The end of the Cold War in 1989/90 did not only prompt a fundamental transformation of the international system as a whole; it equally changed the expectations and perceptions of key nation-states acting within that system. This was, as most scholars of International Relations (IR) agree, especially true with regard to reunited Germany. In the run-up to the negotiations of the 'Two-plus-Four Treaty', many observers feared that the demise of the East-West confrontation might encourage the Federal Republic to completely strip off its post-war restraints and use its revamped resources and autonomy more forcefully.
By the same token, some European leaders — notably French President François Mitterrand and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — voiced concerns that a resurgence of German power politics seemed far from being just a theoretical possibility. Indeed, some indications of a renewed German propensity to 'go it alone' emerged even before the legal and political terms of unification had been clarified. Chancellor Kohl's '10 Points Plan' of November 1989 aroused deep scepticism. Even more alarmingly, German contributions to armed operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were perceived as incidents of a much more self-cofident security posture.
However, a vast majority of German politicians was eager to defuse their neighbours' suspicions, emphasising that they would retain their commitment to a culture of 'civilian power.' The country would remain a driving force for deeper and wider European integration as well as multilateralism within the frameworks of the UN, NATO and CSCE/OSCE. Yet, despite these efforts to address other states' concerns, some observers doubted whether Germany would actually be willing and able to stick to its 'leadership avoidance reflex' in the future.
Almost two decades after reunification, it might thus be worthwhile to ask: is Germany still a 'civilian power'? To answer this question, I will first describe different dimensions of political power as they are treated in IR theory and illustrate what 'civilian power' means in this context. Secondly, I will outline in how far particular concepts of foreign policy (FP) behaviour — the models of 'security', 'trading' and 'civilian states' — are capable of grasping the notion of civilian power. Section 4 relates these conceptual frameworks to important features of Germany's actual FP conduct before and after the watershed events of 1989/90.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Dimensions of Power in International Relations: Defining and Illustrating the ‘Civilian’ Component
3. Civilian Power as an Explanatory Framework in IR Theory: A Brief Discussion of Different Notions of Statehood in Contemporary Foreign Policy Analysis
3.1 The ‘Security State’: Neorealism and the Goal of Maximising National Power in a Context of International Anarchy
3.2 The ‘Trading State’: Neoliberalism and the Goal of Maximising National Welfare in a Context of Economic Interdependence
3.3 The ‘Civilian State’: Constructivism and the Goal of Promoting National Values in a Context of Normative Change
4. Germany’s International Role after the End of the Cold War: Promoter of Norms, Global Trader or Rising Military Power?
4.1 Identity (Re-)Construction and the Legacy of Internal Division
4.2 The Foreign Policy of the Federal Republic since 1989/90: Major Trends and Developments
4.3 Bosnia and Kosovo as Critical Junctures: Civilian Ethos and Military Engagement as Complementary or Contradictory Elements within Germany’s ‘New’ Foreign Policy Strategy?
5. Conclusion: A Self-confident but Prudent Actor on the World Stage
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay evaluates the continuity and transformation of German foreign policy following the end of the Cold War. It specifically examines whether Germany maintains its identity as a "civilian power," as defined in international relations theory, or if its participation in post-Cold War military interventions indicates a strategic shift toward traditional power politics.
- The conceptual evolution of "civilian power" within international relations theory.
- Theoretical frameworks of statehood: Security State, Trading State, and Civilian State.
- The impact of German reunification on foreign policy identity and procedural norms.
- Critical junctures in German military engagement, specifically in Bosnia and Kosovo.
- The balance between multilateral responsibilities and national interests in contemporary German diplomacy.
Excerpt from the Book
1 Introduction
The end of the Cold War in 1989/90 did not only prompt a fundamental transformation of the international system as a whole; it equally changed the expectations and perceptions of key nation-states acting within that system. This was, as most scholars of International Relations (IR) agree, especially true with regard to reunited Germany. In the run-up to the negotiations of the ‘Two-plus-Four Treaty’, many observers feared that the demise of the East-West confrontation—‘this great simplifier of European affairs’ (Janning, 1996: 33)—and the advent of ‘normalcy’ might encourage the Federal Republic to completely strip off its post-war restraints and use its revamped resources and autonomy more forcefully. By the same token, some European leaders—notably French President François Mitterrand and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—voiced concerns that, more than 40 years after the end of World War II, a resurgence of German power politics seemed far from being just a theoretical possibility.
Indeed, some indications of a renewed German propensity to ‘go it alone’ emerged even before the legal and political terms of unification had been clarified. Chancellor Kohl’s ’10 Points Plan’ of November 1989 aroused deep scepticism (Horsley, 1992: 231-2). Even more alarmingly, German contributions to armed operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were perceived as incidents of a security posture ‘which accepts the need for […] military intervention outside the traditional NATO context’ (Maull, 2000: 56). Theoretically speaking, neorealist predictions about a united Germany striving for hegemony in Europe (Mearsheimer, 1990) seemed to have been moderately validated.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter contextualizes the post-Cold War fears regarding a re-emergent German power and introduces the core question of whether Germany’s identity as a civilian power remains intact.
2. Dimensions of Power in International Relations: Defining and Illustrating the ‘Civilian’ Component: This chapter defines the theoretical underpinnings of political power and specifically delineates the conceptual features of a "civilian power."
3. Civilian Power as an Explanatory Framework in IR Theory: A Brief Discussion of Different Notions of Statehood in Contemporary Foreign Policy Analysis: This section explores how different IR theories—neorealism, neoliberalism, and constructivism—conceptualize state behavior and foreign policy motives.
4. Germany’s International Role after the End of the Cold War: Promoter of Norms, Global Trader or Rising Military Power?: This chapter applies the conceptual frameworks to empirical evidence from German history, analyzing identity construction and shifts in foreign policy conduct, including military involvement in the Balkans.
5. Conclusion: A Self-confident but Prudent Actor on the World Stage: The final chapter summarizes that German foreign policy has demonstrated remarkable continuity, evolving through incremental learning rather than radical transformation, and maintains its essential "civilian power" characteristics.
Keywords
Germany, Foreign Policy, Civilian Power, International Relations, Cold War, Multilateralism, NATO, European Union, Constructivism, Neorealism, Military Intervention, Sovereignty, Diplomacy, Bosnia, Kosovo.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this academic paper?
The paper fundamentally explores the continuity and potential shift in German foreign policy after the reunification in 1990, specifically assessing if Germany has remained a "civilian power."
What are the primary theoretical themes discussed?
The essay centers on international relations theory, contrasting the "security state," the "trading state," and the "civilian state" as models to interpret national behavior.
What is the main research question of the work?
The core inquiry is: "Is Germany still a ‘civilian power’?" given its increased participation in military interventions post-1989/90.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The author uses a policy-analytic approach, examining empirical evidence and state behavior through the lenses of neorealist, neoliberal, and constructivist IR theories.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body examines historical shifts, the internal debate regarding the use of force, and the evolution of German foreign policy institutions from the Cold War to the late 1990s.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The key concepts include civilian power, German foreign policy, European integration, multilateralism, and the normative constraints of the post-WWII German state.
How did the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts impact German foreign policy?
These conflicts served as critical junctures, marking the first instances of active German military combat engagement since WWII, which necessitated a re-evaluation of Germany's normative commitment to civilian power.
Does the author conclude that Germany has abandoned its civilian power identity?
No, the author argues that German foreign policy has been remarkably continuous and that these changes represent incremental learning rather than a radical departure from its established civilian norms.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dipl.-Pol., MSc (IR) Jan-Henrik Petermann (Autor:in), 2006, German Foreign Policy and the Concept of 'Civilian Power', München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/182614
