by Thomas-Durrell Young
Before addressing possible solutions to present difficulties
in Franco-German ties, it is appropriate to assess briefly the
conditions which have produced the current situation. It is not the
purpose of this essay to present an explanation of the evolution of
bilateral relations subsequent to the signing of the Elysee Treaty,
since this has already been articulated elsewhere.
[5]
Rather, these issues are presented here solely to place
the current state of affairs in their proper context. In respect to the
current nadir, three events and issues identified above warrant
explanation.
At the heart of the upheaval in Franco-German relations
lies the nettlesome issue in that the unification of Germany on
October 3,1990, produced the largest non-Russian continental
power (with an economic potential that will likely dwarf its
neighbors in short order), which is now a sovereign country, albeit
tightly entwined in Western international economic, political and
security institutions. The mere existence of a united Germany has
had the effect of altering fundamentally the political balance not
only in Europe as a whole, but within the EC as well. The previous
"balance of imbalances" among the four key countries with
comparable populations (i.e., France, the Federal Republic, Britain,
and Italy), no longer exists. [6]
Yet probably most significant from the perspective of
French policy is that the mere act of unification killed once and for
all the perception (greatly encouraged by Paris and tacitly accepted
by Bonn) that France was the senior partner in the bilateral
relationship. The act of unification showed this image to be but a
mere myth. Just as Bonn must come to terms with the fact that it
has all but become an incomplete superpower, so must Paris
accept its new status in Europe and refocus its political
aspirations. [7]
Yet, well prior to the opening of the Berlin Wall, strains
were becoming evident in bilateral ties. During the period of 1982 to
approximately 1987, relations between the two countries were
probably at their height. Fifteen years after the Elysee Treaty was
signed, a protocol was effected implementing the accord's security
provisions, thereby establishing, belatedly, a
bilateral defense council, a secretariat and subordinate bodies to
manage cooperation. [8]
However, it is often forgotten that it was Paris which began the
process of reining in cooperative initiatives in the area of defense.
From hindsight it is evident that conventional defense cooperation
had reached its limits since Bonn was unwilling to enter into
bilateral arrangements which were supplementary to NATO, no
matter how disillusioned Bonn was becoming with U.S. policy.
One of the principal reasons behind Bonn's desire to effect
closer bilateral security ties with France in the early 1980s was
due to what German officials saw as a wavering in Washington's
nuclear commitment to the security of their country. The Reagan
Administration's Strategic Defense Initiative, the Intermediate- and
Shorter-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and especially, the 1986
Reykjavik Summit, where President Reagan seriously considered
President Gorbachev's proposal to eliminate their countries'
respective intercontinental ballistic missile forces, left many in the
frontline NATO state anxious of U.S. intentions.
[9]
The French nuclear force, notwithstanding its relatively
small size, [10] did present
the advantage of being controlled from the continent, while not
being as susceptible to arms control limitations or reductions as
U.S. weapons. [11]
Despite President Mitterrand's February 1986 public
statement promising to consult where appropriate with German
officials prior to the use of French nuclear forces on German soil,"
[12] Bonn apparently has
wanted additional assurances. This has led to what Francois de
Rose characterized as the of nuclear obstacle" to closer cooperation
between the two countries in defense, since to meet Bonn's
wishes would compromise long-standing Gaullist security policy
tenets. [13]
This was apparently not a battle President Mitterrand had
been willing to undertake until very recently, and will be dealt with
below. Suffice it to say that prior to the fall of the Berlin War, his
comments made before the Institut des Hautes Etudes de
Defense nationale in October 1988, typified French attitudes. In this
speech, the president made reference to limits in bilateral Franco-
German defense cooperation, and stressed the need for further
economic integration. Only then, he stated,
would Europe realize that it "cannot exist without the ability to
defend itself." [14]
Lastly, the lack of visible purpose in Franco-German
relations is directly related to the still unanswered question of the
EC's future. Notwithstanding the likely success of achieving a
single market through the implementation of EC 92, Western
Europe is quickly approaching a crossroads of historical
proportion. While President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl have
strongly endorsed the concept of political union
[15]
(a process which incidently was reinvigorated in April 1990 as
a means to mend the Paris-Bonn relationship),
[16]
and Italian Foreign Minister Gianni De Michelis has tirelessly
pressed for the EC to assume a greater role in diplomatic and
defense issues through its amalgamation of the Western
European Union (WEU), [17]
the fact remains that there is far from being a consensus within
the EC as to its ultimate goals. The decision upon the application
of neutral Austria for membership in the Community in 1993 will
force that body, possibly once and for all, to decide upon whether it
aspires to become a true political body, or as in the words of
Chancellor Kohl, merely a Zollverein.
[18]
At such an important moment in European history, the
value of an intimate Paris-Bonn axis becomes indisputably crucial.
|