MUNICH – The prolonged Greek debt crisis and the ongoing influx of refugees into Europe have ignited a debate about Germany’s role within the European Union. Has Germany become the European hegemon? And if not, should it assume that role, as some commentators have suggested, in order to prevent the European project from failing?
The idea of German hegemony – as should be clear to any student of history – is self-defeating. Instead, Germany should assume the position of Europe’s “Chief Facilitating Officer,” as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier aptly called it, focused on strengthening the EU by working to create the conditions necessary for a truly common European foreign and security policy, one that proactively prepares the continent to meet the challenges it confronts. By throwing its full weight into this task, Germany would not only promote Europe’s influence in the world; it would also deflate the discussion of hegemony.
The 2007 Treaty of Lisbon was based on the idea that the EU’s prosperity and security depend on its members looking beyond their parochial interests and act jointly, in their common interest. In order to achieve this, the treaty created posts, such as the President of the European Council and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, whose incumbents could speak and act on behalf of the entire EU.
As former Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak once noted, “There are only two types of states in Europe: small states, and small states that have not yet realized that they are small.” Unfortunately, for the moment, too many of the EU’s member states fall into the latter category.
The new offices established by the Treaty of Lisbon have helped the EU achieve some important successes – most notably during negotiations with Iran and with Serbia and Kosovo. But there has been no consistent effort to strengthen their powers. Far too often, when it comes to dealing with foreign-policy crises and strategic challenges, EU institutions are assigned a minor role. The Ukraine crisis, where France and Germany have taken the lead, is but one example of this.
And yet, even as Euro-skepticism has been rising across the continent, there remains widespread popular support for a common, more powerful European foreign policy. In a recent article in the Financial Times, former Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski outlined how this might be achieved. When a foreign-policy issue arises, member states should assess whether it would be most appropriately addressed by individual states or at the European level.
In the vast majority of cases in which common action would be preferable, member states would provide full support to the EU. As a result, European Council President Donald Tusk, EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker would play leading roles in European foreign policy.
Unfortunately, this is far from established practice. The EU’s members tend to pursue dissonant policies, weakening, rather than strengthening, Europe’s global position. And there are few things the rulers of China and Russia enjoy more than playing the EU’s members off against one another.
Germany has an opportunity to provide a counterweight to long-standing British objections to a unified foreign policy. By putting its considerable influence in the service of a cohesive, strategically focused foreign and security policy, Germany would simultaneously achieve two key objectives: a stronger and more capable EU and a more European Germany.
A good starting point would be to act on longstanding calls for closer integration of EU members’ armed forces. Germany should put its full weight behind “pooling and sharing” military resources, even if the United Kingdom is resistant to such an effort. After all, the time when EU member states went to war alone ended more than three decades ago, with the Falklands War.
“Poor old Germany,” Henry Kissinger once quipped. “Too big for Europe, too small for the world.” Fortunately, Germany has a way out of this trap. As a proactive and constructive part of the EU, Germany is big enough for the world, and at the same time not too big for its neighbors.
As Steinmeier and German Minister of Economic Affairs Sigmar Gabriel, recently wrote, “Only together, and only at the European level, will we be able at all to find rational solutions.” They were writing about the refugee crisis, but they could just as easily have been referring to Germany’s place in the EU today.
Comments
Hide CommentsRead Comments (7)Please sign in or register to leave a comment.
Comment Commented jagjeet sinha
Populist fantasies seem to be a popular subject - and Herr Ischinger appears to revalidate.
Despite numerous events since the Union came into being, the desire to forge a United Union never falters.
Despite Profiling technologies that can describe each country's positions from events, the United Union keeps its fantasies.
Reality only emerges when the Red Army marches into Odessa - then the phone lines to NATO Supreme Command define reality.
Reality only emerges when the ECB is unable to inject life within the Greek banking system - then without the IMF, Berlin freezes.
Reality only emerges when the EU unable to defend the barricades in Hungary - capitulates letting Schengen Treaty in tatters.
History seems to have bequeathed each country a position where self interest cannot succumb to a United Union - without The Anglosphere and The Atlantic as the ultimate guarantor of salvation.
High horses are great for populist fantasies - but reality on the ground suggests a flexible geometry for Europe, not federal.
In its vanity to challenge The Anglosphere, DeGaulle decimated the Dollar Standard on 15 August 1971.
The Anglosphere remains Europe's only salvation.
Instead of trying to spite it out of existence, Europe best advised to strengthen The Anglosphere and The Atlantic.
Unlike Greece, where siege and surrender left the Greeks with no options, The Anglosphere has The Pacific option.
APEC is real and will not have a federal geometry - as flexible geometry gives it the ammunition it needs to matter in World Economics.
EU no longer can afford it's populist fantasies - the sooner it reverts to the EEC that it was, the greater flexibility will it have.
And Germany France Italy will still have the ammunition to belong to The Top Table - albeit with NATO Supreme Command in control. Read more
Comment Commented hari naidu
If you saw & read full text of Juncker's State of Union speech to EP, you'd have understood Wolfgang is lonely voice in EU forest. Berlin is not fit for a hegemon & it's trapped in dialectics of its own past....
On the contrary, Lisbon Treaty created a political mess with power-sharing EU Council, for first time imposing its political will on EP & Commission. Now, it's functioning as a body which can veto (literally!) any progressive policy emanating from across the elected EP.
It may be that Eastern European culture & historical dialectics is finally hemorrhaging internal working of Council politics....
Methinks we're witnessing the decline and fall of EU - not ECB(!) - under Lisbon Treaty. Read more
Comment Commented j. von Hettlingen
Wolfgang Ischinger is trying to define Germany's role within the European Union as the country has seen one crisis after the other thrust upon its leadership in recent months. Being the most populous country of the continent and its economic powerhouse, the question about whether Germany should become "the European hegemon" is inevitable. During the Greek bailout crisis, the conflict in Ukraine, most EU members have relied on Germany to keep the "European project" together. The other question is whether we will see a German Europe or a European Germany.
Henry Kissenger had once famously said about Germany being "too big for Europe, too small for the world.” But the author believes Germany could find a way out of this "hegemony trap" so that it wouldn't be too powerful for its neighbours and be just "a proactive and constructive part of the EU". Will Germany one day be "big enough for the world"? Ischinger thinks to.
But certainly the country seems to have gained world-class status under Angela Merkel's leadership. She has cultivated the image of a prudent, pragmatic and down-to-earth leader, earning her the nickname "Mutti" - mother of the nation. Whether a “Chief Facilitating Officer,” or an uncrowned queen of Europe, she is ranked by Forbes as the second most powerful person in the world - the highest ranking ever achieved by a woman.
Although the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon meant to enhance the role of the European Union as a world actor, the author says member states still haven't been able to look "beyond their parochial interests and act jointly, in their common interest". What Belgium's former Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak once said: “There are only two types of states in Europe: small states, and small states that have not yet realized that they are small,” seems to be true about "many of the EU’s member states." The problem is that their leaders are democratically elected and are being held accountable for their actions by the voters. In times of economic downturn realpolitik counts more than solidarity within the Union. It explains why they "tend to pursue dissonant policies, weakening, rather than strengthening, Europe’s global position". No doubt this plays into the hands of China and Russia.
Ischinger urges Germany to take the lead in unifying the Union's foreign and security policy. A stronger and more capable EU would make Germany "more European". And it "should put its full weight behind “pooling and sharing” military resources", to show Russia that NATO will defend its member states on its eastern borders. Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Sigmar Gabriel are convinced: “Only together, and only at the European level, will we be able at all to find rational solutions.” Read more
Comment Commented Peter Schneider
The concept of Europeanization of policy fields has proven a nice way for the elites to overturn the national constitutions. On the national level they are bound to the constitutional order, there are checks and balances, a parliament, democratic elections, a critical public discussion (ideally) etc. On the European level they can operate outside the rule of law, there is no constitution, no constitutional court, no parliament, no demos, no critical discussion (you cannot discuss about most important issues in a foreign language) etc. So if our elites call for "more Europe", this has to be read as a call for less influence by democratically legitimized institutions. Europeanization is good for them but desastrous for the ordinary people. What they call "Europe" is definitely not our Europe.
Speaking of traps, I can't see this "hegemony trap". What I can see really well, however, is the euro trap. With the Maastricht rules we were lured into this trap and now the trap has snapped and we are told that while the Maastricht rules cannot be enforced there is, unfortunatedly, no way out as this would lead to chaos. With the ESM trap they chose the same method. This time, the lure was automatic debt reduction which later, after we had agreed, turned out to be not applicable. We were betrayed so many times - why should we choose this same strategy over and over again? The elites fear a "hegemony trap" (what is this exactly?) and the solution is to hand over the control over our money and the control over our borders and the control over our army? Is this meant by "European Germany"? I don't trust the German elites any longer. Do they really act in the interest of the German people? Are they still rooted in the German constitution? They have just fooled us too often ("Over-indebtedness of a euro member state can be excluded from the outset." - hahahahaha). Read more
Comment Commented M M
A country that can only function by automated / pre-programmed rules in today’s fast moving and changing world can never lead. A leader must be honest, lenient, flexible, resolute, moderate and decisive. Let me know when you find one with these features, in Germany or outside it. As far as the dysfunctional EU is concerned, my fellow commentators below have said it all. Read more
Comment Commented Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes
This article presents an elegant argument but it has two floors.
The first (as usual for anyone writing from within the European political elite) is it ignores the issue of democratic deficit; a single foreign policy or army should NEVER be allowed unless it is very clear in whose name it negotiates and fights. Making international treaties and enforcing them with ultimate sanction can only work in a democracy where people are clearly accountable, such was the case in the Falklands in ’82 and probably less so in the case of Iraq in 2003 where people feel the democratic process was manipulated and accountability blurred. Our present timidity surrounding foreign policy in the UK stems from this schism more than any ‘parochial interests’.
Frankly I and many of my countrymen would be disgusted if the Minsk Protocol, an agreement worth no more than Mr. Chamberlain’s letter in 1938, had our Foreign or Prime Minister’s name on it and suspect they know this, therefore giving up responsibility for our policy in that area while remaining democratically accountable would be a stupid move.
Secondly, the institutions mentioned are not mature (Baroness Ashton was a joke who got the job by having zero discernible value within Gordon Brown’s administration and therefore would not be missed when sent to Brussels) and are subject to massive internal fiddling and subversion internally by those very same parochial interests. Federica Mogherini has a history (in Italian national politics) of cosiness towards Russia, perhaps this is why France and Germany felt it desirable to pursue a deal with Putin directly.
Germany has a history of pursuing its own parochial interests within the EU as much as any other country especially in the areas of manufacturing, energy and competition policy. Why would foreign policy really be any different?
It is clear which sphere Herr Ischinger inhabits and it reveals why the EU is sinking fast both in the opinion of those small people who put up with it and pay for it and in the minds of its peers and opponents in external states, especially Russia at this moment. Read more
Comment Commented stephan Edwards
I would have to say unified foreign policy is a bit of a problem with portions of the EU trying to impose indigestable refugees on other portions. Unified Fiscal policy is buried in an unmarked grave near the Greek economy. All in all chances for any unified agreed action closely approximates zero. Read more
Featured
The Chinese Economy and Fed Policy
Martin Feldstein is not convinced by the Federal Reserve's justification for postponing a hike in interest rates.
Sunlight on Tax Havens
J. Bradford DeLong & Michael M. DeLong praise a new book that exposes the high cost of hidden wealth.
Rebuilding the Asylum System
George Soros lays out a comprehensive plan to manage the surge in refugee flows worldwide.