Trans-Atlantic Relations in Germany's Foreign Policy

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


Author(s):  
Jean-Christophe Bureau ◽  
Luca Salvatici

Abstract This paper provides a summary measure of the possible new commitments in the area of agricultural market access undertaken by the European Union and the United States, using the Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) as the tariff aggregator. We take the 2001 bound tariffs as the starting point and attempt to assess how much liberalization in agriculture could be achieved in the European Union and the United States as a result of the present negotiations. We compute the index for 20 agricultural commodity aggregates under the actual commitments assuming a specific functional form for import demand. We compare the present levels of the TRI with three hypothetical cases: a repetition of the same set of tariff cuts commitments of the Uruguay Round according to a EU proposal prior to the 2003 WTO ministerial meeting, a uniform 36% reduction of each tariff, an harmonization ( "Swiss" ) formula based on the initial US proposal.


Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6(75)) ◽  
pp. 51-74
Author(s):  
Józef Fiszer

The study is devoted to Poland’s accession to NATO and the European Union (EU) and describes Germany’s stance on Poland’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations after 1989, which, despite various assessments, was not explicit and enthusiastic. However, it evolved gradually and was determined by a difficult internal situation after the reunification of Germany and its new geopolitics and geoeconomics. For Germany that reunified on 3 October 1990, an issue of greater importance than Polish accession to NATO and the EU was the presence of Soviet troops on the territory of the former GDR and normalization of relations with neighbors, particularly with France, Poland, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Both France and the United Kingdom, as well as the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent, the United States initially were afraid of a reunified Germany and opposed Polish membership in Euro-Atlantic structures. At the time, hopes and fears were rife about the future of Europe. A common question was being asked in Paris, London, Moscow, Washington, and Warsaw – would reunified Germany remain a European state, or would Europe become German? Should Germany stay in NATO or leave after the reunification? There were questions also about Moscow’s policy towards reunified Germany and its position on Poland’s accession to Euro-Atlantic structures. Unfortunately, for a long time, it was negative. Today, thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, we can see that the black scenarios that were outlined in 1989-1990 did not actually come true. Despite the fears, those events opened the way for Poland to “return to Europe” and to gain membership in Euro-Atlantic structures, i.e., NATO and the European Union (EU). The path was not at all simple and it was not easy for Poland to make it through. In the study the author analyses subjective and objective difficulties related to Poland's accession to NATO and the EU and describes the evolution and role of Germany in this process.


2021 ◽  
pp. 25-37
Author(s):  
Andrii Martynov

The article is devoted to Germany’s presidency in the European Union in the second half of 2020. This was a critical period in the modern history of the process of European integration. Conflicting tendencies emerged during the negotiations on the terms of the Brexit. The budget policy of the European Union required approval. The key tasks of the German presidency were the internal problems of the European Union. But it was not possible to focus exclusively on immanent issues. The pandemic has exacerbated international problems. German diplomacy joined in the settlement of the Greek-Turkish controversy. Germany and France have reached a common position on an agreement on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the Brexit. Germany has reached a compromise on the adoption of the European Union budget for the period up to 2027. A large fund was created to support the European economy during the pandemic. Germany has set trends for the development of the European Union’s relations with key partners: the United States, Russia, and China. Germany welcomed Joseph Biden’s victory in the US presidential election. The European Union is considering resuming negotiations on a transatlantic free trade area with the United States. The EU and the US are ready to renew the Euro-Atlantic partnership. The interaction between the EU and the US is designed to protect liberal democracy in the modern world. With the assistance of Germany, the European Union has signed an investment agreement with China. Beijing has pledged to introduce social security guarantees and limit human rights abuses. Russia’s authoritarian threats remain a challenge to the European integration process. During Germany’s presidency of the European Union, the results of the presidential election in Belarus and the poisoning of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny became conflicting issues. The German presidency was successful. In the internal policy of the European Union it was possible to form a strategy of ecological renewal of the European economy. The success of the environmental modernization of the EU economy systematically depends on the internal capacity of elites and European societies to implement this course and on the favorable balance of power in a globalized world.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-71
Author(s):  
Frank Akpoviri ◽  
Zinatul Zainol ◽  
Syarul Baharum

This article examines how synthetic biology, which is the construction of novel biological parts, devices, and systems, as well as the modification of regular organisms, impacts biosafety regimes in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). The article examines the nature and benefits of synthetic biology. It then reviews associated biosafety challenges, before analysing the suitability of governance frameworks in the EU and the US in dealing with these challenges. Based on this analysis, the article contends that, despite some similarities with older technologies, synthetic biology is essentially novel. Consequently, it undermines existing biosafety regimes in both jurisdictions. The article advocates for effective governance, combining formal regulation and self-governance, in addition to the global coordination of governance measures. This will help maintain an agile policy and curtail any regulatory loopholes. This article fosters awareness on the existence of many unresolved controversies over the synthetic biology technology.


2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 1850092
Author(s):  
Mustapha Sadni Jallab ◽  
René Sandretto ◽  
Monnet Benoît Patrick Gbakou

This paper aims at extending some recent publications about the relationship between antidumping filings and macroeconomic factors by comparing the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), two major users of antidumping procedures. Results of our estimations confirm that the exchange rate exerts a similar influence in the two countries. Fluctuations in the real GDP influence antidumping filings only in the US. On the contrary, the evolution of industrial production does not play an important role in the US, while its impact is important in Europe. The reinforcement of international competition appears to significantly increase antidumping filings in the US while this relationship turns out not to be significant in Europe. Finally, some of the most important differences between the US and the EU seem to be explainable by the differences of rules and practices implemented by the regulatory authorities.


2020 ◽  
pp. 073889422094872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M Weber ◽  
Gerald Schneider

The European Union, the United Nations, and the United States frequently use economic sanctions. This article introduces the EUSANCT Dataset—which amends, merges, and updates some of the most widely used sanctions databases—to trace the evolution of sanctions after the Cold War. The dataset contains case-level and dyadic information on 326 threatened and imposed sanctions by the EU, the UN, and the US. We show that the usage and overall success of sanctions have not grown from 1989 to 2015 and that while the US is the most active sanctioner, the EU and the UN appear more successful.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 226-235
Author(s):  
O. Khlopov

The article is devoted to the study of energy problems in the foreign policy of the EU and the United States. The analysis of the paper is formed on a cognitive approach in analyzing the foreign policy making process and explores the relationship between energy and foreign policy of the EU and the USA. Based on the comparative method, the study races the role of the energy factor in shaping the foreign policy of the European Union and the United States. Although the US is the world's largest hydrocarbon producer and net exporter of energy, mainly due to its shale deposits, the EU remains the world's largest energy importer. This significant difference provides an opportunity to compare the role of energy in the foreign policy process of the two participants with completely different potential for the production and export, mostly of hydrocarbon resources. The author argues that the energy security strategies of both actors are based on interaction of material and ideological factors, but they have different ideas about the interests that generate their foreign policy behavior.


2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 19-38
Author(s):  
Józef M. Fiszer

In this article, the author analyses Ukraine’s international policy and particularly its balancing between the East and the West from the moment of its declaration of independence in 1991 to the present day. He states that Ukraine’s foreign policy fluctuates between Russian (eastern) and transatlantic (western) orientations. In the author’s opinion, this difficult choice is determined by many factors, including historical, cultural, social, economic and international ones. Moreover, the author presents the position of Poland towards this still unsolved Ukrainian dilemma and towards Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union. The main thesis of this article is the author’s conclusion that the imperial international policy of Russia under President Vladimir Putin and the passive stance of NATO, the European Union and the United States have exerted a particular influence on Ukraine’s foreign policy and the position of Poland towards its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Being afraid of Russia, the West in a broad sense has come to terms with its aggressive policy towards Ukraine and has forgotten about Crimea. It cares about its economic cooperation with Russia more than about the security of Ukraine and Poland.


Author(s):  
Mauro Giovanni Carta ◽  
Matthias Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU) and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document