006), Kongo: SPD appelliert an faire Arbeitsteilung mit Paris – Bonde hält Bundeswehr-Einsatz für falsch’, 7 March 2006, http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de, accessed 7 March 2006. 40. Die Welt (2006), ‘Deutschland schickt Soldaten in den Kongo’, 10 February 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 41. In a newspaper interview in early February, Jung confirmed that Germany would not undertake the leadership role in Congo. Die Welt (2006), ‘Hoffentlich bleibt mir so ein Befehl erspart’, 11 February 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 42. Financial Times (2006), ‘Europe Ready to Send Peacekeeping Troops to Congo’, 11 February 2006, p. 3. 43. Die Welt (2006), ‘Möglicher EU-Einsatz im Kongo nimmt Gestalt an – auch Deutschland bereit’, 28 February 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 44. These preconditions were the same as those stated by Walter Kolbow (SPD) – that is a fixed duration and destination of the mission; an internationalised force; a legal basis for the mission and the agreement of the Congolese government for the EU’s presence. The Union’s defence policy spokesman Bernd Siebert outlined five points which mirrored Kolbow’s points; an wide range of support within the EU to be reflected in military involvement in the mission; a robust UN mandate; an agreement by President Kabila for the mission; a restriction on the mission solely to the Congolese capital and a fixed duration for the mission of four months – one month before the elections and three months after. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2006), ‘SPD hat weniger Vorbehalte gegen Kongo-Einsatz’, 9 March 2006, www.faz.net, accessed 24 July 2006. 45. Die Welt (2006), ‘Struck warnt vor Einsatz der Bundeswehr im Kongo’, 13 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 February 2006. Notes 249

46. Die Welt (2006), ‘Union: Massive Bedenken gegen Kongo-Einsatz’, 14 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 47. Die Welt (2006), ‘Union: Skepsis bei Kongo-Einsatz’, 15 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 48. These included: Portugal, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Belgium and Austria, as well as, Germany and France. 49. Peter Struck (SPD) supported this view stating, ‘Europe has a special responsibility to stabilise Africa so that no more refugees traverse the Mediterranean.’ Cited in, Die Welt (2006), ‘Solana zu Gesprächen über EU- Einsatz in Kongo’, 19 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 50. Die Welt (2006), ‘Bundesregierung treibt Kongo-Einsatz deutscher Soldaten voran’, 17 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 51. Leersch, H.-J. (2006), ‘Schwere Vorwürfe gegen Jung’, Die Welt, 22 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 52. The view that Chancellor Merkel was too willing to accommodate France was also echoed by Guido Westerwelle, Head of the FDP. Die Welt am Sonntag (2006), ‘Stapeln Sie hoch, Herr Westerwelle’, 26 March 2006, www.wams.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 53. Schäfer, P. (2006), ‘Speech to the Bundestag’, 29th March 2006, Bundestag Plenarprotokoll 16/28, 28. Sitzung. 54. Deutschlandfunk (2006), ‘Widerstand gegen Kongo-Einsatz in der SPD- Fraktion’, 21 March 2006, http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/ inter- view_dlf/481339/, accessed 24 July 2006; Handelsblatt (2006) ‘Politiker meutern gegen Kongo-Einsatz’, 21 March 2006, www.handelsblatt.com, accessed 24 July 2006. 55. Die Welt (2006), ‘SPD: Deutsche sollen in ganz Kongo helfen’, 2 May 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 56. Bonde, A. (2006), ‘Speech to the Bundestag’, 29 March 2006, Plenarprotokoll 16/28, 28. Sitzung. 57. Financial Times Deutschland (2006), ‘Grüne werben für Ja zu Kongo-Einsatz’, 17 May 2007, www.ftd.de, accessed 20 July 2006; Die Welt (2006) ‘Grüne wollen Bundeswehr in den ganzen Kongo schicken’, 6 May 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 58. Die Welt (2006), ‘Pro und contra Kongomission’, 25 March 2006, www.welt.de, accessed 20 July 2006. 59. Bundesregierung (2006), ‘Antrag der Bundesregierung: Beteiligung bewaffneter deutscher Streitkräfte an der EU-geführten Operation EUFOR RD CONGO zur zeitlich befristeten Unterstützung der Friedensmission MONUC der Vereinten Nationen während des Wahlprozesses in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo auf Grundlage des Resolution 1671 (2006) des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen vom 25 April 2006’, Drucksache 16/1507, 17 May 2006. 60. A recent meeting of this trilateral group was on 23 September 2006 in Compiegne, France. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Lebanon issue and energy policy were all on the agenda for the leaders. For more details see, the Federal Government’s press release for the meeting at, http://www.bundesregierung. de/nn_1264/Content/DE/Artikel/2006/09/2006-09-23-treffen-compiegne. html, accessed 24 September 2006. 250 Notes

61. The Foreign Ministry’s understanding of the Germany-Russia strategic part- nership can be found at, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/ Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/OsteuropaUndRussland/Russland. html, accessed 24 September 2006. 62. CDU/CSU and SPD (2005), Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 11 November 2005, Voltmedia, Paderborn. 63. Most of the groundwork for the compromise also stemmed from Schröder’s time in office. Rinke, A. (2006) ‘100 Tage Bundesregierung: Die Stille Macht’, Handelsblatt, 1 March 2006, http://www.handelsblatt.de/,. accessed 5 March 2006. 64. Poland was particularly happy with the deal, receiving €100 million extra out of funds which had been earmarked for eastern Germany. 65. Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2004), ‘Germany and European Integration: A Shifting of Tectonic Plates’, in H. Kitschelt and W. Streeck (ed.) Germany Beyond the Stable State (London: Frank Cass), pp. 59–78; Streeck, W. and Trampusch, C. (2005), ‘Economic Reform and the Political Economy of the German Welfare State’, German Politics, 14/2: 174–195. 66. Harnisch, S. and Schieder, S. (2006), ‘Germany’s New European Policy: Weaker, Leaner, Meaner’, in H. W. Maull (ed.) Germany’s Uncertain Power (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 95–108. 67. The Times (2006), ‘German Lesson: London and Berlin are on the Cusp of a Beautiful Relationship’, 18 February 2006, p. 23. 68. Williamson, H. (2006), ‘Berlin-London Links Thrive on Mutual Praise’, Financial Times, 18 February 2006, p. 8; Blair, T. (2006), Speech on European Integration, St Anthony’s College, Oxford University, 2 February 2006, http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/esc/BlairSpeechStAntonys.pdf, accessed 15 March 2006. 69. Economist (2006), ‘Merkel as a World Star: Special Report – Germany’s Place in the World’, 18–24 November 2006, pp. 25–27. 70. Clarke, C. (2000), p. 733, ‘French and British security: Mirror Images in a Globalized World’, International Affairs, 76/4: 725–739. 71. Currently there are 13 Battlegroups either already in existence or in the planning to be operational by 2007, which have been committed to make up of the following member state constellations – France; Italy; Spain; United Kingdom; France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and potentially Spain; France and Belgium; Germany, the Netherlands and Finland; Germany, Austria and Czech Republic; Italy, Hungary and Slovenia; Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal; Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania; Sweden, Finland and including Norway as a third State; United Kingdom and the Netherlands. 72. Aillot-Marie, M. and Reid, J. (2006), ‘Carriers deal signals important step in EU defence links’, Financial Times, Asia Edition, 6 March 2006, p. 12; Jivkov, M. (2006), ‘Britain and France to share carrier programme’, The Independent, 25 January 2006, p. 55. 73. Council of Ministers (2004), Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of the European Defence Agency, http://europa.eu.int/eur- lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_245/l_24520040717en00170028.pdf 74. Booker, C. (2005), ‘Defensive Measures: Europeanisation of the British Army is Coming on the Double’, Sunday Telegraph, 10 July 2005, p. 21. Notes 251

75. See, Löwenstein, S. (2005), ‘Die wundersame Verwandlung der Bundeswehr’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 August 2005, http://www.faz.net, accessed 7 March 2006. See also, Wagener, M. (2006), ‘Normalization in Security Policy? Deployments of Bundeswehr Forces Abroad in the Era Schröder, 1998–2004’, in H. W. Maull (ed.) Germany’s Uncertain Power: Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 79–92. 76. The following data can be accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/ public_opinion/index_en.htm 77. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2006), ‘Merkel und Chirac plädieren für Militärmission in Kongo’, 14 March 2006, http://www.faz.net, accessed 14 March 2006. 78. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2006), ‘Jung fordert mehr EU-Solidarität für Kongo-Einsatz’ 7 March 2006, http://www.faz.net, accessed 7 March 2006. 79. Käppner, J. (2006), ‘Wir kennen uns dort nicht aus’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 7 March 2006, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ausland/artikel/558/71487/, accessed 8 March 2006. 80. Browne, A. (2006), ‘Merkel Looks to Britain as Model for a Free Market’, The Times, 26 January 2006, p. 43. 81. Buck, T. (2006), ’Protectionist storm shakes EU’s single market’, Financial Times, 1 March 2006, p. 1; Monti, M. (2006), ‘Damage at the Heart of Europe’s Single Market’, Financial Times, 2 March 2006, p. 17; Financial Times (2006) ‘A New Mood is What Europe needs most: Germany and France Hold the Keys to Economic Recovery’, Financial Times Leader, 9 January 2006, p. 16. 82. Wallace, W. (2005), ‘Das Führungstrio Deutschland – Frankreich – Grossbritannien: Europas zentrales Problem?’, Integration, 4/05: 328–331. 83. The Independent (2006), ‘A German Bridge Across the Atlantic’, 14 January 2006, p. 34. 84. Angela Merkel, cited in, Stevens, B. (2006), ‘Terms of Endearment’, Wall Street Journal, 14 January 2006, p. A14. 85. Ibid. 86. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2006), ‘Ich empehle eine selbstbewußte Bescheidenheit’, 6 March 2006, p. 6. 87. Stevens, P. (2006), ‘UK Should Look at the World Afresh’, Financial Times, 20 February 2006, http://www.ft.com, accessed 20 February 2006. 88. Peel, Q. (2005), ‘Germany is entering an assertive era’, Financial Times, 12 October 2005, http://www.ft.com, accessed 23 February 2006. 89. The Times (2006), ‘German lesson: London and Berlin are on the cusp of a Beautiful Relationship’, 18 February 2006, p. 23. 90. Mertes, M (2002), p. 16, ‘A “German Way”’, Internationale Politik, Transatlantic Edition, 4/3: 11–16. 91. For an excellent analysis of the European Security Strategy and its relationship to the United States’ military planning, see, Dannreuther, R. and Peterson, J. (eds) (2006), Security Strategy and Transatlantic Relations (London: Routledge). 92. German Ministry of Defence (2006) p. 34, Defence White Paper, Berlin, http://www.weissbuch.de/download/White_Paper_2006.pdf 93. Confidential Interview, German Foreign Ministry, Berlin, 7 February 2007. 94. Ibid. 95. Ibid. 252 Notes

96. Allen, D. (1998), ‘Who Speaks for Europe?: The Search for an Effective and Coherent External Policy’ in Peterson, J. and Sjursen, H. (ed.) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? Competing visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge), pp. 41–58. 97. Ibid. 98. Confidential Interview, German Embassy, London, 14 February 2007. 99. Done, K. and Wiesmann, G. (2007), ‘National Tensions Resurface at EADS’, Financial Times, 20 February 2007, http://www.ft.com, accessed 20 February 2007. 100. Pfaff, W. (2006), ‘Does Europe Need an Army?’, International Herald Tribune, 10 November 2006, www.iht.com, accessed 10 November 2006. 101. Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2004), ‘Germany and European Integration: A Shifting of Tectonic Plates’, in H. Kitschelt and W. Streeck (ed.) Germany Beyond the Stable State (London: Frank Cass), pp. 59–78; Streeck, W. and Trampusch, C. (2005), ‘Economic Reform and The Political Economy of the German Welfare State’, German Politics, 14/2: 174–195. 102. Harnisch, S. and Schieder, S. (2006), ‘Germany’s New European Policy: Weaker, Leaner, Meaner’, in Maull, H. (ed.) (2004), Germany’s Uncertain Power (Basingstoke: Palgrave), pp. 95–108. 103. Dyson, K. (2005), ‘Economic Policy Management: Catastrophic Equilibrium, Tipping Points and Crisis Intervention’, in S. Green and W. E. Paterson (eds) Governance in Contemporary Germany: The Semisovereign State Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 115–37; Dyson, K. and Padgett, S. (eds) (2006) Politics of Economic Reform in Germany (London: Routledge). 104. Von Randow, G. (2006), ‘Sterben furs Öl?’ Die Zeit, 15 May 2006, www.zeit.de, accessed 15 May 2006. 105. Hill, C. (1993) ‘The Capabilities-Expectations Gap or Conceptualizing Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328; Hill, C. (1998) ‘Closing the Capabilities-Expectations Gap?’ in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe: Competing Visions of the CFSP (London: Routledge), pp. 18–38.

Conclusion – Between Europeanisation and National Singularities

1. Struck, P. (2003), Paragraph 6, Defence Policy Guidelines, 21 May 2003, Berlin. 2. Ibid., paragraph 9. 3. Nye, J. S. (1990), Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books). 4. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp between Transformation and Accommodation’, K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. 5. See, Hellmann, G. (1999) ‘Beyond Weltpolitik, Self-containment and Civilian Power: United Germany’s Normalising Ambitions’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Papers IGS 99/10, University of Birmingham. 6. Overhaus, M., Harnisch, S. and Katsioulis, C. (2003), ‘Schlussbetrachtung: Gelockerte Bindungen und eigene Wege der deutschen Sicherheitspolitik?’, Notes 253

in S. Harnisch, C. Katsioulis and M. Overhaus (Hrsg.) (2004), Gelockerte Bindungen – eigene Wege? Die deutsche Sicherheitspolitik unter der rot-grünen Koalition (Baden-Baden, Nomos), pp. 253–262. 7. Risse, T. (2004), ‘Kontinuität durch Wandel: Eine “neue” deutsche Aussenpolitik?’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B11/2004: 24–31. 8. Waever, O. (1990), ‘Three Competing Europes: German, French, Russian’, International Affairs, 66/3: 477–493. 9. Duffield, J. S. (1998), p. 236, World Power forsaken: Political Culture, international institutions and German security policy after unification (Stanford: Stanford University Press). 10. Olsen, J. P. (1996), ‘The Changing Political Organization of Europe: An Institutional Perspective on the Role of Comprehensive Reform Efforts’ in J. J. Hesse and T. A. J. Toonen (eds) The Yearbook of Comparative Government and Public Administration, Vol. II (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 225–250; Olsen, J. P. (2001), ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, ARENA Working Papers, WP01/2, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp02_2.htm; March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press); March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2004), ‘The logic of appropriateness’, ARENA Working Paper, WP04/09, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf 11. March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (2004), p. 1, ‘The logic of appropriateness’, ARENA Working Paper, WP04/09, http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/ wp04_9.pdf 12. Börzel argues that states are driven by the logic of appropriateness rather than a logic of consequentiality in the Europeanisation of domestic governance structures in their initial response to a policy development or challenge. However, as Börzel states, ‘Actors start to consider alternative strategies only if their initial strategy proves to be ineffective in pursuing their interests’, Börzel, T. A. (2002), p. 230, States and Regions in the European Union: Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 13. Checkel highlights social learning/socialisation as a mean to fill the gap which Olsen left in his analysis. See, Checkel, J. T. (1999), p. 555, ‘Social Construction and Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6/4: 545–560. 14. Knill, C. (2001), p. 213, The Europeanisation of National Administrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 15. Ibid. See also, Knill, C. and Lehmkuhl, D. (1999), ‘Difference mechanisms of Europeanization’, European Integration Online Papers, 3/7, http://eiop.or.at/ eiop/pdf/1999-007.pdf. 16. Howorth, J. (1997), p. 24, ‘France’, in J. Howorth and A. Menon (eds) The European Union and National Defence Policy (London: Routledge), pp. 23–48. 17. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003) p. 343, ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp between Transformation and Accommodation’, K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. Smith makes this point in relation to the relative insulation from transnational, sectoral interests, of European foreign policy elites, on issues relating to CFSP. Smith, M. E. (1998), ‘Rules, Transgovernmentalism, and the Expansion of European Political Co-operation’, in W. Sandholtz and 254 Notes

A. S. Sweet (eds) European Integration and Supranational Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 304–333. 18. Meyer, C. O. (2005), ‘Convergence towards a European Strategic Culture? A Constructivist Framework for Explaining Changing Norms’, European Journal of International Relations, 11/4: 523–549. For a more elaborated version of this argument, see also, Meyer, C. O. (2006) The Quest for a European Strategic Culture (Basingstoke, Palgrave). 19. Gehrmann, W. (2002), ‘Scharpings Luftnummer’, Die Zeit, 10/2002, http://www.zeit.de/2002/10/Wirtschaft/print_200210_euro-fighter.html 20. VonWeizsäcker Report (2001), Gemeinsame Sicherheit und Zukunft der Bundeswehr Bericht der Kommission an die Bundesregierung, 23 May 2001. 21. Interview in the Defence Ministry Planning Staff, Berlin, 12 June 2001. 22. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), ‘The Polls-Trends: Having it Both Ways: European Defence Integration and the Commitment to NATO’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 627–659. 23. Lantis, J. S. (2002), p. 176, Strategic Dilemmas and the Evolution of German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Praeger). 24. For a range of case studies representing these differing views on the concept of Europeanisation, see, Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press). 25. One exception is Hellmann, G. (ed.) (2006), Germany’s EU Policy on Asylum and Defence: De-Europeanization by Default? (Basingstoke: Palgrave). 26. Becher, K. (2004), p. 404, ‘German Forces in International Military Operations’, Orbis, 48/3: 397–408. 27. Longhurst, K. (2003), ‘Why aren’t the Germans Debating the Draft? Path Dependency and the Persistence of Conscription’, German Politics, 12/2: 147–165. The 2006 White Paper on Defence reinterates Germany’s commitment to maintain conscription. 28. Hampton, M. N. (2000/2001), ‘The Past, Present and the Perhaps: Is Germany a “Normal” Power?’, Security Studies, 10/2: 179–202; Sperling, J. (2001), ‘Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in post- Cold War Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 38: 389–425; Wagener, M. (2003), ‘Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr. Normalisierung statt Militarisierung deutscher Sicherheitspolitik’, in C. Grund, S. Harnisch and H. W. Maull (Hrsg.) Deutschland im Abseits? Rot-grüne Außenpolitik 1998 – 2003 (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 33–48. Select Bibliography

Primary sources

Auswärtiges Amt (2001), Deutsche Aussenpolitik 2001, Berlin. BMVg (2000), Meinungsbild zur Sicherheitspolitischen Lage (SPL) 2000: Repraesentative Umfrage durch EMNID: Muendlich und telefonisch durchgefuehrt vom 11.02 bis 13.03.2000, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Presse- und Informationsstab, http://www.bundeswehr.de/ BMVg (2006), Weißbuch 2006, reproduced at http://www.bundeswehr.de/ The Brussels Treaty (1948), Preamble to the Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (The Brussels Treaty), Brussels, 17 March 1948. CDU Bundesfachausschuß Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (1996), Die Weiterentwicklung der Gemeinsamen Außen, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik der Europäischen Union in der Regierungskonferenz 1996, 16 September 1996. Chirac, J. and Kohl, H. (1995), ‘Gemeinsamer Brief des deutschen Bundeskanzlers und des französischen Staatspräsidenten an den Vorsitzenden des Europäischen Rates vom 06.12.1995’; überreicht vom Bundespresseamt, reprinted in Jopp, M. & Schmuck, O. (eds) Die Reform der Europäischen Union: Analysen Positionen – Dokumente zur Regierungskonferenz 1996/1997 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag), pp. 115–117. De Charette, H. and Kinkel, K. (1996), ‘Die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Leitlinien, verabschiedet anläßlich des Seminars der Außenminister Frankreichs und Deutschlands, am 27. Februrar 1996 in Freiburg, überreicht vom Auswärtigen Amt, Bonn, in Jopp, M. & Schmuck, O. (eds) Die Reform der Europäischen Union: Analysen – Positionen – Dokumente zur Regierungskonferenz 1996/1997 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag), pp. 118–120. Gemeinsame Erklärung Deutschlands, Frankreichs, Luxemburgs und Belgiens zur Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (2003), 29 April 2003, http://www.bundesregierung.de/ accessed 21 July 2003. Fischer, J. (1999), ‘Südosteuropa am Wendepunkt’, Rede der Bundesminister der Auswärtigen, Joschka Fischer, bei der Vorbereitungskonferenz zum Stabilitätspakt für Südosteuropa auf dem Petersberg, Bonn, 27. Mai. 1999, Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik, Nr.5, Juni 1999, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, pp. 28–30. Franco-British Declaration on European Defence (1998,) 4 December 1998, reproduced in Hill, C. and Smith, K. E. (eds) (2000), European Foreign Policy. Key Documents (London: Routledge), pp. 233–234. Gemeinsame Erklärung der Außenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher und Roland Dumas, Anläßlich ihrer Gespräche am 21.03.91 in Paris, p.27, Fernseh/ Hörfunkspiegel Ausland, Genscher/Dumas 1, AND/5102/22.03.91/16.47/gl, 27–28.

255 256 Select Bibliography

German Council Presidency (1999) ‘Strengthening the Common Policy on Security and Defence’, Informal meeting of EU foreign ministers, Eltville (Schloß Reinhartshausen), 13th–14th March 1999, German Proposal prepared on 8 March 1999 for discussion at the informal meeting, reprinted in Rutten, M. (ed.) (2001), pp. 17–19, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No. 47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union. German European Council/WEU Presidency (1999), ‘Internal reflection of WEU on European Security and Defence’, 24 February 1999, reprinted in Rutten, M. (ed.) (2001), 14–16, ‘From St. Malo to Nice: European Defence Core Documents’, Chaillot Papers No. 47, Institute for Security Studies, Western European Union. Schäuble, W. and Lamers, K. (1994), Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik, 1 September 1994, reproduced at http://www.wolfgang-schaeuble.de/ positionspapiere/schaeublelamers94.pdf. Struck, P. (2003), Defence Policy Guidelines, 21 May 2003, Berlin.

Books

Aybet, G. (1997), The Dynamics of European Security Cooperation, 1945–91 (Basingstoke: Macmillan). Bach, J. P. G. (1999), Between Sovereignty and Integration: German Foreign Policy and National Identity after 1989 (New York: Lit Verlag, St.Martin’s Press). Banchoff, T. (1999), The German Problem Transformed: Institutions, Politics and Foreign Policy, 1945–95 (Michigan: University of Michigan Press). Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (1999), The European Union as a Global Actor (London: Routledge). Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1987), The Federal Republic of Germany and the European Community (London: Allen & Unwin). Bulmer, S., Jeffery, C. and Paterson, W. E. (2000), Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Cornish, P. (ed.) (2004), The Conflict in Iraq, 2003 (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Croft, S., Redmond, J., Wyn Rees, G. and Webber, M. (1999), The Enlargement of Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Dalton, R. (ed.) (1996), Germans Divided: The 1994 Bundestagswahl and the Evolution of the German Party System (Oxford: Berg). Davies, N. (1996) Europe: A History (London: Pimlico). Duffield, J. S. (1998), World Power Forsaken: Political Culture, International Institutions, and German Security Culture after Unification (Stanford: Stanford University Press). Dyson, K. and Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht: Negotiating Economic and Monetary Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Dyson, K. and Goetz, K. H. (eds) (2003), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press). Eberwein, W.-D. and Kaiser, K (eds) (2001), Germany’s New Foreign Policy: Decision- making in an Interdependent World (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Select Bibliography 257

Fritsch-Bournazel, R. (1992), Europe and German Unification (Oxford: Berg). Fröhlich, S. (2001), ‘Auf der Kanzler kommt es an’: Helmut Kohl und die deutsche Außenpolitik (Paderborn: Schöningh). Fursdon, E. (1980), The European Defence Community: A History (London: MacMillan). Garton-Ash, T. (1993), In Europe’s Name (London: Vintage). Genscher, H.-D. (1995), Erinnerungen (Berlin: Siedler). Ginsberg, R. H. (2001), The European Union in International Politics: Baptism by Fire (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield). Glaessner, G.-J. (1992), The Unification Process in Germany: From Dictatorship to Democracy (London: Pinter). Goetz, K. H. and Hix, S. (eds) (2001), Europeanised Politics. European Integration and National Political Systems (London: Frank Cass). Green-Cowles, M., Caporaso, J. A. and Risse, T. (2001), Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Haftendorn, H. (2001), Deutsche Außenpolitik Zwischen Selbstbeschränkung und Selbstbehauptung (Stüttgart und München: DVA Verlag). Haftendorn, H., Keohane, R. O. and Wallander, C. A. (eds) (1999), Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions Over Time and Space (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hanrieder, W. F. (1989), 40 years of German Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press). Harnisch, S. and Maull, H. W. (eds) (2001), Germany as a Civilian Power: The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Hill, C. (ed.) (1983), National Foreign Policies and European Political Co-operation (London: Allen & Unwin). Hill, C. (ed.) (1996), The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy (London: Routledge). Hill, C. (2003), The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Hill, C. and Smith, K. E. (eds) (2000), European Foreign Policy: Key Documents (London: Routledge). Hough, D. (2001), The Fall and Rise of the PDS in Eastern Germany (Birmingham: Birmingham University Press). Hyde-Price, A. (2000), Germany and European Order: Enlarging NATO and the EU (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Johnson, N. (1983), State and Government in the Federal Republic of Germany: the Executive at work 2nd edition (Oxford: Pergamon Press). Jopp, M. and Schmuck, O. (eds) (1996), Die Reform der Europäischen Union: Analysen – Positionen – Dokumente zur Regierungskonferenz 1996/1997 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag). Kagan, R. (2003), Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (London: Atlantic Books). Katzenstein, P. (1987), Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi- Sovereign State (Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity In World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press). Katzenstein, P. J. (ed.) (1997), Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press) Knill, C. (2001), The Europeanisation of National Administrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 258 Select Bibliography

Kohler-Koch, K. and Eising, R. (eds) (1999), The Transformation of Governance in the European Union (London: Routledge). Krause, J. (ed.) (2000), Kosovo: Humanitäre Intervention und cooperative Sicherheit in Europa (Opladen: Leske Budrich). Lantis, J. S. (2002), Strategic Dilemmas and the Evolution of German Foreign Policy since Unification (London: Praeger). Longhurst, K. (2004), Germany and the Use of Force: The Evolution of German Security Policy 1989–2003 (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Longhurst, K. and Zaborowski, M. (eds) (2005), Old Europe, New Europe and Transatlantic Security (London: Routledge). Loth, W. and Picht, R. (Hrsg.) (1991), De Gaulle, Deutschland und Europa (Opladen: Leske & Budrich). Lüdeke, A. (2002), Europäisierung der deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik: Konstitutive und operative Europapolitik zwischen Maastricht und Amsterdam (Opladen: Leske Budrich). March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions (New York: Free Press). Meyer, C. O. (2006), The Quest for a European Strategic Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Müller-Brandeck-Boucquet, G. (2002), Deutsche Europapolitik von Konrad Adenauer bis Gerhard Schroeder (Opladen: Leske Budrich). Nuttall, S. (1992), European Political Cooperation (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Nye, J. S. (1990), Bound to lead. The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books). Pedersen, T. (1998), Germany, France and the Integration of Europe. A Realist Interpretation (London and New York: Pinter). Philippi, N. (1997), Bundeswehr-Auslandseinsätze als außen- und sicherheitspolitisches Problem des geeinten Deutschland (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang Verlag). Regelsberger, E., De Schoutheete de Tervarent, P. and Wessels, W. (eds) (1997), From EPC to CFSP and Beyond (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers). Remmert, M. (1994), Westeuropäische Zusammenarbeit in der Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik: Positionen von Regierung und Koalitionsparteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1982–1991) (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag). Rummel, R. (ed.) (1992), Toward Political Union (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft). Rummel, R. and Wessels, W. (eds) (1978), Die Europäische Politische Zusammenarbeit: Leistungsvermögen und Struktur der EPZ (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag). Sauder, A. (1995), Souveränität und Integration (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag). Schmalz, U. (2004), Deutschlands europäisierte Aussenpolitik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag). Schneider, H., Jopp, M. and Schmalz, U. (eds) (2002), Eine neue deutsche Europapolitik? Rahmenbedingungen – Problemfelder – Optionen (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag). Smith, M. E. (2004), Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy: The Institutionalisation of Co-operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Tewes, H. (2002), Germany, Civilian Power and the New Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Tonra, B. and Christiansen, T. (eds) (2004), Rethinking European Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press). Select Bibliography 259

Wagner, W. (2001), Die Konstruktion einer europäischen Außenpolitik: Deutsche, französisch und britische GASP-Politiken im Vergleich, Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie im Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main. Wyatt-Walter, H. (1997), The European Community and the Security Dilemma, 1979–92 (Basingstoke: MacMillan). Zehfuss, M. (2002), Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Book chapters and journal articles

Aggestam, L. (2004), ‘Role Identity and the Europeanisation of Foreign Policy: A Political-Cultural Approach’, in B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds) Rethinking European Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 81–98. Allen, D. (1998) ‘Who Speaks for Europe?: The Search for an Effective and Coherent External Policy’, in J. Peterson and H. Sjursen (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 41–58. Berger, T. U. (1996), ‘Norms, Identity, and National Security in Germany and Japan’, in P. J. Katzenstein (ed.) The Culture of National Security, (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 317–356. Biermann, R. (1999), ‘The Stability Pact for South-East Europe: Potential, Problems and Perspectives’, ZEI Discussion Paper, No. C56, Bonn, http://www.zei.de/ Bulmer, S. (1991), ‘Analysing European Political Cooperation: The Case for a Two- tier Analysis’, in M. Holland (ed.) The Future of European Political Cooperation: Essays in Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: MacMillan). Bulmer, S. (1997), ‘Shaping the Rules? The Constitutive Politics of the European Union and German Power’, in P. J. Katzenstein (ed.) Tamed Power: Germany in Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), pp. 1–49. Bulmer, S. and Burch, M. (2000), ‘Coming to Terms with Europe: Europeanisation, Whitehall and the Challenge of Devolution’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation No. 9/2000, Queens University, Belfast. Bulmer, S. and Paterson, W. E. (1996), ‘Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?’, International Affairs, 72/1: 9–32. Crawford, B. (1996), ‘Explaining defection from International Cooperation: Germany’s Unilateral Recognition of Croatia’, World Politics, 48/4: 482–521. Deighton, A. (1997), ‘On the Cusp: Britain, Maastricht and European Security’, European University Institute, RSC Working Paper No. 97/59. Eichenberg, R. C. (2003), ‘The Polls-Trends: Having it Both Ways: European Defence Integration and the Commitment to NATO’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67: 627–659. Friis, L. and Murphy, A. (2000), ‘Turbo-charged Negotiations: The EU and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/5: 767–786. Garton-Ash , T. (1993), ‘Germany’s Choice’, Foreign Affairs, 73/4: 65–81. Grant, C. (1998), ‘Can Britain Lead in Europe?’, Centre for European Reform Working Paper, http://www.cer.org.uk/. 260 Select Bibliography

Grant, C. (2000), ‘European Defence Post-Kosovo’, Centre for European Reform Working Paper, http://www.cer.org.uk. Hellman, G. (1999), ‘Beyond Weltpolitik, Self-containment and Civilian Power: United Germany’s Normalising Ambitions’, Institute for German Studies Discussion Paper 99/10 (Birmingham: University of Birmingham). Hellmann, G. (2002), ‘Deutschland in Europa: Eine symbiothische Beziehung’, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, December 2002, B48/2002: 24–31. Hill, C. (1993), ‘The Capability-expectations Gap, or Conceptualising Europe’s International Role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/3: 305–328. Hill, C. (1998), ‘Closing the Capabilities-expectations Gap’, in Peterson, J. and Sjursen, H. (eds) A Common Foreign Policy for Europe? (London: Routledge), pp. 18–38. Hill, C. (1998), ‘Convergence, Divergence and Dialectics: National Foreign Policies and the CFSP’, in J. Zielonka (ed.) Paradoxes of European Foreign Policy (The Hague: Kluwer Law International), pp. 35–51. Hill, C. (2004), ‘Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11 September 2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 42/1: 143–163. Hyde-Price, A. and Jeffery, C. (2001), ‘Germany in the European Union: Constructing Normality’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39/4: 689–718. Janning, J. (1996), ‘A German Europe: a European Germany’, International Affairs, 72/ 1: 33–41. Jopp, M. (1999), European Defence Policy: The Debate over Institutional Aspects, June/July 1999 (Berlin: Institut für Europäische Politik). Ladrech, R. (1994), ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of France’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 32/1: 69–88. Marcussen, M., Risse, T., Engelmann-Martin, D., Knopf, H. J. and Roscher, K. (1999), ‘Constructing Europe? The Evolution of French, British and German Nation State Identities’, Journal of European Public Policy, 6/4: 614–33. Maull, H. W. (1990), ‘Germany and Japan: the New Civilian Powers’, Foreign Affairs, 69/5: 91–105. Mearsheimer, J. (1990), ‘Back to the Future’, International Security, 15/1: 5–56. Miskimmon, A. and Paterson, W. E. (2003), ‘Foreign and Security Policy: On the Cusp between Transformation and Accommodation’, K. Dyson and K. H. Goetz (eds) (2003), German, Europe and the Politics of Constraint (Oxford: Proceedings of the British Academy/Oxford University Press), pp. 325–345. Putnam, R. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games’, International Organisation, 42/3: 427–460. Schmalz, U. (2002), ‘Die europäische Macht: Deutschland in der europäischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik’, in H. Schneider, M. Jopp and U. Schmalz (eds) Eine neue deutsche Europapolitik? Rahmenbedingungen – Problemfelder – Optionen (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag), pp.15–68. Smith, M. E. (1998), ‘Rules, Transgovernmentalism, and the Expansion of European Political Co-operation’, in W. Sandholtz and A. S. Sweet (eds) European integration and Supranational governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 304–333. Smith, M. E. (2000), ‘Conforming to Europe: the Domestic Impact of EU Foreign policy co-operation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7/4: 613–631. Select Bibliography 261

Smith, M. E. (2004), ‘Institutionalization, Policy Adaptation and European Foreign Policy Co-operation’, European Journal of International Relations, 10/1: 95–136. Sperling, J. (2001), ‘Neither Hegemony nor Dominance: Reconsidering German Power in Post-Cold War Europe’, British Journal of Political Science, 38: 389–425. Torreblanca, J. I. (2001), ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Papers, WP01/26, University of Oslo.

News sources

A number of news sources have been relied on for this study including: Agence France Presse Intl. Atlantic News BBC Bonn General Anzeiger BPA Informationsfunk CDU Pressedienst Das Parlament Defence News Der Spiegel Deutsche Presse Agentur Deutschland-Union-Dienst Die Welt Die Zeit Europa Info Europa im Blickfeld European Voice Financial Times Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Frankfurter Rundschau Handelsblatt Herald Tribune International Herald Tribune Süddeutsche Zeitung The Economist The Guardian The Independent The Times Wall Street Journal Index

A-400M 169 Chernomyrdin, Viktor 130, 132 Adenauer, Konrad 28, 33, 48, 110, 187 Chirac, Jacques 45, 84–86, 92–94, Afghanistan 31, 148, 153, 155, 159, 166, 169, 172 158–159, 164–166, 172, 188, 193 Christian Democractic Union (CDU) Ahtisaari, Martti 130, 132 38, 42–43, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56–57, Amsterdam Treaty 15–19, 68, 82–83, 66, 69, 71, 73–74, 76, 90, 94, 148, 85, 89, 91–98, 100, 109, 112, 117, 162, 167, 197 127, 130 Christian Social Union (CSU) 38, Annan, Kofi 130, 150, 158 42–43, 46, 48, 54, 56–57, 71, Auswärtiges Amt (Foreign Ministry) 73–74, 76, 94, 161–162, 167 13–15, 24, 130, 149, 158, 159, Clinton, Bill 102, 123 177–179, 187, 193, 195 Cologne Treaty 15, 107, 112, 116–117, 130, 135, 138, 142 Balladur, Edouard 67, 69, 128 Colombo, Emilio 24, 30 Barnier, Michel 85 Common Joint Task Force (CJTF) Battlegroups 151, 154, 168, 179, 184, 65–66, 84, 89, 91 192 Conference on Security and Co- Beck, Kurt 180 operation in Europe (CSCE) 10, Berlin Plus Agreement 112, 147, 186 28 Bevin, Ernest 26 Cook, Robin 92, 114 Birmingham 89 Cork 89 Blair, Tony 68, 92–94, 101, 105–106, Croatia 37, 46, 113, 128 109, 113, 143, 167–169, 172–174 Bosnia-Herzegovina 66, 81–82, 155, De Gaulle, Charles 28 157, 164 Democratic Republic of Congo 18, Breuer, Paul 126 19, 21, 149–151, 153–166, 169, Brok, Elmar 70 171–172, 174–176, 179–181, 184, Bündnis ‘90 / Die Grünen (The 192–193 Greens) 14, 73–74, 94, 97, Dregger, Alfred 38, 42, 46 103–104, 111, 124, 128, 137, 158, Dumas, Roland 42–43, 49, 60 161–163, 197 Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) EADS 180 36, 43, 49, 51–52, 54, 56, 59, 71, Economic and Monetary Union 73–74, 80–82, 91, 96–97, (EMU) 7, 34, 38, 41–42, 46, 48, 103–104, 107, 118, 120–123, 53, 57, 60, 72, 76–77, 91, 97 125–126, 132–134, 138–140, Engholm, Bjorn 55 142–143, 148, 151–154,157–159, Errera, Gerrard 106 161–163, 165, 172, 175–177, EU3 165–166, 172–173 179–180, 183–185, 186–188, Eurocorps 47, 65, 68, 86, 96, 118 194–198 Eurofighter/Typhoon 90–91, 169 Bundeswehrverband 163 European Defence Community 26–27 Bush, George 49 European Neighbourhood Policy Bush, George. W. 146, 149, 165 (ENP) 166

262 Index 263

European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF) Hurd, Douglas 43, 50 3, 138, 143, 154, 169 Hussein, Saddam 21, 36 European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) 65, 95, 112 Implementation Force (IFOR) 82 European Security Strategy 174, International Monetary Fund (IMF) 193 129 Europeanisation 2, 4–12, Iran 165–166, 168, 173, 179, 182, Eyskens, Mark 47 184 Iraq 21, 145–149, 157, 165–166, 172, Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) 175, 180–181 14, 26, 119, 163, 179–180, 183 Ischinger, Wolfgang 96, 135, 166 Fischer, Joschka 102–104, 108, 110–111, 113–114, 117, 122–124, Joint Armaments Co-operation 126–137, 141–143, 147, 149, 182 Structure (JACS) 90 Former Yugoslav Republic of Jospin, Lionel 92 Macedonia (FYROM) 157 Jung, Franz Josef 159–161, 163–164, France 4, 18, 24–26, 34–35, 37–38, 175–177, 183 40–50, 58, 60, 62, 101, 106–107, 111, 116, 118, 123, 129, 140–141, Kahrs, Johannes 162 143, 146–150, 152–153, 158–160, Kinkel, Klaus 66, 72–73, 76, 78–79, 162, 164–165, 167–171, 173–175, 81, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93–94 177, 179–180, 183–184 Klepsch, Egon 43 Free Democratic Party (FDP) 38, 54, Kohl, Helmut 31–33, 34, 36–42, 56–57, 64, 72–74, 76, 90, 43–50, 52, 54–60, 65–66, 71, 73, 126–127, 129 76–77, 84–86, 91, 93–95, 98, 100, 103, 105, 110, 126, 137, 187 G-8 101, 123, 127, 129–130, 135–136 Kok, Wim 93 Gansel, Norbert 42, 51 Kosovo 16, 19, 21, 101–102, Garel-Jones, Tristan 48 104–105, 108–111, 113–116, 119, Genscher, Hans-Dietrich 22, 24, 30–33, 121–132, 134, 136, 142–143, 190, 36–38, 41–43, 46, 49, 56–60, 103, 193, 196 135 Kosovo Force (KFOR) 155 Grand Coalition 148–151, 156, 159, 161, 165, 167–168, 172, 174–177, Lamers, Karl 38, 66–67, 69, 71, 180–184 85–86, 90, 134 Guigou, Elizabeth 70 Lebanon 151, 166 Gysi, Gregor 55 Linkspartei (Party of the Left) 162 Lippelt, Helmut 124 Harmel, Pierre 27–28, 30 Lübkemeier, Eckhart 147 Hatfield, Richard 106 Haughey, Charles 41 Major, John 44–45, Headline Goal 168, 174, 192, 195 Merkel, Angela 148–149, 159–160, HELIOS 91 162, 165–168, 172–173, 176–177, Helsinki Treaty 107, 128, 132, 135 179–180, 184, 187 Herzog, Werner 67 Millon, Charles 86 Heusgen, Christoph 179 Milosevic, Slobodan 102, 114–115, Hornheus, Karl-Heinz 50 121, 123–124, 130, 137 Howe, Geoffrey 87 Mitterrand, Francois 37, 39–41, 46, Hoyer, Werner 64, 85, 90, 94 58, 60, 84 264 Index

Modrow, Hans 55 Rau, Johannes 54 Moravcsik, Andrew 6–7, Reflection Group (Amsterdam Treaty) Multinational Advisory Police 64, 70–71, 90 Element (MAPE) 113 Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) 152 Nachtwei, Winfried 162 Robertson, George 106 NATO Response Force 151 Rühe, Volker 56, 79–82, 86, Naumann, Klaus 125 Russia 66, 112, 115–116, 123, Netherlands 26, 44, 47, 49–50, 69, 78 129–130, 132, 135, 137, 149–150, Nice Treaty 112, 116 166–167, 175, 179 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) 2–3, 10, 20, 23–24,26, Santer, Jacques 69 32–33, 35–36, 38–47, 49–56, Schäuble, Wolfgang 66–67, 69, 71, 58–61, 63, 65, 68–73, 75–76, 85–86, 89, 126 79–81, 83–89, 92, 95–97, 100–102, Scharioth, Klaus 166 106–108, 110, 112, 114–115, Scharping, Rudolph 81, 117, 117–119, 121–130, 135–136, 122–123, 130, 133, 139–140 139–140, 142, 146–149, 151, Schloss Reinhartshausen 114, 116 153–154, 158, 160, 164, 166–167, Schröder, Gerhard 100, 102–103, 169, 175, 179–180, 182–184 109–110, 122–123, 128–129, 131–134, 141, 143 145–150, Operation Allied Force 21, 102, 166–168, 172, 175, 180–181 121–127, 129–131, 137, 144 Seiters, Rudolf 71, 94 Operation Althea 157 Single European Act (SEA) 30–32, 40 Operation Artemis 157, 159, 169 Slovenia 37, 46 Operation Concordia 157 Social Democratic Party (SPD) 42–43, Organisation for Security and 51, 54–55, 57, 71–74, 81, 93–94, Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 103, 124, 128, 148, 161–162, 167, 71, 88, 109, 125–126, 128–130, 180 132, 139 Solana, Javier 161, 164, 179, 183 St Malo 2, 19, 101, 105–107, 109, Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) 113–114, 117–118, 143 50–51, 55–56, 73–74, 94, Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe 124–125, 162 19, 100–144 Petersberg Declaration 61 Stabilsation Force (SFOR) 82 Petersberg Tasks 3, 65, 79, 82–84, 87, Steinmeier, Frank-Walter 161, 89–92, 94–96, 113, 117–118, 138, 165–166, 174 142, 157 Stoiber, Edmund 162 Pörtschach 105, 109 Ströbele, Hans-Christian 162 Policy Planning and Early Warning Struck, Peter 161 Unit (PPEWU) 94–96 Supreme Allied Commander Allied Poppe, Gerd 51, 132 Forces South (AFSOUTH) 86 Pralinengipfel (Chocolate Summit) 147 Thatcher, Margaret 44, Putin, Vladimir 166 Treaty of European Union (Maastricht Putnam, Robert 5–7 Treaty) 7, 14, 16–19, 22, 30, 33, 39–40, 44, 49, 53–54, 57–58, 64, Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) 40, 68, 77, 80, 85, 98, 113, 116–117, 70–72, 74, 78, 85–87, 93–96 145–148, 152–153, 158, 160, Index 265

Treaty of European Union – continued Waigel, Theo 71 164–170, 172–174, 177, 179–181, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 183–184 153 Westendorp, Carlos 70–71 UN Interfet 134 Western European Union United Kingdom 4, 18, 24–26, 31, (WEU) 12, 26, 125–26, 37–38, 40–50, 58, 60, 62, 87–91, 40, 42–47, 49–52, 55, 58–59, 101, 105–108, 111, 113, 116, 118, 61, 65–66, 68–70, 72–74, 123, 141, 143, 145–148, 152–153, 78–79, 82–84, 87–90, 92–96, 158, 160, 164–174, 177, 179–181, 101, 104, 109, 112–114, 183–184 116–118, 123, 127–128, 136, United Nations 10, 37, 102, 122, 138, 140–141 134, 150 Wieczorek-Zeul, Heidemarie 51, 54, United Nations Mission in the 72–73, 94 Democratic Republic of Congo Witthauer, Hans-Jochen (MONUC) 150 157 United Nations Security Council Wörner, Manfred 43 (UNSC) World Bank 129 van Eekelen, Willem 43 Yugoslavia 36–37, 41,46, Verheugen, Gunther 72, 81, 113, 61, 101–102, 107, 109, 117, 136 115–116, 125–126, von Goetze, Clemens 178 128–130