The German Debate on International Security Institutions

  • Reinhardt Rummel


The security debate in Germany has been inadequate, in both quality and quantity, with respect to the magnitude of change in the international security constellation and the country’s internal situation following reunification. Gone are the days of major populist demonstrations for or against the stationing of new weapon systems on German soil, of parliamentary clashes over differing concepts of Ostpolitik. Today the German people see security in terms of employment, ecology, public order and the fight against crime. With rapidly falling defense budgets and decreasing numbers of soldiers, defense is barely a subject of discussion these days in the former outposts of the two mighty ideological-military blocs. More pressing and threatening dangers have entered people’s daily lives than the remote risk of a nuclear attack or a major conventional war on German territory.


European Union United Nations Security Council Security Policy United Nations Security Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For a description and an analysis of the current difficult German situation, see Kielinger, Thomas: ‘Germany: the Pressured Power’, in Foreign Policy, No. 91 (Summer 1993), pp. 44–62.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, Thomas Durell: The «Normalization» of the Federal Republic of Germany’s Defense Structures, (Carlisle, Pa.: Security Studies Institute, 1992).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For a discussion of Germany’s ‘normalcy’, see Schweigler, Gebhard: Die Rolle des Vereinigten Deutschland in Europa: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen (The Role of United Germany in Europe: Opportunities and Limits), unpublished paper presented at Japanisch-Deutsches Zentrum Berlin, 23 September 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For a discussion of this learning process, see Rühl, Lothar: ‘Einige Kriterien nationaler Interessenbestimmung’ (Criteria for the Definition of National Interests), in Heydrich, Wolfgang et al.: Sicherheitspolitik Deutschlands (Germany’s Security Policy), (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag 1992), pp. 741–759.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    This dilemma is well treated in Asmus, Ronald D.: Germany in Transition: National Self-confidence and International Reticence, (Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 1992).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    For a closer look at the program of the Republican Party, see Veen, Hans Joachim et al.: ‘The Republikaner Party in Germany. Right-wing menace or protest catchall?’, The Washington Papers, No. 162, (Westport: Praeger, 1993).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    For a sober account of German interests, see Lübkemeier, Eckhard: ’The United Germany in the Post-bipolar World’, Report No. 56, (Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 1993).Google Scholar
  8. 14.
    Speech given by Volker Rühe at the 34th Kommandeurtagung der Bundeswehr, 7 October 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 15.
  10. 16.
    For the Bonn-Paris relationship, see Schmidt, Peter (Ed.): In the Midst of Change: On the Development of West European Security and Defense cooperation, (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. On the Bonn-Washington link, see Rummel, Reinhardt: ‘German-American Relations in the Setting of a New Atlanticism’, in Irish Studies in International Affairs, Vol. 4 (1993), pp. 17–31.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    Kamp, Karl-Heinz: ‘The German Bundeswehr in out-of-area operations: to engage or not to engage?’, in The World Today, Vol. 49, No. 8–9 (August/September 1993), p. 167.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    For a comprehensive and sober description see Diel, Ole: ‘Eastern Europe as a Challenge to Future European Security’, in Curtis, Mark et al.: Challenges and Responses to Future European Security: British, French and German Perspectives, paper prepared for the European Strategy Group, 1993, pp. 15–68.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    Some of the crucial deficiencies of the UN are being dealt with in Schoettle, Enid C.B.: ‘Kein Geld für den Frieden?’ (No Money for Peace?), Europa-Archiv, Vol. 48, No. 16, (25 August 1993), pp. 453–462.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    See Wagner, Wolfgang: ‘Wer braucht wen: Die UN die Deutschen? Die Deutschen dieses Privileg?’ (Who Needs Whom: The UN the Germans? The Germans this Privilege?), Europa-Archiv, Vol. 48, No. 19 (10 October 1993), pp. 533–540; and Kaiser, Karl: ‘Die ständige Mitgliedschaft im Sicherheitsrat. Ein berechtigtes Ziel der neuen deutschen Aussenpolitik’ (A Permanent Seat in the Security Council: A Just Goal of the New German Foreign Policy), ibidem, pp. 541–552.Google Scholar
  16. 31.
    For such an attempt, see Stares, Paul B. (Ed.): The New Germany and the New Europe, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1992).Google Scholar
  17. 32.
    For some analytical hints in this regard, see Peters, Susanne: ‘Germany’s Future Defense Policy. Opening up the Option for German Power Politics’, German Politics and Society, No. 26 (Summer 1992), pp. 54–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhardt Rummel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations