http://sdi.sagepub.com/
Security Dialogue
http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/38/4/501
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0967010607084998
2007 38: 501Security Dialogue
Eva Gross
National Crisis Management Policies?
Germany and European Security and Defence Cooperation: The Europeanization of
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
can be found at:Security DialogueAdditional services and information for
http://sdi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sdi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/38/4/501.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Nov 20, 2007Version of Record>>
at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Masarykova Univerzita on October 21, 2013sdi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Germany and European Security and
Defence Cooperation: The Europeanization
of National Crisis Management Policies?
EVA GROSS*
Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
This article analyses German preferences towards the EU Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and
Defence Policy (ESDP). The lens of Europeanization, which traces
both the top-down and the bottom-up influences between the
European and the national levels, makes it possible to highlight the
ways in which Germany was able to shape – and was shaped by –
these two institutions. The analysis of decisions taken by the Schröder
government in relation to the crisis in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (FYROM) and the war in Afghanistan in particular shows
that, although moves towards the Europeanization of national foreign
policy can be observed, transatlantic relations and national biases
determined policy choices that involved the use of military force. The
article concludes that although there is evidence of Europeanization of
German foreign policy, the continuing influence of both NATO and
domestic factors on policy outcomes means that conclusions regarding
the Europeanization of national foreign policy can be easily overstated,
particularly when it comes to the use of military force.
Keywords Afghanistan • CFSP/ESDP • Europeanization • FYROM •
Germany
Introduction
W
ITH THE END of the Cold War, Germany’s traditionally held postwar
foreign policy priorities, in particular the reluctance to use
military force as part of Germany’s ‘civilian power’ profile (Maull,
2000), came under increasing pressure. Changed political realities and allies’
expectations following the first Gulf War put Berlin under increasing pressure
to depart from its ‘chequebook diplomacy’ and to contribute to military
crisis management operations. Domestically, the humanitarian catastrophe
unfolding in the Balkans raised the normative question of whether pacifism
© 2007 PRIO, www.prio.no
SAGE Publications, http://sdi.sagepub.com
Vol. 38(4): 501–520, DOI: 10.1177/0967010607084998
was the only, and the most appropriate, historical lesson to draw from the
experience of World War II (Janning, 1996). These pressures culminated in
the Kosovo war in 1999, widely regarded as a sea change in German foreign
policy, where Berlin for the first time since the end of World War II took part
in offensive military operations against a sovereign state.
The end of the Cold War and the conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990s
exerted pressures for change not only on individual member states but also
on the European Union as a whole. Together, they provided a strong impetus
for the creation of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in
1993 and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999 (Duke,
1999; Howorth, 2005). Rhetorically at least, Germany has been a staunch
supporter of both the CFSP and the ESDP. In addition to a changing view on
the use of military force, Germany also moved from its postwar transatlanticist
orientation to one that accommodated the emergence of the ESDP.
Given the changes in German policy priorities over the course of the 1990s,
as well as the institutional construction of the CFSP and the ESDP, it is worth
posing the question of what role Germany has assigned to policy instruments
located in the CFSP and the ESDP in crisis management since 1999. This
arises out of two contradictory observations: although a growing body of
academic literature offers evidence of the ‘Europeanization’ of the national
foreign policies of EU member-states (Irondelle, 2003; Miskimmon, forthcoming;
Wong, 2006; Tonra, 2001), other studies have observed that ESDP
instruments have been used selectively since the policy’s creation (Biscop,
2006). This apparent paradox renders worthwhile an investigation of the
Europeanization of national foreign policy, particularly in the case of
Germany, a country that has been termed a European Musterknabe (star
pupil) (Miskimmon, 2001).
This article first reviews the current literature on Europeanization and
suggests ways in which the latter concept can be successfully applied to the
analysis of foreign and security policy. It then applies the Europeanization
framework to the analysis of foreign policy decisions and underlying motivations
on the part of key decision-makers and bureaucracies in Germany,
including elected officials, the Federal Foreign Office and the Ministry of
Defence. The analysis shows that the level of Europeanization varied among
government bureaucracies and elected officials, and that policy outcomes
were significantly affected by transatlantic considerations and domestic
priorities rather than by considerations that would point towards Europeanization,
particularly when it came to the use of force.
502 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
Europeanization: Fad – or Filling a Void?
While the EU CFSP has often been criticized for its incoherence and ineffectiveness
(Stavridis et al., 1997; Zielonka, 1998), EU member-states have nevertheless
made continuous efforts to create effective institutional structures
and to formulate common policies. The creation of the ESDP has additionally
raised expectations of increasing foreign policy activities on the part of the
Union. These developments challenge realist assumptions about the limits of
cooperation and pose a general problem for International Relations (IR)
theory, as they question the notion of state sovereignty: the European Union
is ‘neither a state, nor a traditional alliance, and . . . presents a heterodox unit
of analysis’ (Andreatta, 2005: 19). The EU is also unique in the nature of its
international cooperation and integration (Wallace, 1994), even if the area of
foreign and security policy is intergovernmental and likely to remain so.
Possibly as a result of increasing integration, the concept of Europeanization
has been increasingly used to study aspects of European integration and
to analyse the ways in which ‘Europe matters’ in a specific policy field
(Börzel, 2003; Green Cowles, Caporaso & Risse, 2001; Dyson & Goetz, 2003;
Knill, 2001). Recently, the applicability of the concept to foreign and security
policy has also been posited (Major, 2005; Major & Pomorska, 2005). To be
sure, owing to the intergovernmental nature of the EU foreign policy process,
pressures emanating from the EU level in relation to foreign policy are not
as strong or direct as those in areas that fall under the first pillar, such as
economic and social policy, where research has established modifications
occurring in national policies and institutional structures (Börzel, 1999;
Bulmer & Burch, 1999; Cole & Drake, 2000).
Still, EU membership has resulted in an adaptation process for both new
and founding EU member-states, in terms of both their policies towards previously
external states as they join the EU and their policies towards third
states to ensure alignment with existing EU policies (Manners & Whitman,
2000). Although the effects of Europeanization on national foreign policy are
weak in comparison with policy areas located in the first pillar, there are a
number of documented changes in states’ foreign policy as a result of national
and European interactions. For instance, research has shown that repeated
interactions and the quantity and quality of information available has
changed working patterns among the diplomats of EU member-states
(Nuttall, 1992; Forster & Wallace, 2000), resulting in a coordination reflex
going beyond calculated exchanges of information (Tonra, 2003). Europeanization
has also been used to document changes in national foreign policy as
a result of EU accession in the case of Ireland (Keatinge, 1984) and Spain
(Torreblanca, 2001). Tonra (2001) has analysed the Europeanization of Dutch,
Danish and Irish foreign policies, Wong (2006) that of French policy in Asia,
and Miskimmon (forthcoming) that of Germany.
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 503
The increasingly frequent application of the Europeanization concept has
also revealed a number of methodological problems. First, the broad usage of
the term presents a challenge for researchers wishing to employ the concept,
as Europeanization has been conceptualized as a historical phenomenon, as
transnational cultural diffusion, as institutional adaptation, or as the adaptation
of policies and policy processes (Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003). Second,
Europeanization is an analytical concept rather than a theory that could
predict foreign policy behaviour. In response to these criticisms, it has been
argued that, rather than serving as an explanatory concept or theory,
Europeanization can be useful ‘as an attention-directing device and a starting
point for further exploration’ (Olsen, 2002: 943). The potential contribution of
the application of the concept of Europeanization thus lies in aiding the
analysis of the impact of the EU on the national level, and in being able to
focus on processes of change (Radaelli, 2004). Europeanization allows the
researcher to address puzzles that go beyond the cause of European integration
or the nature of EU decisionmaking, and to inquire into the nature of the
‘reciprocal relationship’ between the European and the national levels
(Börzel, 2002: 195).
But, how should one define Europeanization in the context of foreign and
security policy? A commonly cited definition of Europeanization focuses on
domestic change caused by European cooperation and defines Europeanization
as ‘an incremental process reorienting the direction and shape of policies
to the degree that EC political and economic dynamics become part of the
organizational logic of national politics and policy making’ (Ladrech, 1994:
69). In addition to a process of domestic change, however, analysts adopting
a bottom-up perspective understand Europeanization as ‘the emergence and
development at the European level of distinctive structures of governance’
(Risse, Green Cowles & Caporaso, 2001: 3). And, because member-states
initiate these EU policies that they later adapt to, the two dimensions of
Europeanization are linked in practice, suggesting that Europeanization is a
mutually constitutive process of change at both the national and the
European levels (Radaelli, 2002; Börzel, 2003). In addition, socialization
mechanisms and the potential for resulting cognitive change also suggest a
third dimension of Europeanization, where change comes about through the
transfer of norms or ideas. Wong (2005) therefore suggests that three conceptions
of Europeanization in particular can be useful in explaining possible
changes taking place in foreign policymaking in EU member-states: national
adaptation (a top-down process), national projection (a bottom-up process)
and identity reconstruction (changing interests and identities).
National adaptation understands Europeanization as a reactive, top-down
process that introduces change from the European level to the national level
of policy decisionmaking. Europeanization as national adaptation can be
defined as ‘the process of change at the domestic level (be it of policies,
504 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
preferences or institutions) originated by the adaptation pressures generated
by the European integration process; a process of change whose identity
and character depend on the “goodness of fit” of domestic institutions and
adaptation pressures’ (Torreblanca, 2001: 3).
Following Smith (2000), one can expect to observe changes in one or more
of the following as a result of Europeanization as national adaptation:
bureaucratic reorganization, constitutional change, elite socialization and
shifts in public opinion. In addition, adaptation can be expected to result in a
more general change in policies, preferences and institutions; increased
salience of the European agenda; adherence to common policy objectives;
policies agreed to for the sake of EU unity (high price of defection); and the
relaxation of traditional policy positions to accommodate progress of EU
projects. In the context of decisions taken in crisis situations, or decisions that
concern the application of a policy instrument located in the CFSP and the
ESDP in a specific instance, bureaucratic reorganization and constitutional
change are less likely to be observed. One could expect to find, however, a
high degree of salience of the European agenda; the adherence to common
objectives; and the relaxation of national policy positions in order to accommodate
the progress of EU policy and institutions. ‘Salience’ can be understood
as the general importance or prominence of the CFSP and the ESDP in
national foreign policy. ‘European agenda’ here refers to the development of
EU security institutions. In practice, this means that an increased importance
of the CFSP and/or the ESDP in the minds of decision-makers leads to advocating
increased application of instruments located in the two institutions.
Europeanization as national projection (a bottom-up process), on the other
hand, can be regarded as a process where states seek to export domestic
policy models, ideas and details to the EU (Bulmer, 1998). The concept of
politics of scale (Ginsberg, 1989), which highlights the benefits of collective
action in conducting foreign policy actions at lower costs and risks than
member-states acting alone, applies here as well. States are not just passively
reacting to changes at the institutional level; they are the primary actors in
the process of policy change and proactively project preferences and policy
ideas and initiatives to the European level. By ‘Europeanizing’ previously
national policies and generalizing them onto a larger stage, a dialectical relationship
between the state and the EU level is created, which in turn feeds
back to the national level. The benefits of national projection are, first, that the
state increases its international influence; second, that the state reduces the
costs of pursuing a controversial policy against an extra-European power;
and, third, that a strong European presence in the world is potentially
beneficial to all EU members, as it increases individual states’ international
influence (Regelsberger, 1997). Policy outcomes of national projection could
see states taking advantage of the EU to promote specific national interests,
states attempting to increase national influence in the world by participating
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 505
in or initiating EU policies, and states using the EU as cover to influence the
foreign policies of other member-states.
The third conception of Europeanization, that of changing policy preferences,
moves the definition of Europeanization closer to notions of integration
and suggests the possibility of eventual convergence of national foreign
policy. It evokes the concept of security communities (Deutsch, 1957), and
that of elite socialization previously referred to (Smith, 2000), as well as the
broader literature on national identity. Such readings of European identity
also focus on the redefinition and negotiation of identities within EU institutions,
as well as national citizenries, mirroring a neofunctionalist reading of a
gradual transfer of identity and affiliation towards a new supranational
Europe (Haas, 1960), even if it should be quite obvious that Europe as an
identity category is far from replacing national identity and that Europe does
not enjoy the same level of legitimacy that the individual nation-states do. In
the context of Europeanization, ‘Europe’ as an identity category co-exists and
can be incorporated in a given nation-state identity, depending on the degree
of resonance. The question then becomes how much space there is for
‘Europe’ in collective nation-state identities, and how these identity constructions
of ‘Europe’ relate to given nation-state identities and ideas about
the European political and economic order (Risse, 2001). Evidence of the
Europeanization of conceptions of national identity includes the emergence
or existence of norms among policy-making elites, shared definitions of
European and national interests, increase in public support for European
political cooperation, and shared or overlapping definitions of the state’s and
Europe’s role in the world, as well as of Europe’s security parameters.
Indicators of Europeanization as a result of identity formation can be
expected to include the recourse to the European option as an instinctive
choice or the value attached to a European approach in a particular policy
decision. This third reading of Europeanization points towards long-term
processes of change that are not necessarily captured in single-case decisionmaking;
this does not mean, however, that norms and, more generally, the
value attached to a ‘European approach’ cannot affect national decisionmaking.
The application of the three conceptions to policy case studies that
follows below will establish to what extent national foreign policy shaped,
and was shaped by, the EU’s CFSP and ESDP. Significant evidence of
Europeanization, manifested as policy responses as a result of either adaptational
pressures or the export of national preferences onto the European
platform, can be expected to result in a significant role for the CFSP and the
ESDP. But, evidence of Europeanization may not necessarily result in such a
role if domestic preferences or considerations of alliance politics played a
bigger role in national decision-making.
506 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
‘Europeanized’ Decisionmaking in Practice?
The crisis in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and the
war in Afghanistan in 2001 suggest themselves as test cases for the Europeanization
of national foreign policy: both called for a European response, both
necessitated the use of force, and they were the first two crises to occur after
Kosovo and the creation of the ESDP. They also illustrate seemingly conflicting
values with respect to the EU’s CFSP and ESDP: whereas SecretaryGeneral/High
Representative Javier Solana was very active in the political
mediation of the crisis in FYROM, and the country eventually came to host the
first ever ESDP military operation, both the CFSP and the ESDP seemed
eclipsed by transatlantic and domestic preferences in the case of Afghanistan,
and an ESDP civilian operation in that country only came to be publicly discussed
as a concrete possibility in 2006. At the same time, responses towards
the war in Afghanistan from the outset included the use of CFSP instruments
and successful coordination efforts on the part of member-states contributing
to the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF). This makes Afghanistan
a promising case for delineating states’ European, domestic and transatlantic
commitments and their relative weight in decision-making.
FYROM: A Successful Test Case for EU Foreign Policy
FYROM is often and justifiably cited as not only a test case but also a success
for EU crisis management (see Piana, 2002). It had strong symbolic character
for EU crisis management and was a ‘first’ in several respects: in the mediation
of the 2001 crisis, the EU for the first time made use of crisis management
tools located in the CFSP; NATO and the EU for the first time worked
together on a practical level; and the first military mission was suggested and
eventually realized under the ESDP framework. ‘Operation Concordia’ was
launched in 2003 and put into practice the ‘Berlin Plus’ agreements that give
the EU access to NATO assets. And, indeed, German reactions towards the
crisis support several indicators of Europeanization: the salience of the CFSP
in the negotiation in the crisis was evident, and there was at least a rhetorical
commitment to a growing role for the EU and Europe in contributions to
NATO and later also ESDP operations. But, different agencies in the German
government held different views on the best approach to resolving the crisis;
and with respect to an eventual takeover of ESDP from NATO German
policy-makers prioritized transatlantic relations and insisted on the conclusion
of the ‘Berlin Plus’ agreement prior to launching an ESPD operation.
This shows that Europeanization is evident with respect to the CFSP rather
than the ESDP: in other words, on the political rather than the military
dimension of foreign policy.
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 507
Germany was sensitive to the crisis because it threatened to undermine the
broader regional framework that had been put in place after the end of the
conflict in Kosovo. The EU was already an important platform for the political
and economic process of regional post-conflict reconstruction; and, given
the goal of eventual integration of the countries of the Western Balkans
into the EU, together with the goal of a greater role for the EU as a regional
political actor, the EU CFSP was a natural institutional venue for resolving
the crisis from the perspective of German policymakers.1
Success for the
CFSP in resolving the crisis, therefore, was of high salience. This supports
conclusions of Europeanization understood as national adaptation.
But, whereas elected officials supported the application of CFSP instruments,
Germany’s Federal Foreign Office emphasized restoring stability over
the application of new instruments and displayed a more cautious attitude.
This shows that although the use of CFSP instruments in the negotiation of
the crisis was supported and deemed important on account of the symbolism
for the evolution of the EU as a political actor, this position was not given
equal importance among all participants in the governmental process. Once
Javier Solana had been given a mandate to conduct the political negotiations,
member states had little influence on the outcomes of the negotiating
processes within the CFSP. Rather, Germany continued to participate in
multilateral negotiations in the framework of the Contact Group. Policymakers,
particularly those in the Federal Foreign Office, regarded the
Contact Group as an important platform because US involvement was
deemed crucial in resolving the conflict, and considered it an effective platform
for influencing broader policy responses to the crisis among the major
powers involved.2
When it came to military instruments, Germany faced pressure to commit
military forces to the NATO operations but did not take a lead in the operations
or advocate the use of ESDP instruments. For his part, Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder pushed for an increasing profile for Germany in NATO to
demonstrate that Germany was no longer bound by its past. A fundamentally
transatlanticist orientation in German foreign policy (Fischer, 2001) constituted
an important factor in German decision-making in this case. However,
in domestic debates, international responsibility and solidarity with NATO
allies were often portrayed as necessary preconditions for Europe to act. To
illustrate, members of the ruling coalition stressed the credibility of the stilldeveloping
CFSP (Deutscher Bundestag, 2001b: 18069) and termed the NATO
operation an ‘important part of the preventive war and conflict prevention
strategy of the EU towards Macedonia’ (Peter Struck, cited in Deutscher
Bundestag, 2001b: 18191c). This points towards some evidence of European-
508 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
1
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
2
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
ization, as these statements can be taken to reflect an emerging preference
formation towards the application of CFSP and ESDP instruments.
But, the emphasis on a multilateral framework and the overall comprehensive
preventive concept as part of the EU approach (Deutscher Bundestag,
2001a: 15494d) has to be understood in a specific domestic context, where the
use of force remained contested and a ‘European approach’ was bound to be
more attractive and persuasive than military deployment under NATO.
Domestic objections to military deployment arose out of two separate
positions. The long-held taboo against the use of force was a source of
reservations, particularly among members of the ruling Red–Green coalition.
Members of the Christian Democrats, the leading opposition party, on the
other hand, argued that insufficient defence budgets and the resulting military
overstretch of Germany’s armed forces would prevent Germany from
playing the leadership role in Europe advocated by Chancellor Schröder
(Volker Rühe, cited in Deutscher Bundestag, 2001a: 15366c). Schröder was
constrained by allies’ expectations that Germany would provide troops, on
the one hand, and by domestic reservations about German deployments, on
the other. In a classic example of a two-level game (Putnam, 1988), Schröder
pushed for Germany to assume increasing responsibility in the field of security
and defence by pledging troops to the NATO operation while at the same
time negotiating domestic support.
Schröder argued that the German government should act within the framework
of the EU and NATO to enable a peaceful solution to the conflict; that
Germany should participate in a NATO mission for reasons of solidarity
with Germany’s partners; and that Germany should not risk damaging its
relations with its allies out of fears of a parliamentary defeat (Financial Times
Deutschland, 2001a). Although the government eventually consented to the
deployment of forces, Schröder could not rely on his own party to carry the
vote: 20 Social Democratic Party members had written an open letter opposing
the NATO operation. When ‘Operation Essential Harvest’ was voted on,
of 635 votes, 497 voted in favour, 130 against, and 8 abstained (Deutscher
Bundestag, 2001b: 18210a). This gave the government the mandate it needed,
but signalled weak support for Schröder within the ruling coalition.
Chancellor Schröder assigned political priority to the participation in
NATO on account of discussions with Germany’s allies and the need for
solidarity with European partners in the NATO framework. Preserving
Germany’s influence in the emerging ESDP was a secondary but nevertheless
important concern: if Germany did not pull its weight in NATO in FYROM,
Britain and France would continue to dominate (Financial Times Deutschland,
2001b). This indicates a general preference on the part of the German government
for a leadership role in Europe, but one that includes NATO as well as
the ESDP. Germany was not in favour of French suggestions of an ESDP
takeover of Operation Essential Harvest, because this was considered too
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 509
early as far as both the institutional setup of the ESDP and conditions on the
ground in FYROM were concerned. Only when the security situation had
improved to the point where an ESDP mission was considered safe, and only
on the condition that the institutional arrangements between NATO and the
EU would be resolved, did Germany support the ESDP takeover of the
NATO operation.3
An ESDP operation was, therefore, not considered expedient
until much later, and the EU expressed willingness to take over the
NATO mission in FYROM at the Copenhagen Council in December 2002
(Council of the European Union, 2003). This suggests that, despite the high
profile of the CFSP and the ESDP in governmental debates, and despite the
professed goal on the part of the Chancellor for Europe to play a greater part
in matters of security, considerations of alliance politics overwhelmingly
determined German decisionmaking with respect to the timing of the
handover from NATO to the ESDP.
However, different actors within the German government viewed the
matter of the takeover differently, both in relation to timing and in terms of
principle. Whereas Schröder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer – along
with Javier Solana – were in favour of a handover early on,4
the Foreign
Office itself did not concur with Fischer’s position but considered the timing
of the initial suggestion premature.5
The Ministry of Defence, on the other
hand, objected to an ESDP takeover for reasons of both principle and practi-
cality.6
This demonstrates that while EU assumption of military responsibility
in FYROM was viewed favourably on the political level, government
bureaucracies both in the Federal Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence
viewed the matter of an ESDP takeover with more caution. NATO was considered
an appropriate institutional venue both for host-country credibility
and for the symbolism of US involvement.7
The Federal Foreign Office also
did not consider the ESDP ready to take on such a mission, and the Balkans
and ESDP departments within the Federal Foreign Office both shared this
cautious attitude, albeit for different reasons: the Balkans department
because it considered the situation still too risky for the ESDP to assume com-
mand,8
and it was not necessarily in favour of the ESDP to begin with,9
and
the ESDP department because it insisted on the conclusion of the Berlin Plus
agreement between NATO and the EU before launching an ESDP mission.10
This reflects both utilitarian and transatlantic preferences within branches
of the Federal Foreign Office. The bureaucracy thus acted as a ‘retarding
510 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
3
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
4
Interview with German official, London, 3 November 2005.
5
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
6
Interview with former German official, Berlin, 8 February 2006.
7
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
8
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
9
Interview with German official, London, 3 November 2005.
10
Interview with German official, London, 3 November 2005.
element’ rather than a ready facilitator of a transition to more responsibility
for ESDP.11
To be sure, there was no objection to an ESDP mission in principle,
especially given the small size of the mission, but it was only when stability
in FYROM was guaranteed and the Berlin Plus agreement concluded
that the foreign ministry gave the green light for an ESDP.12
The Ministry of Defence, on the other hand, objected to the utilization of
ESDP instruments altogether, primarily on utilitarian grounds: NATO was
conducting three active operations in the Balkans at the time, and it was not
considered useful to dislodge one of these operations in order to start an
ESDP operation.13
What spoke in favour of the ESDP takeover in the minds of
defence officials was the chance to improve the working mechanisms by
arriving at a formalized agreement between NATO and the EU. The prospect
of such formal cooperation mechanisms and the absence of US opposition to
the assumption of the mission by the ESDP subsequently led to the endorsement
of the proposal at the European Council of Copenhagen in December
2002. This shows that, with respect to the Europeanization framework,
considerations of Europeanization did not significantly condition policy
responses with respect to military crisis management. And, although the
salience of the European agenda was evident with respect to the objective of
the EU to ‘show face’ in the political resolution of the crisis, Germany continued
to engage in other diplomatic venues, most notably the Contact
Group. Even an unqualified success for EU crisis management and a first
ESDP operation, then, did not reflect the Europeanization of national foreign
policy at the expense of the transatlantic alliance and domestic preferences.
Afghanistan I: The Rediscovery of the CFSP
German reactions towards the attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York and
Washington reveal both solidarity with the USA and a further move towards
Germany’s ‘normalization’ with respect to the use of force and Germany’s
international standing. As was the case initially in FYROM, contributions to
EU military cooperation did not extend beyond rhetorical commitments to a
growing role for the EU in the world. But, Germany utilized the EU’s CFSP as
a platform to increase its action radius in addressing the question of
Afghanistan’s reconstruction and to give the EU a voice. This points towards
evidence of Europeanization – in a case that is not usually associated with
Europeanization pressures, but one where individual EU member-states, the
big three (Britain, France and Germany) at the forefront, sought to contribute
to the US-led ‘war on terror’ and to demonstrate their solidarity with the
United States. Reactions towards the war in Afghanistan analysed below
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 511
11
Interview with German official, London, 3 November 2005.
12
Interview with German official, Berlin, 21 November 2005.
13
Interview with former German official, Berlin, 8 February 2006.
show that even overwhelming transatlantic commitments and appearances
of a (re)nationalization of foreign policy (Hill, 2004), therefore, do not negate
the Europeanization of national foreign policy.
Germany’s participation in and contribution to the war and reconstruction
in Afghanistan was significant. Berlin pledged a total of 5,100 of troops to
‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ (OEF) (3,900) and ISAF (1,200). Chancellor
Schröder in particular regarded military participation in OEF and ISAF –
apart from an expression of solidarity with the USA – as a means to increase
Germany’s independence and latitude for action in world politics. Although
the main consideration for Germany in participating in OEF was to respond
to greater systemic forces and the policy preferences of the USA and to show
solidarity after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, participation in
OEF also served to increase Germany’s international standing and to signal
Berlin’s growing international ambitions. As for policies for tackling the ‘war
on terror’ more broadly and beyond Afghanistan, the EU was considered
an important platform. This indicates Europeanization processes as far as
political instruments under the CFSP are concerned along all three dimensions
of Europeanization outlined previously.
Chancellor Schröder in particular assumed a key position in the formulation
of policy responses, going as far as to link German consent to military
deployment to a vote of confidence in his government in order to ensure the
support of members of the ruling coalition rather than having to rely on votes
from the opposition, as had been the case with Germany’s participation in
NATO’s ‘Operation Essential Harvest’ in FYROM. For Schröder, the aim of
increasing Germany’s action radius and global standing in security and
defence policy, which had been one of the objectives in the military participation
in Operation Essential Harvest, was also a key goal in the case of OEF.
As had been visible in the case of FYROM, the war in Afghanistan presented
an opportunity for Germany to play a more assertive role in international
politics, and one that was not pursued entirely through international institutions,
as the contribution to OEF, which constitutes a ‘coalition of the willing’,
demonstrates. Although much of this was done also on account of solidarity
with the USA, the size of the contribution and the departure from previously
held preferences and positions, particularly with respect to the use of military
force, support the conclusion that this was also to increase Germany’s
international profile and arose out of national preferences rather than merely
transatlantic solidarity.
Consequently, in the Bundestag, Schröder stressed the need for solidarity
with the USA and Germany’s willingness to contribute militarily to the ‘war
against terror’, stating that ‘we as Germans and Europeans aim for unqualified
solidarity with the USA’ (cited in Deutscher Bundestag, 2001c: 18302a).
He also frequently emphasized Germany’s increasing international role and
standing, stating that the period of German postwar foreign policy where
512 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
allies would expect ‘something like secondary assistance’ had irrevocably
passed with the attacks of 11 September 2001. Instead, Germany would have
to take seriously its responsibility (cited in Deutscher Bundestag, 18 October
2001: 18682c).
The decision to contribute troops to the US-led ‘war on terror’ created
significant unease among the German public, and particularly among the
ruling coalition, where Schröder faced a potential revolt from members of his
own Social Democratic Party and its Green coalition partner. By contrast, for
the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union, the attacks of 11
September 2001 had reinforced the parties’ transatlantic leanings as well as
the conviction that German security interests would have to be protected
with political as well as military means – and wherever threats to German
security originated geographically (Katsioulis, 2004: 227–252). In the light of
a growing level of dissent within the governing coalition and the prospect of
having to rely on opposition votes to secure a parliamentary majority for
military support (Financial Times, 2001a), Schröder went as far as to link
parliamentary approval for the deployment of 3,900 Bundeswehr troops,
including by January 2002 about 100 members of the special forces, to a vote
of confidence in his government on 16 November 2001, in order to secure the
necessary votes in favour of Bundeswehr deployment from his own party
(Deutscher Bundestag, 2001e). He narrowly survived the vote of confidence
by a count of 334 (of 662) votes.
Foreign Minister Fischer, in contrast, emphasized the multilateral nature of
the response to the attacks. This signalled that Fischer, although not necessarily
objecting to Schröder’s emphasis on Germany’s changed role in the
world, emphasized a more traditional German foreign policy position by
focusing on multilateral institutions and initiatives through which to pursue
German responses to the ‘war on terror’. With respect to the EU, Fischer
stated that Germany would ‘pursue a parallel policy, that of making a
national contribution – in the question of the political solution, in the question
of humanitarian initiatives – but also to strengthen European visibility
and to accomplish more of a common foreign and security policy’ (cited in
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001d: 18993c).
Early on, German policy-makers raised the issue of post-conflict reconstruction
of Afghanistan with other relevant actors, including the UN, the
USA and other EU partners. There had also been informal bilateral talks on
Afghanistan between the Federal Foreign Office and the British Foreign
Office in early 2001;14
and while these talks did not lead to specific policy proposals
or initiatives, they show that Germany had a strong interest in
Afghanistan. Following 11 September 2001, German policymakers aimed at
playing a key role in this area – but did so through the auspices of internaEva
Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 513
14
Interview with EU official, Brussels, 11 September 2006.
tional institutions, notably the UN but also the EU. This points towards
Europeanization understood as national projection as well as national adaptation
and policy preferences: giving the EU a voice in the war in Afghanistan
and utilizing CFSP instruments were of high salience for policy-makers.
A single voice for the EU and a profile for the EU’s CFSP were not only of
high salience for German policy-makers, but also viewed as vehicles to
increase Germany’s scope for action and to export national preferences onto
the EU level. Berlin’s increasing engagement took place through international
institutions and reinforces the fundamentally multilateral conception
of German foreign policy. The CFSP came to play a vital role in this
conception, thereby supporting the Europeanization hypothesis. Germany
hosted the Bonn Conference on the future of Afghanistan, at which Afghan
factions agreed on a transition process, at the request of UN Special
Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, and the Bonn Agreement was endorsed by
the United Nations Security Council on 7 December 2001. This signalled the
substantial stakes and interest for Germany in the international efforts of
Afghanistan. The presence of both Chancellor Schröder and Foreign Minister
Fischer at the signing ceremony signified the importance of the policy for the
German government. Germany’s political engagement for the reconstruction
of Afghanistan was also due to the fact that Germany had a historically
strong interest in and connection to Afghanistan, including a close relationship
with Afghan exiles in Germany. Berlin therefore had a reputation as an
honest broker in Afghanistan. Echoing sentiments of increasing Germany’s
independence and room for manoeuvre, Berlin’s political and military
engagement in the reconstruction of Afghanistan was also a question of playing
a significant role through and in EU efforts, given that ‘Germany is a net
payer in the EU’.15
This signals that the EU CFSP was perceived as a useful
political platform for exporting and reinforcing national preferences, thus
providing evidence of Europeanization.
The priorities with regard to the CFSP in this case were both to consolidate
and to make visible EU efforts in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and there
were no differences in view among the key participants in the German
government. Given the extent of Germany’s involvement in the formulation
and coordination of reconstruction efforts, the EU represented an important
platform through which to pursue German national interests and consolidate
policy efforts. The appointment of a German diplomat, Klaus-Peter Klaiber,
as EU Special Representative (EUSR) to Afghanistan also supports this conclusion.
It was a German initiative to appoint an EUSR; a German national
was nominated for the position; and Germany drew up the mandate and
paid for much of the expenses (Missiroli, 2003). Klaiber’s appointment was to
help the EU speak with one voice again, despite the shift towards bilateralism
514 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
15
Interview with German official, London, 1 September 2005.
in the wake of 11 September 2001 (Klaiber, 2002). The extensive use of the EU
platform also suggests an inherent preference on the part of German government
officials and the Federal Foreign Office for the use and application of
CFSP instruments, further supporting the Europeanization hypothesis.
Afghanistan II: Between NATO and the ESDP?
As in the case of FYROM, Afghanistan demonstrates that Europeanization
was much more pronounced when it came to utilizing the CFSP for political
initiatives. Considerations of military participation in ISAF, by contrast, were
not determined by considerations that would significantly support the
Europeanization hypotheses. ISAF, the peacekeeping force assembled under
the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1378, has three principal
tasks: to aid the interim government in developing national security structures;
to assist in the country’s reconstruction; and to assist in developing and
training Afghan security forces. Among government officials in both the
Ministry of Defence and the Federal Foreign Office, as well as with the
Chancellor and the Foreign Minister, participation in ISAF was uncontested.
As in the debates over German participation in OEF, Chancellor Schröder
pushed for Germany’s growing international role, including military deployment,
out of transatlantic solidarity, emphasizing that ISAF ‘is a consequence
of politically decisive action. It is also a consequence of the unrestricted
solidarity, which included military means’ (cited in Deutscher Bundestag,
2001f: 20822c). Although strengthening the European agenda was of salience
to policy-makers and frequently used as a rhetorical device in domestic
debates, this did not translate into support for an ‘EU force’, and the suggestion
on the part of the Belgian Presidency that ISAF could constitute such a
force was subsequently rejected. At the EU Council in Laeken on 14
December 2001, EU leaders agreed that member-states would take part in
ISAF, even if the EU was not putting together its own force for Afghanistan.
With respect to German preferences and perceptions of the role of the EU in
Afghanistan, Foreign Minister Fischer subsequently stated that ‘of course 11
September made clear that the EU is not prepared to make decisions on war
and peace. Of course we would have wished for a stronger European effort’
(cited in Deutscher Bundestag, 2001f: 20827c). The issue of an EU format for
the European contributions did lead, however, to some discord among EU
member-states, and was at least informally discussed as a possible option in
the Political and Security Committee, even if no specific plans for a concrete
operation followed from these discussions.16
Publicly, however, memberstates
were quick to distance themselves from the statement of then Belgian
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 515
16
Interview with former German official, Berlin, 8 February 2006.
foreign minister Louis Michel that the contributions to ISAF of the individual
EU member-states were an EU force, with then UK foreign secretary Jack
Straw stating that there was ‘no question of the EU being able to deploy a
defence force it doesn’t have in Afghanistan’ (Financial Times, 2001b).
This demonstrates that although a preference for a more visible role for the
EU existed on the part of Chancellor Schröder and Foreign Minister Fischer,
this was not appropriate in practice, as, in the words of the foreign minister,
Europe was ‘not yet built for the question of war and peace’ (Fischer, 2002). For
one, the appearance of a coordinated EU force gave rise to criticism from other
NATO partners and created some unease among other EU member-states,
notably Britain (UPI, 2002). And, from the perspective of a former German
official, ‘ESDP at that time was still in its infancy and not robust enough to
undertake such an operation’.17
Given Germany’s commitment to NATO and
transatlantic relations, however, it seems unlikely that a consensus in favour of
a military ESDP operation would have been reached even if the institution had
been further developed – despite statements on the part of the foreign minister
that point towards an inherent preference for an EU approach.
NATO’s taking up ISAF command in 2003 and current preparations for an
ESDP operation bear this argument out: given NATO’s operational capacities,
Germany regarded NATO as the prime forum for taking over command
of ISAF,18
in particular once the initial ‘lead nation’ model with a six-month
rotation proved too cumbersome, and once restrictions on NATO’s
geographic scope had lifted. The ESDP operation launched in June 2007 is a
civilian rather than a military operation, and reflects questions over the ongoing
definition of a division of labour as well as coordination between NATO
and the EU in Brussels and the field, rather than questions over the role of the
ESDP in crisis management.
Conclusion
The analysis presented above shows that considerations of Europeanization
applied with respect to the CFSP in both of the cases examined. This attests
both to the applicability of the Europeanization concept to foreign policy and
to the influence of the CFSP in national decision-making. However, considerations
of Europeanization did not apply when it came to military operations.
This was true both in the case of a systemic crisis (Afghanistan) and in the
case of a regional crisis (FYROM), where the EU was clearly seen as the
appropriate and responsible organization/institution. These decisions stand
516 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
17
Interview with former German official, Berlin, 9 February 2006.
18
Interview with former German official, Berlin, 8 February 2006.
in stark contrast to Germany’s Europeanized rhetoric, which suggests a
general salience of the European agenda. Instead, decisions over the application
of military force were conditioned by transatlantic considerations over
the lacking formalized agreement between the EU and NATO, as well as by
domestic preferences and priorities. This shows that pushing for a greater
role for Europe was contingent on other factors, notably NATO and domestic
preferences. Although this article has analysed the Schröder government,
the weight of transatlantic commitments along with national preferences
with respect to the use of force can be expected to continue under Chancellor
Merkel’s tenure. At the same time, the growing role of the ESDP in civilian
and military crisis management also indicates that policy-makers will have to
take the development and application of ESDP instruments into greater consideration
when formulating policies towards international crises or international
interventions, thereby increasing (in)direct Europeanization pressures
in decisions that concern the use of force. Reluctant German commitments to
the military operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo last year
represent a case in point, as Germany acquiesced to another EU memberstate’s
pressure, indicating growing adaptational pressures in the case of EU
military operations in addition to opportunities for policy projection inherent
in the CFSP and ESDP platform. But, in order for the ESDP to be(come) a
truly successful policy, a more forceful commitment on the part of its
member-states, both where resources and where political will are concerned,
will be required.
* Eva Gross is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for European Studies at the Vrije
Universiteit Brussels. E-mail: eva.gross@vub.ac.be. The research for this article was made
possible by a fellowship from the Volkswagen Foundation under the auspices of the
‘European Foreign and Security Policy Studies Program’ in 2005–06 and by an ESRC +3
studentship. The author would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of a previous
version of this article for their insightful comments.
References
Andreatta, Filippo, 2005. ‘Theory and the European Union’s International Relations’, in
Christopher Hill & Michael Smith, eds, International Relations and the European Union.
Oxford: Oxford University Press (18–38).
Biscop, Sven, 2006. ‘The Ambiguous Ambition: The Development of the EU Security
Architecture’, paper presented at the colloquium ‘The EC/EU: A World Security
Actor? An Assessment After 50 Years of the External Actions of the EC/EU’, EU
Institute for Security Studies, Paris, 15 September.
Börzel, Tanja, 1999. ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to
Europeanization in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies 37(4):
573–597.
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 517
Börzel, Tanja, 2002. ‘Pace-Setting, Foot-Dragging, and Fence-Sitting: Member State
Responses to Europeanization’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(2): 193–214.
Börzel, Tanja, 2003. ‘Shaping and Taking EU Policies: Member States Responses to
Europeanization’, Queen’s Papers on Europeanization 2/2003. Belfast: School of
Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s University of Belfast.
Bulmer, Simon, 1998. ‘New Institutionalism and the Governance of the Single European
Market’, Journal of European Public Policy 5(3): 365–386.
Bulmer, Simon & Martin Burch, 1999. ‘The Europeanization of Central Government: The
UK and Germany in Historical Institutionalist Perspective’, ARENA Working Paper
99/30. Oslo: Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo (ARENA).
Cole, Alistair & Helen Drake, 2000. ‘The Europeanization of the French Polity: Continuity,
Change and Adaptation’, Journal of European Public Policy 7(1): 26–43.
Council of the European Union, 2003. ‘Presidency Conclusions – Copenhagen, 12 and 13
December 2002’, Brussels, 29 January; available at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_
Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/73842.pdf (accessed 15 August 2007).
Deutsch, Karl, 1957. Political Community in the North Atlantic Area. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001a. Plenarprotokoll 14/158, 15 March.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001b. Plenarprotokoll 14/184, 29 August.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001c. Plenarprotokoll 14/187, 19 September.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001d. Plenarprotokoll 14/195, 18 October.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001e. Plenarprotokoll 14/202, 16 November.
Deutscher Bundestag, 2001f. Plenarprotokoll 14/210, 22 December.
Duke, Simon, 1999. The Elusive Quest for European Security: From EDC to CFSP. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Dyson, Kenneth & Klaus H. Goertz, 2003. ‘Living with Europe: Power, Constraint, and
Contestation’, in Dyson & Goertz, eds, Germany, Europe and the Politics of Constraint.
Oxford: Oxford University Press (3–35).
Featherstone, Kevin & Claudio Radaelli, eds, 2003. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Financial Times (London), 2001a. ‘Schröder Takes Gamble on Vote of Confidence: Troop
Mobilisation – German Chancellor Forces Vote in Order To Put Pressure on Dissenting
Coalition Legislators’, 14 November.
Financial Times (London), 2001b. ‘Peacekeeping Dispute Mars First Day of EU Summit’, 15
December.
Financial Times Deutschland (Hamburg), 2001a. ‘Sondersitzung des Bundestags zu
Mazedonien-Einsatz möglich’ [Special Session of the Bundestag on Deployments in
Macedonia Possible], 28 June.
Financial Times Deutschland (Hamburg), 2001b. ‘Bundeswehr vor Nato-Einsatz in
Mazedonien’ [Bundeswehr Faces NATO Deployment in Macedonia], 2 July.
Fischer, Joschka, 2001. Die Antwort auf fast alle Fragen ist: Europa’ [The Answer to
Almost All Questions Is: Europe], Die Zeit, December; available at http://www.zeit.
de/2001/12/200112_fischer.neu9.3..xml (accessed 15 August 2007).
Fischer, Joschka, 2002. Interview mit Bundesaussenminister Joschka Fischer [Interview
with Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer], Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 21 January.
Forster, Anthony & William Wallace, 2000. ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy: From
Shadow to Substance?’ in Helen Wallace & William Wallace, eds, Policy-Making in the
European Union, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press (461–491).
Ginsberg, Roy, 1989. Foreign Policy Actions of the European Community: The Politics of Scale.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Green Cowles, Maria; James Caporaso & Thomas Risse, eds, 2001. Transforming Europe:
518 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007
Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Haas, Ernest, 1960. ‘International Integration: The European and Universal Process’,
International Organization 4: 607–646.
Hill, Christopher, 2004. ‘Renationalizing or Regrouping? EU Foreign Policy Since 11
September 2001’, Journal of Common Market Studies 42(1): 143–163.
Howorth, Jolyon, 2005. ‘From Security to Defence: The Evolution of CFSP’, in C. Hill & M.
Smith, eds, International Relations and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University
Press (179–204).
Irondelle, Bastien, 2003. ‘Europeanisation Without the European Union? French Military
Reforms 1991–96’, Journal of European Public Policy 10(2): 208–226.
Janning, Josef, 1996. ‘A German Europe – A European Germany? On the Debate over
Germany’s Foreign Policy’, International Affairs 72(1): 33–41.
Katsioulis, Christos, 2004. ‘Deutsche Sicherheitspolitik im Parteiendiskurs: Alter Wein in
neuen Schläuchen’ [German Security Policy in Party Discourse: Old Wine in New
Wineskins], in Sebastian Harnisch, Christos Katsioulis & Marco Overhaus, Deutsche
Sicherheitspolitik: Eine Bilanz der Regierung Schröder [German Security Policy: A Balance
Sheet of the Schröder Government]. Baden-Baden: Nomos (227–252).
Keatinge, Patrick, 1984. ‘The Europeanization of Irish Foreign Policy’, in Patrick Joseph
Drudy & Dermott McAleese, eds, Ireland and the European Community. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (33–57).
Klaiber, Klaus-Peter, 2002. ‘The European Union in Afghanistan: Impressions of My Term
as Special Representative’, National Europe Centre Paper No. 44: Canberra: Australian
National University; available at http://www.anu.edu.au/NEC/Archive/klaiber.pdf.
Knill, Christoph, 2001. The Europeanization of National Administrations: Patterns of Institutional
Change and Persistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladrech, Robert, 1994. ‘Europeanization of Domestic Politics and Institutions: The Case of
France’, Journal of Common Market Studies 32(1): 69–88.
Major, Claudia, 2005. ‘Europeanization and Foreign and Security Policy: Undermining or
Rescuing the Nation State?’, Politics 25(3): 175–190.
Major, Claudia & Karolina Pomorska, 2005. ‘Europeanisation: Framework or Fashion?’,
CFSP Forum 3(5): 1–4.
Manners, Ian & Richard Whitman, 2000. The Foreign Policies of European Union Member
States. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Maull, Hanns W., 2000. ‘Germany and the Use of Force: Still a “Civilian Power”?’, Survival
42(2): 56–81.
Miskimmon, Alister, 2001. ‘Recasting the Security Bargains: Germany, European Security
and the Transatlantic Relationship’, in Douglas Webber, ed., New Europe, New Germany,
Old Foreign Policy: German Foreign Policy Since Unification. London: Frank Cass (83–106).
Miskimmon, Alister, forthcoming. Germany and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of
the European Union: Between Europeanisation and National Adaptation. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Missiroli, Antonio, 2003. ‘Euros for ESDP: Financing EU Operations’, Occasional Paper
no. 45. Paris: Institute for Security Studies.
Nuttall, Simon, 1992. European Political Cooperation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Olsen, Johan, 2002. ‘The Many Faces of Europeanization’, Arena Working Paper 02/02.
Oslo: Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo (ARENA).
Piana, Claire, 2002. ‘The EU’s Decision-Making Policy in the Common Foreign and
Security Policy: The Case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, European
Foreign Affairs Review 7(2): 209–226.
Putnam, Robert, 1988. ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’,
International Organization 42(3): 427–460.
Eva Gross Europeanization of National Crisis Management Policies? 519
Radaelli, Claudio, 2002. ‘Whither Europeanization? Concept Stretching and Substantive
Change’, European Integration Online Papers 4(8); available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/
texte/2000-008.htm (accessed 1 August 2007).
Radaelli, Claudio, 2004. ‘Europeanization: Solution or Problem?’, European Integration
Online Papers 8(16); available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2004-016a.htm (accessed
1 August 2007).
Regelsberger, Elfriede, ed., 1997. Foreign Policy of the European Union: From EPC to CFSP
and Beyond. Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.
Risse, Thomas, 2001. ‘A European Identity? Europeanization and the Evolution of NationState
Identities’, in Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso & Thomas Risse, eds, Transforming
Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press (198–216).
Risse, Thomas; Maria Green Cowles & James Caporaso, 2001. ‘Europeanization and
Domestic Change: Introduction’, in Maria Green Cowles, James Caporaso & Thomas
Risse, eds, 2001. Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press (1–20).
Smith, Michael E., 2000. ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign
Policy Cooperation’, Journal of European Public Policy 7(4): 613–631.
Stavridis, Stelios; Elias Mossialos, Roger Morgan & Howard Machin, eds, 1997. New
Challenges to the European Union: Policies and Policy-Making. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Tonra, Ben, 2001. The Europeanisation of National Foreign Policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish
Foreign Policy in the European Union. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Tonra, Ben, 2003. ‘Constructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Utility of a
Cognitive Approach’, Journal of Common Market Studies 41(4): 731–756.
Torreblanca, José, 2001. ‘Ideas, Preferences and Institutions: Explaining the Europeanization
of Spanish Foreign Policy’, Arena Working Paper 01/26. Oslo: Centre for
European Studies, University of Oslo (ARENA).
United Press International (UPI) (London), 2002. ‘Analysis: All-European Force
Criticized’, 10 January.
Wallace, William, 1994. Regional Integration: The West European Experience. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Wong, Reuben, 2005. ‘The Europeanization of Foreign policy’, in C. Hill & M. Smith, eds,
International Relations and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(134–153).
Wong, Reuben, 2006. The Europeanization of French Foreign Policy: France and the EU in East
Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zielonka, Jan, 1998. Explaining Euro-Paralysis: Why Europe Is Unable To Act in International
Politics. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
520 Security Dialogue vol. 38, no. 4, December 2007