journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

Book reviews – Comptes rendus – Buchbesprechungen 133
as regards American attitude to multilateralism and/or invasion in Iraq; but they clearly
regard the discord with the USA as a failure of German policy (Maull, Busse). Not less
significantly, the German-French relations are viewed with concern. Should the present
close co-ordination translate into a renewed leading role, German and French policy has to
“think in a broader scale” in the EU of twenty-five member states (Neßhöver).
Of course, a number of questions will have to be discussed further. So, we agree that
Germany has played a vital, or indispensable, but perhaps not a “leading role” in the
development of the European security and defence policy (Overhaus, p.52). Also,
subsuming Germany’s relations with her Eastern neighbours and partners under the
EU-enlargement process correctly reflects the nature of German policy. However, it would
be interesting to discuss the question, whether the double enlargement has upgraded
political relations between Germany and the accession countries. As for now, we would
argue there is little specific closeness, only a weak consultation and no co-ordination reflex
between Germany and its Eastern neighbours. Both Berlin and East Central Europe look for
co-ordination further to the West – particularly since chancellor Gerhard Schröder and
partly also Joschka Fischer used the Iraq issue for election purposes.
In search for a new strategy and public support
The book represents a rather dramatic call for more strategic thinking, more focused
political activity both in the multilateral and bilateral dimension of German policy. Unlike
Henning Tewes’s book, the volume has not been written about the ‘Trier’s pedigree’ – the
‘Civilian Power’. It is in fact only the critical review of Red-Green policy in Hanns
W.Maull’s analytical editorial, which raises the issue at all. Maull concludes that the
German government’s attitude towards the Iraq-crisis – its unilateral approach in particular –
marked a departure from the German role of a ‘Civilian Power’. It is not the Red-Green
government’s programme and its normative stipulations, but its performance, which makes
the ‘Civilian Power’ record of Germany not convincing enough.
While Tewes could take a step back from the current political dynamic and contemplate
the record of the last two Kohl’s governments, the edited volume is a stocktaking exercise
written in amid an intense debate about the current and future German policy. The Trier
research team has published a number of books, research papers and articles, which make a
principal contribution to the deliberation about the alleged ‘crisis of German foreign policy’
(so Maull or Hellmann). 7
There are a number of areas where the two books complement each other. Most
importantly, both testify to the principal importance of multilateral institutions for German
policy. Also, both show how the German attitude has been shifting towards a more
instrumental use of multilateralism, with a growing emphasis on national interests. The
Civilian Power ethos has survived in the minds of the German public, many policymakers
and academicians. However, given the dramatic change of the general political and
economic constellation – both external and domestic – the ethos has been increasingly
confronted with pragmatic policy-making. Do we witness a gradual change of German
political culture? We do not know yet. But one thing seems to be rather clear. Unless foreign
policy attracts more public attention and secures adequate resources, the indisputable
achievements of German foreign policy during the unification and NATO/EU enlargement
process may wither away thanks to the lack of strategic guidance, an only halfway satisfying
performance, interest particularism and ad hoc activism.
Vladimir Handl
Institute of International Relations, Prague
7. For the broad scope of the activities of the Trier research team see its website project www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de.