Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:15:46.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

German Foreign and Security Policy after Kohl and Kosovo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Steve Wood
Steve Wood*
Affiliation:
University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What Does A Government New To Office Do When The Idealistic principles that guided its members in opposition face the hard realities of power? Recent German experience in the realm of foreign policy provides an instructive case study – not least because Germany's history in the first half of the twentieth century has created tremendous sensitivities in this sphere. Following a history of opposition to German military participation in actions beyond the NATO area, the parties of Germany's political left were immediately confronted with the need to make decisions on foreign and security policy when they were elected to govern in 1998. Pacifist principles or aspirations proved unsustainable in practice, and a policy consistent with that pursued by the outgoing conservative-liberal coalition was adopted. The new government developed a pragmatic foreign policy, incorporating the use of military means, notwithstanding the existence of a domestic political culture suspicious of the employment of military force.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 250 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cornelius, Stefan, ‘Außenpolitik, noch vacuumgeschützt’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12 10 1998, p. 3.Google Scholar

2 On the post-Kohl era cf. Helms, Ludger, ‘Is there Life after Kohl? The CDU Crisis and the Future of Party Democracy in Germany’, Government and Opposition, 35:4 (2000), pp. 419–38.Google Scholar

3 Bertram, Christoph, Europe in the Balance: Securing the Peace Won in the Cold War, Washington, Carnegie Endowment, 1995.Google Scholar

4 See Malcolm, Noel, ‘Bosnia and the West: A Study in Failure’, The National Interest, 39 (Spring 1995), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

5 For informative discussion of the Yugoslav crisis and on the nexus of foreign and domestic affairs in Germany see, Maull, Hanns W., ‘Germany in the Yugoslav Crisis’, Survival, 37:4 (1995–96), pp. 99–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, Beverly, ‘Explaining Defection from International Cooperation: Germany’s Unilateral Recognition of Croatia’, World Politics, 48 (July 1996), pp. 482–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Grundsatz Programm der SPD, Beschluss vom Parteitag, Berlin 20 December 1989, Part 3; Grundkonsens derBundespartei Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, 1993, or other pre-1998 programmes. Bündnis 90 was a former East German citizens’ rights group. It and the Die Grünen formed a joint party in 1993.

6 In the earlier 1990s, SPD foreign and security policy expert Karsten Voigt, one of few in the party, found himself ‘defamed as a militarist and warmonger’ for advocating Germany’s equal participation with its NATO allies. His policy orientation later became the official line. Perger, Werner, ‘Der Lernprozeβ’, Die Zeit, 18 06 1998, p. 4.Google Scholar

7 After the Federal Constitutional Court gave a legal sanction to such eventualities, deployment of German military forces became a matter to be decided by the parliament on a case4}y-case basis.

8 Rudolf Scharping, ‘Die SPD hat wesentliche Ziele erreicht: Bundesverfassungs-gericht hat Bundesregierung und Union klar zurückgewiesen’, Mitteilung des SPD-Pressedienstes, Bonn, SPD, 13 July 1994.

9 ‘Keine Tornados nach Bosnien’, Die Zeit, 17 March 1995, p. 4.

10 Gordon, Philip H., ‘The Normalization of German Foreign Policy’, Orbis, 38:2 (1994), pp. 225–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Hans-Georg Betz, ‘Alliance 90/Greens: From Fundamental Opposition to Black-Green’, in Conradt, David P., Kleinfeld, Gerald R., Rosomer, George K. and S∅e, Christian (eds), Germany’s New Politics: Parties and Interests in the 1990s, Providence, Berghahn, 1995, pp. 203–20.Google Scholar

12 ‘Wir mussen für den militãrischen Schutz der UN-Zonen sein’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 2 August 1995, p. 10.

13 ‘Wir werden regieren’, Der Spiegel, 9 (1995), pp. 18–19.

14 Cf. Reinhard Meier-Walser, C., ‘Die Grünen und die Außenpolitik Deutschlands’, Politische Studiën, 358 (03/04 1998), pp. 3–6.Google Scholar

15 Rühe, Volker, ‘Shaping Euro-Atlantic Policies: A Grand Strategy for a New Era’, Survival, 35:2 (1993), pp. 129–37Google Scholar; ‘Die Neue NATO’, Bulletin, 2 May 1996; ‘Deutschlands Rolle im zusammenwachsenden Europa und der Beitrag der Bundeswehr’, Bulletin, 14 November 1996.

16 Schmidt-Hãuer, Christian, ‘Der neue Todestreifen’, Die Zeit, 10 06 1998, p. 3.Google Scholar

17 W. Perger, ‘Der Lernprozeß’, op. cit.

18 Joachim Fritz-Vannahme, ‘Illusionlos glücklich’, Die Zeit, 1 October 1998, p. 1.

19 Jochen Buchsteiner, ‘Risiko Sonnenblume’, Die Zeit, 1 October 1998, p. 5.

20 Sked, Alan, ‘Cheap Excuses’, The National Interest, 24 (Summer 1991), pp. 51–60 Google Scholar.

21 German Foreign Policy after Reunification Conference Report, Berlin, Aspen Institute, 1991.

22 ‘Wir müssen für den militãrischen Schutz der UN-Zonen sein’: ‘We see with great mistrust and concern, how on the side of the government and sections of the conservatives, it is attempted, step by step, to turn Germany back to a militarily supported, power-oriented foreign policy.’ Frankfurter Rundschau, 2 August 1995, p. 10.

23 R. C. Meier-Walser, ‘Die Grünen und die Außenpolitik Deutschlands’, op. cit.

24 ‘Die Republik dauerhaft verãndern’, Der Spiegel, 41, 5 October 1998, pp. 28–9.

25 As argued by Christoph Bertram, continuity cannot include vacillation, to which the previous government was not immune. The direction should remain steady but imperatives and opportunities must be grasped and foreign policy ‘shaped’ not merely ‘administered’. Christoph Bertram, ‘Selbsbewußt auf dunnen Eis’, Die Zeit, 1 October 1998, p. 6.

26 Interview with the author, Munich, 2000.

27 ‘Wer redet von Neuanfang?’, Die Zeit, 17 June 1999, p. 3.

28 Duffield, John, ‘Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism’, International Organization, 53:4 (Autumn 1999), pp. 765–803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Cf. Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations , 6th edn, New York, Knopf, 1985 Google Scholar; Rothgeb, John M., Defining Power: Influence and Force in the Contemporary International System , New York, St Martin’s Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Die Neue NATO: Sicherheit und Stabilitãt, Berlin, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, 1999.

31 Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, Beschluβ der 2. Auβerordentlich Bundesdelegiertenkon-ferenz, Bielefeld, 13 May 1999. (My translation; emphasis added.)

32 J. Duffield, ‘Political Culture and State Behavior’, op. cit., pp. 768, 770, 781, 787, 792.

33 Cf. Beck, Robert J., Arend, Anthony Clark and Vander Lugt, Robert D. (eds), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations , New York, Oxford University Press, 1996 Google Scholar; Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also ‘Forum on Social Theory ofInternational Politics’, Review of International Studies, 26:1 (2000), pp. 123–80 especially the contributions from Stephen Krasner, Steve Smith and Robert Keohane.

34 J. Duffield, ‘Political Culture and State Behavior’, op. cit., pp. 770, 779.

35 Maull, Hanns W., ‘German Foreign Policy, Post-Kosovo: Still a “Civilian Power?”‘, German Politics, 9:2 (08 2000), pp. 1–24 Google Scholar. Here pp. 3, 5, 8–9.

36 ‘Kein Einsatz von Bodentruppen im Kosovo’, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen Pressedienst, Nr 53/99, 19 April 1999.

37 Theo Sommer, ‘Ernstfall Frieden’, Die Zeit, 17 June 1999, p. 5.

38 Schmidt-Hãuer, Christian, ‘Europa in der Feuerprobe’, Die Zeit, 13, 28 03 2001 Google Scholar; Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger and Matthias Rüb, ‘Keine Aussicht auf Waffenstillstand in Tetovo. Fischer: Die albanische Frage ist offen’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22 March 2001; Pitt von Bebenburg, ‘Pazifisten greifen Berlin an’, and Rolf Paasch ‘Lernprozess auf dem Balkan’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 24 March 2001.

39 Joschka Fischer cited in H. W. Maull, ‘German Foreign Policy, Post-Kosovo’, op. cit., p. 7.

40 J. Duffield, ‘Political Culture and State Behavior’, op. cit., pp. 788–89.

41 Jörg Lau, ‘Bomben sind Feige’, Die Zeit, 17 June 1999, p. 12; H. W. Maull, ‘German Foreign Policy, Post-Kosovo’, pp. 10–11, op. cit.

42 Jeffery, Charlie and Handl, Vladimir, Germany and Europe after Kohl: Between Social Democracy and Normalisation , discussion paper 11, Institute for German Studies, Birmingham, 1999 Google Scholar. It is interesting that (covering more than foreign policy) their study’s conception is ‘post-Kohl’ while Maull’s is ‘post-Kosovo’. Maull’s account also comprises an extensive engagement with the domestic political context.

43 Bulmer, Simon, Jeffery, Charlie and Paterson, William E., Germany’s European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu , Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000 Google Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 13, pp. 109–13.

45 Schwarz, Hans-Peter, ‘Germany’s National and European Interests’, Dœdelus, 123:2 (Spring 1994), pp. 81–105 Google Scholar; Joffe, Josef, ‘The New Europe: Yesterday’s Ghosts’, Foreign Affairs, 72:1 (1993), pp. 29–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baring, Arnulf (ed.), Germany’s New Position in Europe , Oxford, Berg, 1994 Google Scholar; Schwarz, Hans-Peter, Zentralmacht Deutschlands: Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbilhne, Berlin, Siedler, 1994 Google Scholar; Gutjahr, Lothar, ‘Stability, Integration and Global Responsibility: Germany’s Changing Perspectives on National Interests’, Review of International Studies, 21:3 (1995), pp. 301–17;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gordon, ‘Normalization’.

46 Vernet, Daniel, ‘Shrewd Exploitation of Limited Sovereignty’, Transatlantic International Politics, 1 (2000), pp. 51–64;Google Scholar Cf. Germany’s European Diplomacy, pp. 109–13.

47 Neunreither, Karl-Heinz, ‘The European Union in Nice: A Minimalist Approach to an Historic Challenge’, Government and Opposition, 36:2 (2001), pp. 184–208;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wood, Stephen, Germany, Europe and the Persistence of Nations: Transformation, Interests and Identity 1989–1996, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1998, pp. 309–13Google Scholar.

48 Wood, Stephen, ‘Germany and the Eastern Enlargement of the EU: Political Elites, Public Opinion and Democratic Processes’, Journal of European Integration, 24:1 (2002), pp. 23–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See, e.g. United Nations Security Council, Press Releases SC/6657, 24 March 1999 and SC/6659, 26 March 1999.

50 C. Jeffery and V. Handl, Germany and Europe after Kohl, op. cit., pp. 28–39.

51 As a coincidental aside, the continuity, and the irony, in German politics even extended to Kohl, Fischer and the Greens’ — former revolutionary pacifist — Environment Minister, Jiirgen Trittin, simultaneously being foci of attention for varying, allegedly illegal activities.