Abstract
This article explains some of the recent changes in German foreign policy, namely the shift in preferences for institution building in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The empirical exploration compares the phase before the European Union's (EU) Intergovernmental Conference in the mid-1990s with the Convention negotiations in 2002/2003. While the German government used to be a strong defender of NATO's primacy and supported a modest scope for the EU, it then began to promote high-intensity crisis management for ESDP and wanted to see the EU on an equal footing with NATO. Building on neoclassical realist thought, the paper argues that a two-stage analysis of the power context offers a comprehensive explanation of these changes. It refers to power in a materialist sense and its cognitive understanding on behalf of the political actors. Based on the assessment of uncertainty stemming from its interpretation of the power context, the German government formed its preferences on what the EU's responsibilities for European security should be and how it should relate to NATO. More specifically, the mixture of isolationist and unilateralist signals sent by the United States increased German concerns about the latter's commitment. The German government adapted to the uncertain power context by promoting stronger responsibilities for ESDP.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The interactionist perspective is right that the EU's Intergovernmental Conferences represent a particularly challenging case for the predominantly structural theories of foreign policy (Wagner et al. 2006: 20). However, these phases offer the opportunity to bracket the member states’ preferences. While these summits are thus theoretically challenging but methodologically easier to access, a comparison of the German approach towards two IGCs embodies a promising point of departure for an analysis of German security policy. For Wolfgang Wagner, the Amsterdam–IGC does actually not represent a ‘summit’ (Wagner 2006: 94–5). Due to the fact, however, that this article deals merely with the military aspects of CFSP, an in-depth investigation of Maastricht would have been largely meaningless. The idea of seriously integrating military aspects only gained ground during the 1990s. In short, Maastricht came too early for our comparison.
There are basically two venues to start from: either we attempt to build a synthesis of culture and power (e.g. Jackson 2006) or we modify one of the competing schools to enhance its consistency with real-world developments. This article pursues the latter strategy as recent developments in realist theorizing had so far been neglected by scholars on German foreign policy. So-called neoclassical approaches appear to be a promising starting point for an analysis (e.g. Rose 1998; Schmidt 2005: 542–6). German historians have adopted similar arguments with the objective of criticizing the red–green foreign policy (e.g. Schwarz 2005). However, these writings were not meant as a genuine contribution to foreign policy analysis and are thus omitted in the following.
The best source would obviously be records of internal discussions of a government's decision makers preceding certain EU meetings (e.g. Zürn 1997: 300–1). Unfortunately, they are mostly unavailable. However, this is not particularly problematic for this kind of analysis (e.g. Jachtenfuchs 2002: 220–4). Why should, for instance, the German government publicly support low-intensity crisis management within the EU, but secretly oppose it?
It is crucial to acknowledge that — due to space constraints — only the most important documents are explicitly listed here. The empirical material, which was actually examined to draw these conclusions, was clearly more extensive.
It is important to acknowledge that the British sea change at St. Malo had shifted the context of ESDP. The UK — under the new Labour government — had given up its constant opposition to an active role for the Union in security affairs. Thus, the agenda for reforming the Nice Treaty was more ambitious than in the mid-1990s.
Apart from highly important interview data from MoD senior officials, see also: Reuters News, (2003); Krah (2003); BBC Monitoring European (2003a) and BBC Monitoring European (2003b).
This was an agreement between NATO members that effectively fixed the ‘primacy of the Alliance’ in 1996. The EU may act in crisis management operations, ‘when the Alliance as a whole chooses not to be engaged’ (Hunter 2002: 18).
See also, The Economist (2005).
This dominance is observable among both European scholars studying this topic (e.g. Harnisch 2001; Harnisch and Maull 2001; Malici 2006) and American approaches (e.g. Berger 1998; Duffield 1998).
We are consequently faced with the question: what kind of changes would fall within the proclaimed scope of these explanations? Reviewing the research questions, it becomes manifest that the centre of attention is clearly on broad developments. The case studies usually tackle questions such as the use of force, great power politics, reform of the armed forces or European integration (e.g. Berger 1998; Duffield 1998; Longhurst 2003; Malici 2006). According to that, the institutional design of ESDP clearly fits within the scope of these approaches because it is about the establishment of those arrangements where German security will be primarily executed in the near future. Essentially all interviewees confirmed the relevance and importance of the institutional design of ESDP for the government.
The irony, then, is that a research programme that was initiated and strengthened by the impetus to explain change — in contrast to neorealism's continuity bias — will be confronted with a very similar assault (see also, Hellmann 2009). The reason for this seems to be the apparent structuralist bias of both approaches. Thus, the important dividing line seems not so much represented — as many do argue — by material vs. ideational explanations, but rather by structure- or agency-related approaches to the problem of continuity and change. For one possibility for directly tackling this problematique, see Wagner et al. (2006: 5–19).
Despite this structural bias, neorealism should be able to tell us some important things about German policy in this high politics issue. After all, it touches upon those issues that neorealism claims are its most natural domains, namely big decisions in security and defence. Thus, these geopolitical issues of ESDP represent a legitimate research subject for neorealist thinking on foreign policy.
The CIMC consists of two demographic indicators (i.e. total and urban population), two industrial ones (i.e. energy consumption and steel production) and eventually two military indicators (i.e. military expenditures and size of the armed forces). For the current data set, see http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%20Data/Capabilities/NMC_3.02.csv (last accessed 4 January, 2007).
Two problems emerge in this context. Firstly, the G-8 selection criterion intentionally omits China and India because both of them are expected to play a minor role for German preferences. Moreover, their huge populations would lead to a weighing problem of the different CIMC indicators. After all, the Correlates of War composite index favours states with large populations (and industrial economies) (Wolforth 1999: 11). Thus, both states will be excluded from this analysis. Secondly, to be able to better compare the results at the temporal level, we decided to exclude the new accession states during the Convention. This appeared to be more plausible than to include those countries only at one point of time.
This tendency was, in particular, reflected by all interviews conducted with defence officials.
Interestingly enough, the only exception to this lack is represented by several historians. Influential commentators, such as Michael Stürmer or Hans-Peter Schwarz, made basically neoclassical realist arguments — without referring to these debates in foreign policy analysis. See, in particular, Schwarz (2005). Nevertheless, these authors are largely omitted at this stage as the paper's aim is to contribute to ongoing debates in foreign policy analysis and International Relations.
From the perspective of Steven Lukes’ seminal discussion of power, the paper largely remains within the framework of the one-dimensional view (Lukes 1974: 11–2, 25). The rationale behind this deliberate decision is primarily based on the focus of the research question on behaviour, key issues, observable conflict and preferences. The two- or three-dimensional view would be clearly more comprehensive, but would increase complexity to a significant degree — without contributing proportionately to the research question.
Although this approach explicitly refers to or derives from an IR paradigm, it seems largely compatible with Gunther Hellmann's actual recommendations of a pragmatist analysis of German foreign policy. In particular, the specific analysis of empirical evidence would not differ to a strong extent.
The empirical sources of the signaling analysis were twofold. Firstly, speeches, strategies and, in particular, newspaper articles provide the basic data. Media reports were often more suitable for accessing the political actors’ interpretations, which were often hidden within diplomatic formulations. Secondly, for the question of German perception, the analysis was decisively supplemented by interviews conducted in the German Ministry of Defence. The officials also gave me the opportunity to analyze documentary sources there, while I was unfortunately not entitled to quote them directly.
The US administration unambiguously made clear in the so-called Bartholomew letter that European-only experiments could put American engagement (and thus NATO) at risk. The Bartholomew letter was the reflection of a National Security Council document that supported, on the one hand, further US military presence in Europe and, on the other hand, that autonomous European security arrangements should be avoided so as not to undermine NATO.
‘In short, the Berlin and Brussels agreements of June 1996 created the possibility that the WEU, for the first time, might become a militarily effective organization, able to respond to at least some of the limited range of agreed Petersberg Tasks, while at the same time the agreements ratified the essential links across the Atlantic and, it can be argued, the implicit concept of “NATO first” — although this concept was never formally agreed to’ (Hunter 2002: 18).
In this case, the clarity of US signals and the fact that they fit neatly into the American tradition makes it unnecessary to dig deep into executive–legislative politics or the electoral campaigns. Even isolationist voices in Congress were relatively moderate in 1995 and wide parts of 1996.
See, Gordon (1993); or Atkinson (1995); or Atkinson and Graham (1996).
Here, for example, the German Minister of Defence, Rudolf Scharping, cited from Whitney (1999a).
This assessment is based on both interviews in the German MoD and documentary sources there. Although the US's 2000 election campaign was already observed with some concern, it was primarily this assessment that triggered German preference formation: some sort of uncertainty about the future American commitment to European security problems.
For European concerns, see, for example, Hoagland (1999); The Economist (2000); and Diehl (2001).
All German senior officials who were interviewed emphasized this interrelationship.
Castle (2003): ‘In private some diplomats blame the crisis on the US due to its insistence on using ad hoc coalitions, rather than Nato.’
For the tensions, see McCartney (2003).
Ignatius (2002): ‘You could hear the NATO alliance tearing at the seams on Tuesday as Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, denounced the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy and warned that Europeans will refuse to be treated like “satellite” states.’ See also, Graham and Kaiser (2002).
This assessment is based on my personal examination of some documentary sources at the German Ministry of Defence (April/May 2007). In particular, several briefing and position papers made clear that the German government widely accepted the American conditions as parameters for the design of ESDP.
Richburg (2000). See also, Kaminski (1999); and Hamilton and Aldinger (2000).
See, for instance, the statements by then-Minister of Defence, Rudolf Scharping, cited from Whitney (1999b).
For the initial German position, see McCartney (2003).
The compromise was to establish a civilian–military cell in Brussels. The latter's ‘terms of reference’ which took a long time to negotiate clearly express the different positions of, for instance, Germany and the UK. They can undoubtedly be read as evidence for the power and signaling argument, but are (unfortunately) not publicly available. Nevertheless, I was granted the opportunity to examine them.
I had the opportunity to study the German background and position papers on these issues. This article's overall assessments are based on them, even though the attempt was made to refer as often as possible to publicly available sources. See also, Winter (2007).
One could only elaborate on these aspects by using either a counter-factual argument (e.g. Hellmann 2009) or a historical comparison that would have to be similar to the paper's topic in all respects but one, namely the number of poles. Although highly interesting, this is beyond the scope of this article and would rather be the subject of further research.
References
Agence Europe (2003a) ‘EU/Defence – United States fiercely opposed to European “headquarters” outside NATO’, Agence Europe, 2 October.
Agence Europe (2003b) ‘EU/Defence’, Agence Europe, 25 November.
Agence Europe (2003c) ‘EU/IGC/NATO – Donald Rumsfeld denies criticising EU Naples plans’, Agence Europe, 2 December.
Albright, Madeleine (1998) ‘The Right Balance Will Secure NATO's Future’, Financial Times, 7 December.
Atkinson, Rick (1995) ‘US, Europe: The Gap is Widening’, The Washington Post, 8 February.
Atkinson, Rick and Bradley Graham (1996) ‘As Europe Seeks Wider NATO Role, Its Armies Shrink’, The Washington Post, 29 July.
BBC Monitoring European (2003a) ‘German leader says EU defence initiative “not competing” with NATO’, 4 November.
BBC Monitoring European (2003b) ‘German minister says no EU, NATO internal opposition on defence’, BBC Monitoring European, 4 December.
Berger, Samuel R. (1999) ‘American Power: Hegemony, Isolationism or Engagement’ Speech of the US Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (Washington D.C., 21 October): available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bergheg.htm, 3 March, 2006.
Berger, Thomas U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Biden, Joseph R. (2000) ‘Unholy Symbiosis: Isolationism and Anti-Americanism’, The Washington Quarterly 23 (4): 7–14.
Carlsnaes, Walter (2002) ‘Foreign Policy’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds, Handbook of International Relations, 331–349, London: Sage.
Castle, Stephen (2003) ‘NATO Calms US Fears of European Defence HQ’, The Independent, 21 October.
CDU/CSU Bundestag Group (1994) ‘Manifesto in the Bundestag’ (Bonn, 1 September): available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/igc1996/pos-de_en.htm, 19 September, 2006.
CDU/CSU/FDP (1994) ‘Coalition Agreement. Point VIII: Europe and Foreign Policy–Security and Defense’ (Bonn, 11 November): available at http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/igc-home/eu-doc/parlment/peen2.htm, 5 November, 2005.
Collmer, Sabine (2004) ‘“All politics is local”: Deutsche Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik im Spiegel der Öffentlichen Meinung’, in Sebastian Harnisch, Christos Katsioulis and Marco Overhaus, eds, Deutsche Sicherheitspolitik: Eine Bilanz der Regierung Schröder, 201–225, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Diehl, Jackson (2001) ‘Our Champion of Continuity’, The Washington Post, 19 March.
Duffield, John S. (1998) World Power Forsaken. Political Culture, International Institutions, and German Security Policy After Unification, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Eichenberg, Richard C. (2003) ‘The Polls-Trends: Having it Both Ways: European Defense Integration and the Commitment to NATO’, Public Opinion Quarterly 67 (4): 627–659.
European Defense Meeting (2003) ‘Conclusions’, Meeting of the Heads of State and Government of Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium (Brussels, 29 April): available at http://www.diplomatie.be/en/press/homedetails.asp?TEXTID=6453, 12 May, 2006.
Fischer, Joschka (2001a) ‘Rede des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen zu den transatlantischen Beziehungen’ (Berlin, 15 March), Bulletin der Bundesregierung No. 21.
Fischer, Joschka (2001b) ‘Hearing of the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Part of the “Mardis de l’Europe” at the Assemblée National’ (Paris, 30 October): available at http://europa.eu.int/constitution/futurum/documents/offtext/doc301001_en.pdf, 21 September, 2006.
Fischer, Joschka (2003a) ‘Europe and the Future of the Transatlantic Relations’, Speech by the Foreign Minister (Princeton, 19 November): available at http://www.princeton.edu/~lisd/events/talks/Fischer_Speech.pdf, 26 June, 2006.
Fischer, Joschka (2003b) ‘Regierungserklärung des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen zum Europäischen Rat in Brüssel am 12./13. Dezember 2003’’ (Berlin, 11 December), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 112.
Fischer, Joschka and Dominique de Villepin (2002) ‘Common contribution to the Convention on the Future of Europe: Franco-German Proposals for ESDP’ (CONV 422/02) (Brussels, 22 November).
Frieden, Jeffry A. (1999) ‘Actors and Preferences in International Relations’, in David A. Lake and Robert Powell, eds, Strategic Choice and International Relations, 39–76, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gareis, Sven Bernhard and Paul Klein (2003) ‘Europas Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik: Einstellungen in der deutschen Bevölkerung’, SOWI-Arbeitspapier, No. 135, Strausberg: Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Bundeswehr.
German Ministry of Defense (1994) Weißbuch zur Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und zur Lage und Zukunft der Bundeswehr (Bonn, April).
German Ministry of Defense (2003) Verteidigungspolitische Richtlinien (Berlin, 21 May).
Gordon, Michael R. (1993) ‘Leading NATO on Bosnia; Rebuffed Once, US Takes a Forceful Tack Toward Allies on Approach to Balkan War’, The New York Times, 3 August.
Gourevitch, Peter Alexis (1999) ‘The Governance Problem in International Relations’, in David A. Lake and Robert Powell, eds, Strategic Choice and International Relations, 137–164, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Graham, Bradley and Robert G. Kaiser (2002) ‘NATO Ministers Back US Plan for Rapid Reaction Force’, The Washington Post, 25 September.
Hamilton, Douglas and Charles Aldinger (2000) ‘EU Force Could Spell NATO's End, Cohen Says’, The Washington Post, 6 December.
Harnisch, Sebastian (2001) ‘Change and Continuity in Post-Unification German Foreign Policy’, in Douglas Webber, ed, New Europe, New Germany, Old Foreign Policy? German Foreign Policy Since Unification, 35–60, London: Frank Cass.
Harnisch, Sebastian and Hanns W. Maull, eds (2001) Germany as a Civilian Power, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hellmann, Gunther (2002) ‘Der “deutsche Weg”: Eine außenpolitische Gratwanderung’, Internationale Politik 9: 1–8.
Hellmann, Gunther, ed. (2006) Germany's EU Policy on Asylum and Defence: De-Europeanization by Default? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hellmann, Gunther (2009) ‘Fatal Attraction: German Foreign Policy and IR/Foreign Policy Theory’, Journal of International Relations and Development 12 (3): 257–292.
Hill, Christopher (2003) The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoagland, Jim (1999) ‘Nervous Looks Among Allies’, The Washington Post, 19 December.
Hooghe, Liesbet (2005) ‘Several Roads Lead to International Norms, but Few Via International Socialization: A Study of the European Commission’, International Organization 59 (4): 861–898.
Howorth, Jolyon (2000) ‘European integration and defence: the ultimate challenge?’ Chaillot Papers, No. 43, Paris: WEU Institute for Security Studies.
Hoyer, Werner and Michel Barnier (1995) ‘Existiert Europa? Ein deutsch-französisches Plädoyer für eine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 December.
Hunter, Robert E. (2002) The European Security and Defense Policy: NATO's Companion – or Competitor? Santa Monica/CA: RAND Corporation.
Hyde-Price, Adrian (2001) ‘Germany and the Kosovo War: Still a Civilian Power?’ German Politics 10 (1): 19–34.
Ignatius, David (2002) ‘The Transatlantic Rift Is Getting Serious’, The Washington Post, 15 February.
Interviews (2007) with six senior officials of the German Ministry of Defense (pre-structured, but open-ended) (Executive Staff: ESDP unit) (Berlin, 9 February, 24 April, 17 May).
Jachtenfuchs, Markus (2002) Die Konstruktion Europas. Verfassungsideen und institutionelle Entwicklung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus (2006) Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Jervis, Robert (2005) American Foreign Policy in a New Era, New York: Routledge.
Jones, Seth (2007) The Rise of European Security Cooperation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaminski, Matthew (1999) ‘US Thaws a Bit on EU Defense Plan’, The Wall Street Journal Europe, 3 December.
Kernic, Franz, Jean Callaghan and Philippe Manigart (2002) Public Opinion on European Security and Defense. A Survey of European Trends and Public Attitudes Towards CFSP and ESDP, Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Kinkel, Klaus (1995) ‘The European Union in the 21st century’, Speech in Oxford (Oxford, 17 January), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 7.
Kinkel, Klaus (1996a) ‘Interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 7 March.
Kinkel, Klaus (1996b) ‘Rede des Bundesministers des Auswärtigen auf dem WEU-Ministertreffen’ (Birmingham, 7 May), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 48.
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias (2004) ‘Explaining Governance Preferences for Institutional Change in EU Foreign and Security Policy’, International Organization 58 (1): 137–174.
Kohl, Helmut (1996a) ‘Sicherheit für ein kommendes Europa’, Speech at 33rd Munich Security Conference (Munich, 3 February), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 15.
Kohl, Helmut (1996b) ‘Ansprache des Bundeskanzlers anläßlich des Jahresempfangs für das Diplomatische Korps’ (Bonn, 4 December), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 100.
Krah, Markus (2003) ‘Germany's Struck sees EU defence planning at NATO’, Reuters News, 24 October.
Kydd, Andrew (1997) ‘Sheep in Sheep's Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other’, Security Studies 7 (1): 114–154.
Longhurst, Kerry (2003) ‘Why Aren’t the Germans Debating the Draft? Path Dependency and the Persistence of Conscription’, German Politics 12 (2): 147–165.
Lukes, Steven (1974) Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.
Lutz, Felix Philipp (2002) ‘Historical Consciousness and the Changing of German Political Culture’, German Politics 11 (3): 19–34.
Malici, Akan (2006) ‘Germans as Venutians: The Culture of German Foreign Policy Behavior’, Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (1): 37–62.
McCartney, Robert J. (2003) ‘4 European Leaders Form Pact To Boost Defense Cooperation’, The Washington Post, 30 April.
Moravcsik, Andrew (1998) The Choice for Europe. Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Posen, Barry R. (2006) ‘European Union Security and Defense Policy: Response to Unipolarity?’ Security Studies 15 (2): 149–186.
Pye, Lucian W. (1991) ‘Political Culture Revisited’, Political Psychology 12 (3): 487–508.
Rathbun, Brian C. (2007) ‘Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory’, International Studies Quarterly 51 (3): 533–557.
Reuters News (2003) ‘Defying US, Germany stands firm on EU defence HQ’, Reuters News, 11 September.
Rice, Condoleezza (2000) ‘Promoting the National Interest’, Foreign Affairs 79 (1): 45–62.
Richburg, Keith B. (2000) ‘European Military Force To Cooperate With NATO’, The Washington Post, 9 December.
Rieker, Pernille (2006) ‘From Common Defence to Comprehensive Security: Towards the Europeanization of French Foreign and Security Policy?’ Security Dialogue 37 (4): 509–528.
Risse, Thomas (2004) ‘Beyond Iraq: The Crisis of the Transatlantic Security Community’, in David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, eds, American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rittberger, Volker, ed. (2001) German Foreign Policy since Unification: An Analysis of Foreign Policy Continuity and Change, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’, World Politics 51 (1): 144–172.
Rühe, Volker (1996a) ‘Rede des Bundesverteidigungsministers an der Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr’ (Hamburg, 26 January), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 12.
Rühe, Volker (1996b) ‘Rede des Bundesverteidigungsministers’, Johns Hopkins University (Washington D.C., 30 April), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 34.
Rumsfeld, Donald H. (2001) ‘Speech of the US Secretary for Defense at the 37th Munich Security Conference’ (Munich, 3 February): available at http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2001=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=31&, 7 March, 2006.
Rynning, Sten and Stefano Guzzini (2001) ‘Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis’, COPRI Working Paper, No. 42/2001, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.
Scharping, Rudolf (2002) ‘Global Security – New Challenges, New Strategies’, Speech of the minister of defense at the 38th Munich Security Conference (Munich, 3 February): available at http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2002=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=88&, 23 June, 2006.
Schmalz, Uwe (2005) ‘Die Entwicklung der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik 1990–2004’, in Johannes Varwick, ed., Die Beziehungen zwischen NATO und EU: Partnerschaft, Konkurrenz, Rivalitaet? Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Schmidt, Brian C. (2005) ‘Competing Realist Conceptions of Power’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 523–549.
Schröder, Gerhard (2003a) ‘Speech of the Chancellor’, Joint Session of the Bundestag and the Assemblée Nationale at the 40th anniversary of the Elysée-Treaty (Versailles, 22 January), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 7.
Schröder, Gerhard (2003b) ‘Regierungserklärung zur internationalen Lage und zu den Ergebnissen des Europäischen Rats in Brüssel vom 20./21. März’ (Berlin, 3 April), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 30.
Schwarz, Hans-Peter (2005) Republik ohne Kompass. Anmerkungen zur deutschen Auβenpolitik, Berlin: Propyläen.
Singer, David J., Stuart Bremer and John Stuckey (1972) ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965’, in Bruce Russett, ed., Peace, War, and Numbers, Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sloan, Stanley R. (2000) ‘The United States and European defence’, Chaillot Paper, No. 39, Paris: WEU Institute for Security Studies.
SPD/Greens (1998) ‘Aufbruch und Erneuerung – Deutschlands Weg ins 21. Jahrhundert’, Coalition Agreement (Bonn, 20 October), available at http://archiv.gruene-partei.de/gremien/rot-gruen/vertrag/XI.htm#xi3, 20 July, 2008.
SPD Bundestag Group (2000) ‘Die Zukunft der GASP - Sozialdemokratische Perspektiven für die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Europäischen Union’, Discussion Paper of the SPD-Faction by Gernot Erler (Berlin), available at http://www.gernot-erler.de/old/ot/ot45.html, 13 January, 2006.
Spiegel, Peter (2005) ‘Reid seeks to iron out EU differences with US’, Financial Times, 13 October.
Struck, Hans-Peter (2003a) ‘Rede des Bundesverteidigungsministers zur aktuellen internationalen Lage’ (Berlin: 13 February), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 14.
Struck, Peter (2003b) ‘Rede des Bundesverteidigungsministers zum Beitritt sieben neuer NATO-Mitglieder’ (Berlin, 9 May), Bulletin der Bundesregierung, No. 35.
Winter, Martin (2007) ‘Ein Hauptquartier, das nicht so heißen darf’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 31 May.
Takle, Marianne (2002) ‘Towards a Normalisation of German Security and Defence Policy: German Participation in International Military Operations’, ARENA Working Papers, No. 02/10, Oslo: ARENA.
The Economist (2000) ‘Weathering the Storm’, The Economist (US edition), 9 September.
The Economist (2005) ‘Let's talk – but where?’ The Economist, 24 February.
Tonra, Ben (2001) The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish Foreign Policy in the European Union, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Tonra, Bean (2003) ‘Constructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Utility of a Cognitive Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (4): 731–756.
US Department of Defense (1995) ‘United States Security Strategy for Europe and NATO’, Office of International Security Affairs (Washington D.C.: June): available at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/europe/, 3 March, 2006.
US Department of Defense (2000) ‘Strengthening Transatlantic Security. A US Strategy for the 21st Century’ (Washington D.C., December): available at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/eurostrategy2000.pdf, 3 August, 2006.
US Department of Defense (2003) ‘News Transcript: Background Briefing on Informal NATO Ministerial’ (presented by Senior Administration Official) (Washington D.C., October 8): available at http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20031008-0748.html, 7 March, 2006.
Wagner, Wolfgang (2006) ‘Missing in Action? Germany's Bumpy Road from Institution-Building to Substance in European Security and Defence Policy’, in Gunther Hellmann, ed., Germany's EU Policy on Asylum and Defence: De-Europeanization by Default? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wagner, Wolfgang, Rainer Baumann, Monika Bösche and Gunther Hellmann (2006) ‘German Foreign Policy in Europe: An Interactionist Framework of Analysis’, in Gunther Hellmann, ed., Germany's EU Policy on Asylum and Defence: De-Europeanization by Default? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wallander, Celeste A., Helga Haftendorn and Robert O. Keohane (1999) ‘Introduction’, in Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane and Celeste A. Wallander, eds, Imperfect Unions. Security Institutions over Time and Space, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waltz, Kennteh N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1993) ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security 18 (2): 44–79.
Whitney, Craig R. (1999a) ‘US and NATO Allies Divided Over Defense Needs’, The New York Times, 3 December.
Whitney, Craig R. (1999b) The New York Times, 2 December.
Wivel, Anders (2005) ‘Explaining Why State X Made a Certain Move Last Tuesday: The Promise and Limitations of Realist Foreign Policy Analysis’, Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (4): 355–380.
Wolforth, William C. (1999) ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security 24 (1): 5–41.
Zürn, Michael (1997) ‘Assessing State Preferences and Explaining Institutional Choice: The Case of Intra-German Trade’, International Studies Quarterly 41 (2): 295–320.
Acknowledgements
I thank Tom Berger, Michael Blauberger, Gunther Hellmann, Patrick Jackson and JIRD's anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on various versions of this article. Not only did the paper profit from it, but so did my personal thinking about the research subject and foreign policy analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weiss, M. Power and signals: explaining the German approach to European security. J Int Relat Dev 12, 317–348 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.15
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2009.15