Advertisement

Germany and EU Enlargement

Chapter
  • 69 Downloads
Part of the New Perspectives in German Studies book series (NPG)

Abstract

In its European policy, Germany pursued a number of highly divergent aims in the 1990s. Germany found it difficult to reconcile these aims, and to both widen and deepen the process of European integration. Initially, the tension was merely latent. Germany’s priority was deeper integration in the West; its aim vis-à-vis East Central Europe consisted of stabilization. The more German aims towards its eastern neighbours came to be formulated within the context of integration, however, the more hard-pressed German leaders became to define their priorities. It emerges from the following discussion that one of the obstacles of attaining Civilian Power objectives lay in the domestic institutions, which hampered German policy makers in a way unforeseen by those who created the institutions in the early years of the Federal Republic.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Institutional Reform European Policy Maastricht Treaty East Central 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Pierre Favier and Michel Martin-Roland, La decennie Mitterrand, vol. 3, Les defis (Paris: Points — editions du Seuil, 1996), pp. 190–3.Google Scholar
  2. 13.
    William E. Paterson, ‘Helmut Kohl, “The Vision Thing” and escaping the semi-sovereignty trap’, in Clay Clemens and William E. Paterson (eds), The Kohl Chancellorship (London: Frank Cass, 1998), pp. 31–2.Google Scholar
  3. 14.
    Thus, despite trade restrictions, agricultural products constituted 22 per cent of Polish exports to the EC in 1990; see Jan Mulewicz, ‘Complex bargaining with a difficult partner — Poland’s experiences with the Community’, in Barbara Lippert and Heinrich Schneider (eds), Monitoring Association and Beyond (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1995), p. 190. On the politics of EC protectionism see Alan Mayhew, Recreating Europe. The European Unions Policy towards Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 90–3.Google Scholar
  4. 17.
    Ulrich Sedelmeier, ‘The European Union’s association policy towards Central and Eastern Europe’, Sussex European Institute Discussion Paper, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 18.
    Edith Heller, ‘Polen fühlen sich “wie Albaner” behandelt’, Shddeutsche Zeitung, 12 August 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 19.
    According to Ulf Ellemann-Jensen, then Denmark’s foreign minister. Quoted in Charles Grant, Delors — Inside the House that Jacques Built (London: Nicholas Brealey, 1994), p. 158.Google Scholar
  7. 22.
    The seminal study on West German European policy is Simon Bulmer and William E. Paterson, The Federal Republic and the European Community (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987).Google Scholar
  8. 24.
    Eckart Gaddum, Die deutsche Europapolitik in den 80er Jahren. Interessen, Konflikte und Entscheidungen der Regierung Kohl (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1994), chapter 4. Also Keith Middlemas, Orchestrating Europe. The Informal Politics of European Union 1973–1995 (London: Fontana, 1995), p. 107.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    See Barbara Lippert, ‘EC-Ostpolitik revisited’, in Barbara Lippert and Heinrich Schneider (eds), Monitoring Association and Beyond (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1995), p. 60.Google Scholar
  10. 30.
    Heinz Kramer, ‘The European Community’s response to the “New Eastern Europe” ‘, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31/2 (1993).Google Scholar
  11. 32.
    William Pfaff, ‘Keeping the East Europeans out’, New York Review ofBooks, 38/17 (1991), p. 67.Google Scholar
  12. 33.
    Timothy Garton Ash, Michael Mertes and Dominique Moïsi, ‘Let the East Europeans in!’, New York Review of Books, 38/17 (1991), p. 19.Google Scholar
  13. 35.
    Gunther Nonnenmacher, ‘Deutsche Interessen’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 March 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 36.
    Penny Henson and Nisha Malhan, ‘Endeavours to Export a Migration Crisis’, German Politics, 4/3 (1995), p. 132. Erklarung der Außenminister der Europaischen Gemeinschaft und der Visegrad-Lander an1aßlich ihres Treffens in Luxemburg am 5. Oktober 1992’, Europa-Archiv, 21 (1992), pp. D 606–608.Google Scholar
  15. 56.
    Daniel Vernet, ‘M. Kinkel propose un programme commun pour les présidences allemande et francaise de la communauté’, Le Monde, 25 April 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 67.
    Michael Mertes and Norbert Prill, Der verhangnisvolle Irrtum eines Entweder-Oder’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 July 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 69.
    Konrad Schuller, ‘Zuerst freundlich, dann kritisch. Kern-Europa aus östlicher Sicht’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7 October 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 74.
    Of course ‘the treaty’ refers to the Treaty on European Union negotiated at Maastricht, the revision of which was the task of the 1996/97 IGC. ‘Gemeinsamer Brief des deutschen Bundeskanzlers und des französischen Staatsprasidenten an den Vorsitzenden des Europaischen Rates vom 6. 12. 1995’ (excerpts), in Mathias Jopp and Otto Schmuck, Die Reform der Europaischen Union (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1996), pp. 115–17. See also Hervé de Charette and Klaus Kinkel, ‘Unsere Vorstellung von Europa’, Bulletin, no. 27, 3 April 1996, pp. 273–4.Google Scholar
  19. 75.
    Karl Lamers, ‘A German Agenda for the European Union’, speech delivered at a Federal Trust/Konrad Adenauer Foundation conference, 17 November 1994, p. 4.Google Scholar
  20. 76.
    Josef Janning, ‘Am Ende der Regierbarkeit? Gefährliche Folgen der Erweiterung der Europaischen Union’, Europa-Archiv, 22 (1993).Google Scholar
  21. 77.
    Josef Janning, ‘Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, in Werner Weidenfeld and Wolfgang Wessels (eds), Jahrbuch der Europaischen Integration 1994/95 (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1995). For German positions in the IGC see Werner Hoyer, ‘Perspektiven für die Regierungskonferenz 1996 und die euro-papolitische Agenda’, integration, 18/4 (1995).Google Scholar
  22. 78.
    Klaus Kinkel, ‘Die Europaische Union vor der Runderneuerung’, Pressereferat Auswartiges Amt, 21 February 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 92.
    Joachim Schild, ‘Deutschland, Frankreich und die EFTA- Erweiterung der Europaischen Union’, in Axel Sauder and Joachim Schild (eds), Handeln für Europa (Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1995).Google Scholar
  24. 95.
    Karl Lamers, ‘Deutschlands aul3enpolitische Verantwortung und seine Interessen’, p. 12.Google Scholar
  25. 96.
    Helen Wallace, ‘Vereinigtes Konigreich’, in Werner Weidenfeld and Wolfgang Wessels (eds), Jahrbuch der europaischen Integration (Bonn: Europa Union Verlag, 1994), p. 367.Google Scholar
  26. 98.
    ‘Schweden und Finnland mit Europa einig’, FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, 2 March 1994; Klaus-Peter Schmid, ‘Der Beitritt als Basar’, Die Zeit, 4 March 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 102.
    Simon Bulmer, Charlie Jeffery and William E. Paterson, ‘Deutschlands Europaische Diplomatie’, in Weidenfeld (ed.), DeutscheEuropapolitik, p. 52. See also Kinkel’s and Juppé’s article ‘Deutschland und Frankreich bleiben der Motor der europaischen Integration’, FrankfurterAlIgemeineZeitung,l2January 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 103.
    Representative of many see Klaus Manfrass, ‘Das deutsch-franzosische Verhältnis nach der historischen Zasur des Jahres 1989’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 30/95 (1995), p. 17.Google Scholar
  29. 107.
    Peter Hort, ‘Die deutsche Europapolitik wird “britischer” ‘, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 November 1997.Google Scholar
  30. 108.
    Karl Lamers, cited in ‘Meinungsunterschiede in der Wirtschaftspolitik’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 November 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 110.
    Michael Stabenow, ‘Auf der Suche nach gemeinsamen Grundlagen der Europapolitik’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 November 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 111.
    As an introduction, see Roland Sturm, ‘Die Reform der Agrar- und Strukturpolitik’, in Werner Weidenfeld (ed.), Europa dfnen (Gtitersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1997).Google Scholar
  33. 112.
    Peter Katzenstein, Tamed Power. Germany in Europe (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 28.Google Scholar
  34. 113.
    Jochen Borchert, ‘Perspektiven der Agrarpolitik’, Bulletin, no. 46, 6 June 1997, p. 487.Google Scholar
  35. 114.
    ‘Brussels Agenda 2000 stoQt auf erste Einwände’, Handelsblatt, 19 July 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Henning Tewes 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Konrad-Adenauer FoundationWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations