The German Presidency of the European Union
Dr. George Voskopoulos
January 11, 2007
Germany has just taken over the EU presidency. The task of the German Chancellor is by definition difficult at a time the EU is trying to find ways to deal with a number of issues, intra-European and international. The first relates to how Europeans are going to respond to further military involvement of the US in Iraq. The setting in the Middle East does not leave much space for optimism, at a time President Bush makes the conscious choice to escalate by sending about 20,000 troops.
Obviously the EU is not in a position to affect American strategic choices. This has led Europeanists (those who support a closer political cooperation or even political integration) to demand more freedom and independent action. They are the same persons who question the validity of American and European interests being compatible.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has set the target to mend relations with the US and overlay the side-effects of the policy of its predecessor, G. Schroeder.
The German agenda has been set in a rather minimalistic framework, while the German presidency is attempting to provide a continuity model in the priorities of the EU. The system of rotating EU presidency has been criticized on a number of issues but the main problem has been this lack of continuity in prioritizing and acting.
The problem with Angela Merkel is that many in Europe consider her policy pro-American. Her predecessor was a stern critic of Republican policy in Iraq a fact that may explain Washington’s objections to Germany becoming a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN.
The pragmatic but not ambitious agenda set by the German presidency reflects the low expectations of the current EU presidency and its effort to proceed with little steps at a time Europe faces social and economic problems related to the application of the Lisbon Agenda. To most Europeans, particularly those who reject neo-liberal practices the Agenda and the required structural changes constitute a direct threat to the European social model and a number of prerogatives enjoyed by Europeans for several decades.
National elites are expected to proceed with the socially and politically costly structural changes at a time the EU disposes no means to act as a political player in international politics. Evidently the status of the EU as a civilian player does not assist his weight in international affairs nor does allow it to articulate alternative policies in Middle East.
The German presidency was expected to drive the integration process ahead since Germany is considered the motor engine of the EU. However, the current stalemate caused by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands does not favor the realization of the great leap forward but the adoption of a “survival agenda”.
Obviously the EU is not in a position to affect American strategic choices. This has led Europeanists (those who support a closer political cooperation or even political integration) to demand more freedom and independent action. They are the same persons who question the validity of American and European interests being compatible.
Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has set the target to mend relations with the US and overlay the side-effects of the policy of its predecessor, G. Schroeder.
The German agenda has been set in a rather minimalistic framework, while the German presidency is attempting to provide a continuity model in the priorities of the EU. The system of rotating EU presidency has been criticized on a number of issues but the main problem has been this lack of continuity in prioritizing and acting.
The problem with Angela Merkel is that many in Europe consider her policy pro-American. Her predecessor was a stern critic of Republican policy in Iraq a fact that may explain Washington’s objections to Germany becoming a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN.
The pragmatic but not ambitious agenda set by the German presidency reflects the low expectations of the current EU presidency and its effort to proceed with little steps at a time Europe faces social and economic problems related to the application of the Lisbon Agenda. To most Europeans, particularly those who reject neo-liberal practices the Agenda and the required structural changes constitute a direct threat to the European social model and a number of prerogatives enjoyed by Europeans for several decades.
National elites are expected to proceed with the socially and politically costly structural changes at a time the EU disposes no means to act as a political player in international politics. Evidently the status of the EU as a civilian player does not assist his weight in international affairs nor does allow it to articulate alternative policies in Middle East.
The German presidency was expected to drive the integration process ahead since Germany is considered the motor engine of the EU. However, the current stalemate caused by the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands does not favor the realization of the great leap forward but the adoption of a “survival agenda”.
Print
Email
