













































WHY REFORMS FAIL: THE ROLE OF IDEAS, INTERESTS AND INSTITUTIONS


1                Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019 
ISSN 2562-8429 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF FRANCE AND GERMANY  

ON EU FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY 

 

Fabien Terpan  

University Grenoble Alpes, Sciences Po Grenoble, CESICE 

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v13i1.2529 

 

Abstract 

This article assesses the influence of the Franco-German partnership on the development of an EU 

foreign and security policy since the 1990s, in order to see whether political cohesion between the 

two member states is a necessary and sufficient condition for the EU to emerge as an actor in the 

international arena. Based on a methodology using secondary literature in a systematic way, the 

argument unfolds in three parts: first, the article looks at the political cohesion between the two 

member states in terms of both the building and the content of the EU’s foreign and security policy. 

Then, it seeks to establish a correlation between Franco-German cohesion and the existence of an 

EU position, or lack thereof. Finally, the last section explains why the Franco-German cohesion is 

a necessary but insufficient condition for the EU to gain actorness, by looking at other variables 

pertaining to domestic politics, European politics, and the international environment. Four models 

of interaction between the Franco-German cohesion and these other variables are developed: 

effective consensus; ineffective consensus; diffuse consensus; blocking dissensus. 

 

 

 

  

https://doi.org/10.22215/cjers.v13i1.2529


2     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

1. Introduction 

In the early 1990s, the Franco-German “couple” (Soutou 2012) introduced several initiatives 

aimed at relaunching the European integration process through the adoption of a new treaty on the 

European Union (EU). Both governments contributed to the creation of a Common Foreign and 

Security Policy (CFSP), which took over from the European Political Cooperation and raised the 

question of Europe emerging as a power in a post-cold war context (Terpan 2003, 2010, Smith 

2013). Often presented as the ‘engine’ of European integration (Schild 2010), France and Germany 

would also become the engine of European foreign and security policy. Indeed, they are often 

considered to be the main driving force behind the inclusion of CFSP in the Maastricht treaty. 

Furthermore, the initiatives launched by the French and German governments since 2016, designed 

to revive the idea of a European defence, would again testify to the leadership function performed 

by the two member states.  

However, since its creation by the Maastricht treaty, CFSP has faced many difficulties and has 

been confronted with several crises that have hindered its development. The security-defence 

dimension of CFSP, in particular, was poorly implemented in the 1990s, at least before the creation 

of a European Security and Defence Policy as a sub-division of CFSP (1998-99). Since then, it has 

proved difficult for the member states to agree on crisis management operations.  

France and Germany have sometimes been presented as being one source of these difficulties. The 

effectiveness of the partnership between the two countries would be rather limited (Stark 2012, 

Calla & Demesmay 2013), as well as their capacity to initiate concrete EU foreign and security 

action. As a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Germany 

abstained, together with China, Russia, India and Brazil, when the UNSC voted on a resolution 

authorizing military intervention in Libya in 2011 (Göler & Jopp 2011, Menon 2011). This 

decision made a European operation impossible, leading France and the United Kingdom to 

intervene in the framework of NATO. This shows how Germany can distance itself from the idea, 

most often defended by France, of the EU emerging as a military power (Paterson 2011).  

The aim of this article is not to comment on the current state of the Franco-German relationship, 

but rather to find a way to assess the degree of cohesion between France and Germany on a number 

of foreign and security issues, with a view to determining its influence at the EU level from 1990 

onwards. Are these two member states central to the strengthening of CFSP? When Paris and 

Berlin are on the same page, are they effective in influencing CFSP?  

This article is based on the assumption that the closer the French and German positions are, the 

higher the probability that the EU will defend a unified position. However, the fact that France and 

Germany have defended a common position, and that the EU has adopted a similar position, does 

not necessarily prove how influential the Franco-German partnership is. To ascertain their actual 

influence, other factors such as the European system of governance and the larger external 

environment will be taken into account in order and see how they interact with the Franco-German 

partnership. 

In the remainder of this article, I will present my methodology, which is based on a systematic 

analysis of secondary literature (section two). Section three will seek to give an overall view of 

convergence and divergence between the two member states’ foreign and security policies in order 

to evaluate their cohesion, or lack thereof. The fourth section will be devoted to the potential 



3     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

influence of both countries on EU external action, whilst the fifth and last section will situate this 

influence in a larger system of interactions in order to understand its terms and limits. 

 

2. Methods 

The positions of the two actors will be systematically compared from 1990 onwards, based on an 

analytical framework composed of three main categories: 1) contributions to the building of 

European foreign policy; 2) principles and objectives of foreign policy; 3) positions towards 

different geographical areas. To establish the positions of France and Germany, I rely on secondary 

literature found in 16 journals1 and 16 publishers2, selected on the basis of their reputation, and 

because of their likeliness to deal with the foreign policies of the two states. Some 28 books, 7 

book chapters and 20 journal articles have been gathered: they all include elements helping to 

analyse the positions of France and Germany on foreign and security issues. These publications 

have been systematically studied in order to define the positions of the two states, and their 

cohesion.  

Cohesion is a measure of the distance between the positions defended by the two partners. Three 

kinds of situations can be distinguished depending on whether the distance is non-existent, short, 

or large. Cohesion is lacking when the distance is large; it is weak when the distance is short; and 

it is strong when the distance is non-existent. When France and Germany defend positions that 

contradict one another and lead to a disagreement on a foreign policy issue, the distance is said to 

be large. This was the case when France advocated an EU military operation in Libya (2011), 

while Germany voted against it. A short distance is when there is no major contradiction between 

the positions of the two states, but rather nuances, minor divergences, or different priorities. For 

example, most commentators say that the relationship with eastern countries is a priority for 

Germany, much more than for France; yet, the policy objectives pursued by the two countries are 

by and large compatible with each other (Smith 2013). Finally, there is no distance when the 

positions are aligned and the two member states are on the same page, which is the case, for 

example, when they issued a common declaration on the building of CFSP before the Maastricht 

treaty.  

The degree of cohesion is assessed based on the abovementioned literature. When there is a 

consensus amongst the authors (more than ¾ of them agree), the distance is characterized as either 

short, large, or non-existent. When there is no such consensus, the degree of cohesion is uncertain, 

and the distance might be indicated on the relevant table3 as being short and large at the same time, 

or short and non-existent. When the distance is not seen to be constant during the whole period, 

the existence of a fluctuation is mentioned in the right column of the tables. 

 

                                                 
1  Ashgate, Bruylant, Cambridge University Press, Cornell University Press, La documentation française, Lynne 

Riener, Manchester University Press, Oxford University Press, Palgrave McMillan, Polity, Presses de sciences 

po, Princeton University Press, Routledge, Springer. 
2 Comparative European Politics, Cooperation and conflict, Critique internationale, European Foreign Affairs Review, 

European Security, International Affairs, International Organization, International Peacekeeping, Journal of 

Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of 

Conflict and Security Law, Politique étrangère, Politique européenne, Studia Diplomatica, West European 

Politics. 
3 Tables start in section 3. 



4     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

The aim is not only to establish the degree of cohesion between France and Germany, but first and 

foremost to see whether there is a correlation between the Franco-German cohesion and the 

development of an EU foreign and security policy. In other words, does CFSP develop when the 

French and German positions are aligned, and stagnate when they diverge? To answer this 

question, the Franco-German positions are compared with EU ones, based on the same 

categorization as in the previous section (contributions to the building of European foreign policy; 

principles and objectives of foreign policy; positions towards different geographical areas). More 

specifically, I try to determine whether a lack of cohesion at EU level correlates with divergences 

between France and Germany. By lack of cohesion at EU level, I mean either a lack of decision 

making on issues that were on the agenda, or a lack of cohesiveness in terms of implementation, 

with member states diverging from the line defined by the European Union (European Council, 

Council of the EU, the High Representative speaking on behalf of the EU) (Saurugger & Terpan 

2015). To establish the existence of EU cohesion, or lack thereof, the same selection of secondary 

literature is analysed. 

Even when a correlation exists between Franco-German cohesion and EU cohesion, it remains to 

be seen whether the latter is a consequence of the former. Have France and Germany really 

succeeded in reaching common ground at the European level based on a logic of bottom-up and 

top-down Europeanization (Smith 2000; Gross 2009; Wong & Hill 2011; Baun & Marek 2013)? 

Providing evidence to back up this assertion is not an easy task, given the number of factors that 

can interfere in the process.  

While Franco-German cohesion appears to be a necessary condition for an effective EU foreign 

and security policy, as seen in the previous section, it is very unlikely, in a European Union of 28 

member states, that this condition is sufficient, despite the economic and political weight of the 

two partners. To explain why a common EU position has – or has not – been possible in response 

to various different circumstances, and to measure the potential influence of the two member states 

in this context, I propose placing the Franco-German tandem in a larger system of interaction, 

including other member states, EU institutions, and external factors. The Franco-German 

relationship needs to be viewed as an “embedded bilateralism” (Krotz & Schild 2013).  

Four factors will be taken into account, each of them being classified as either negative (when the 

factor clearly works against an EU position), positive (when it clearly works in favour of an EU 

position), quite negative, or quite positive (when the impact of the factor is noticeable, but not so 

clear). The relative weight of each factor is, of course, an approximation, once again based on the 

analysis of secondary literature. The objective is not to provide the reader with a precise 

‘measurement’ for each case study, but rather to come up with a typology of different situations 

and different types of factor combinations.  

Two factors are specific to France and Germany. The first one concerns domestic politics; the 

political context (elections, salience and politicization of a problem, the role of public opinion, 

bilateral relations between the authorities of the two countries) may either lead to the defence of 

national interests (and be classified as ‘negative’) or work in favour of a Franco-German position 

within the EU (and be classified as ‘positive’). Franco-German cohesion, as defined in section 2, 

is the second factor, which plays a ‘negative’ or a ‘positive’ role in the EU and in CFSP. The 

remaining factors relate to the environment in which France and Germany find themselves. Firstly, 

European governance (EU institutions and member states; Schild 2010) might be either conflictual 

(negative) or consensual (positive), thus hindering or supporting a CFSP position. Secondly, 



5     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

external (non-EU) factors may also work in favour of unity (positive) or lack of unity (negative) 

regarding EU foreign policy. When most of these four factors are classified as “negative,” it means 

that the situation is least favourable to EU foreign policy. On the other hand, a majority of positive 

factors denotes a situation in which the conditions are most favourable to EU foreign policy.  

In the remainder of the article, I will present the research results, following the three steps 

presented in this methods section: establishing the degree of cohesion between France and 

Germany (section 3); looking for a correlation between Franco-German cohesion and EU cohesion 

(section 4); and introducing other factors explaining EU cohesion in order to see the place that 

France and Germany take within a larger configuration of factors (section 5).  

 

3. Reasonably strong political cohesion in all areas except the use of force 

At first sight, Germany and France have very distinct features in terms of international actorness. 

They have specific interests and seem to be subject to different types of path dependence. Germany 

is still strongly affected by the Nazi period (Longhurst 2010, Stark 2012), which might explain 

self-restraint in military affairs, strong democratic control over foreign and security policies, and 

western ties (NATO, transatlantic relations, European integration) aimed at coming to terms with 

the past and anchoring Germany in the pro-democracy camp. In addition to this, Germany began 

a normalisation process (Gordon 1994, Bulmer & Paterson 2010) during the Cold War and even 

more so in the post-Cold War period, by asserting its interests in the Eastern region (Ostpolitik) 

and progressively lifting restrictions in military matters. But the question remains of whether 

Germany will behave like a political and military power, beyond its civilian, economic, and 

commercial status.  

France, on the other hand, would still be heavily influenced by the originating ideas of the Fifth 

Republic (1958-1969) (Kolodziej 1974, Cerny 1980, Gordon 1993, Vaïsse 1998, Vaïsse 2009, 

Soutou 2012), when President de Gaulle searched for greatness (‘grandeur’), rank (‘rang’), and 

political autonomy through the development of defence capability (nuclear deterrence), the refusal 

to depend on the United States, and participation in high-level negotiations, in particular the UN 

Security Council. However, the French ‘exception’ may have decreased due to several 

developments: closer relations with NATO and the United States4; stronger involvement in the 

European Union (Cole & Drake 2000, Drake 2005, Lequesne 2008); and more modest ambitions 

as an individual state (Balme 2009, Blunden 2000, Treacher 2003, Charillon & Wong 2011). 

 

These differences notwithstanding, the foreign and security policies of the two countries have 

common ground and shared interest, which justifies a close partnership. The question is whether 

these factors are enough to create cohesion in the pursuit of their foreign policies. 

The first way to evaluate Franco-German cohesion is to compare how these two member states 

view the ‘constitutional’ building of a European security and defence policy (Table 1). These views 

are neither incompatible, nor fully identical.  

  

                                                 
4 France joined NATO’s integrated command structure in 2009. 



6     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

Table 1: French and German visions of EU foreign and security policy 

  

Distance between the French 

and German positions 

 

 

Evolution 

of the 

distance 

from 1990 

onwards No 

distance 

Short 

distance 

Large 

distance 

The EU should become a 

military power 

 X  fluctuation 

A strong role should be 

given to the High 

Representative and the 

EEAS 

X   stability 

CFSP should remain 

intergovernmental 

X   stability 

 

A distance exists in relation to the European Union becoming a military power. By and large, 

Germany is close to the French position on developing a CFSP backed up with a Common Security 

and Defence Policy (CSDP) (Treacher 2003, Longhurst 2010, Daehnhardt 2011, Stark 2012, 

Soutou 2012, Krotz & Schild 2013), but remains reluctant when it comes to launching and 

financing military operations (Menon 2011, Norheim-Martinsen 2012, Stark 2012, Terpan 2014). 

Consequently, the question of whether the EU should become a strong international player is not 

perceived exactly the same way (Stark 2012; Calla & Demesmay 2013). Moreover, while the two 

member states agree on the idea of strengthening the security and defence dimension of CFSP, 

their cohesion is dependent on domestic politics, in particular in Germany where there is more 

variation. For example, the German refusal to contribute to a European operation in Libya, which 

happened after a period of greater acceptance of military interventions (e.g., Kosovo 1999, 

Democratic Republic of Congo 2005; Miskimmon 2007, Longhurst 2010), can be explained by 

the electoral context in Germany; Angela Merkel refused to engage in a risky military intervention 

at a time when German citizens, dubious about military operations, were voting in local elections. 

On the other hand, the German government has given a stronger priority to CSDP since 2013 and 

the third government formed by Angela Merkel.  

With regard to the ways and means of the EU international actorness (the role of the High 

Representative and her external action service (EEAS), as well as the intergovernmental nature of 

CFSP), the differences are minimal, or non-existent (Balfour, Carta & Raïk 2015). France and 

Germany support the same vision of a CFSP that should be strong and visible, although controlled 

by member states (Treacher 2003; Balme 2009; Balfour, Carta & Raïk 2015).  

Franco-German cohesion can also be measured in terms of foreign policy objectives and principles 

(Table 2). Not surprisingly, the use of force is the main difference between a reluctant Germany 

and a more interventionist France (Menon 2011; Stark 2012). However, the distance fluctuates 

over time. It is quite large in 1990-91, when Helmut Kohl invoked constitutional limits to justify 



7     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

German non-intervention in the Gulf War. At this point the argument disappeared and Bundeswehr 

military engagements multiplied in the 1990s in places such as Kosovo and Afghanistan, reducing 

the distance with its French partner (Miskimmon 2007, Longhurst 2010). Later, in 2010, Germany 

returns to a cautious position with regard to an operation in Libya, before accepting a French 

demand to engage more heavily in the fight against terrorist groups in Syria in the aftermath of the 

Paris 2013 terrorist attacks.  

 

Table 2: Principles and objectives of foreign policy defended by France and Germany 

 Distance between the French and 

German positions 

 

Evolution of 

the distance 

from 1990 

onwards 

 
No distance Short 

distance 

Large 

distance 

Deference to 

multilateralism and 

international law 

X  

 

 stability 

Defence of democracy 

and human rights 

X   stability 

Position towards the 

use of force in 

international relations 

 X X fluctuation 

 

The other principles are more consensual. Both France and Germany emphasise ideals such as 

multilateralism, respect of international law and UN decisions, and defence of democracy and 

human rights. 

Finally, Table 3 focuses on the positions defended by the two member states regarding different 

geographical areas. Points of agreement supersede divergences, and the latter are never considered 

more than ‘short distance.’  

  



8     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

Table 3: French and German positions regarding different geographical areas 

 Distance between the French and 

German positions 

 

 

Evolution of 

the distance 

from 1990 

onwards 
No 

distance 

Short 

distance 

Large 

distance 

Israeli / 

Palestinian 

conflict 

X X  fluctuations 

Iranian nuclear 

programme 

X   stability 

War in Iraq X   stability 

Crises in Libya 

and Syria 

  X  

Relations with 

Mediterranean 

countries 

X X  stability 

Relations with 

Eastern Europe 

X X  stability 

Crises in Western 

Balkans 

X X  fluctuations  

Relations with 

Russia 

X   stability 

Peacekeeping in 

Africa 

 X  fluctuations 

Relations with 

Asia 

X   stability 

Relations with 

Latin America 

X   stability 

Relations with the 

US 

X X  fluctuations 

 

Most of these differences relate to the military. They concern, in particular, the German refusal to 

intervene militarily in Libya (Göler & Jopp 2011), peacekeeping in the Western Balkans 

(divergences in the early 1990s – when Germany unilaterally recognized Slovenia and Croatia – 

rapidly overcome in the mid-1990s; Miskimmon 2007, Charillon and Wong 2011), and 

peacekeeping in Africa (Germany being more reluctant than France about being strongly 

involved). Regarding Africa (Blunden 2000, Calla & Demesmay 2013), France is still very active, 

in particular in its former colonies, and continues to participate in crisis management through 



9     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

military interventions. Germany is politically and militarily less active in Africa (Dijkstra 2010). 

Another difference relates to the Nazi era, with Germany supporting Israel for historical reasons, 

while France remains closer to the Palestinians and Arab countries (Musu 2010, Müller 2013).  

It can be argued that Germany looks East much more than France, while France is more interested 

in the Mediterranean (Cardwell 2011) and the Middle East than Germany. This difference, 

however, should not be overestimated, as both member states have a strong interest in their 

neighbouring countries, largely speaking (Daehnhardt 2011).  

Yet, not only is the distance between the positions of the two member states rather short, but the 

points of agreement are also numerous. France and Germany are on the same page regarding the 

war in Iraq, the Iranian nuclear programme, relations with the Mediterranean (some distance: 

Blunden 2000, Daehnhardt 2011), and Russia (even regarding the war in Crimea, Krotz & Maher 

2016). No real distance can be noticed concerning the Western Balkans, Latin America, or Asia 

(Wong 2006, Daehnhardt 2011, Calla & Demesmay 2013, Ruano 2013). 

Over the whole period, the distance between the French and German positions remains quite stable. 

When the distance evolves, it is often towards convergence, like in the case of Africa and the 

Mediterranean, and facilitated by France’s willingness to Europeanize its foreign policy actions 

(Charillon & Wong 2011). On transatlantic relations, there seems to be a distance between the two 

member states, with Germany defending a more Atlanticist position (Stark 2012). This has 

changed due to France getting closer to NATO (comeback to the integrated command of NATO) 

and seeking to get German support on EU-US relations (Charillon and Wong 2011). Once again, 

the only areas where we can observe fluctuations and difficulties overcoming divergences are 

linked with the use of force. Germany is – or is not – likely to contribute to military crisis 

management, depending on the context, while France participates in most EU, NATO, and UN-

led operations (with the exception of the intervention in Iraq in 2003). 

Broadly speaking, French and German foreign policies are quite close to one another. There are a 

few topics where they do not share exactly the same position, but the distance is always a short 

one. The main area on which they disagree is militarization. Whilst they agree about the idea of a 

Common Security and Defence Policy, the two partners do not have the same view on the use of 

force. Germany is still trying to achieve a balance between a culture of self-restraint and more 

active participation in peacekeeping and crisis management, whereas France usually favours 

interventionism.  

 

4. The Franco-German partnership as a pre-requisite for an effective EU foreign policy?  

We have seen in the previous section that France and Germany share the same general approach 

to EU foreign and security policy (see Table 1 on “visions of EU foreign and security policy” and 

Table 2 on “principles and objectives of foreign and security policy”), with the exception of 

military issues and the use of force. Their foreign and security policies have been affected by a 

rather unsteady and ambivalent Europeanization process (Irondelle 2003, Miskimmon 2007, 

Charillon & Wong 2011, Keukeleire & Delreux 2014). This can explain the ups and downs of 

building an EU foreign and security policy.  



10     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

France and Germany have contributed a great deal to the development of CFSP. In the early 1990s, 

Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand strongly influenced the intergovernmental conference on 

political union through a series of joint initiatives (Stark 2012). They overcame their differences 

and presented proposals that deviated from those of the United Kingdom, Italy, and the 

Netherlands (Laursen & Vanhoonacker 1992). In the Maastricht treaty, provisions around CFSP 

were largely due to the influence of the Franco-German leaders, although concessions had to be 

made to more Atlanticist member states (Treacher 2003). Furthermore, the launching of a 

European security and defence policy in 1998-99 (Dumoulin, Mathieu & Sarlet 2003, Koutrakos 

2013) not only came from a Franco-British initiative agreed in Saint-Malo (December 1998, Schild 

2010) but also benefited from strong support from France and Germany during the German 

presidency (first semester of 1999) (Stark 2012). The framing of this policy by the European 

Council (Cologne, June 1999) mainly reflected the approach defended by the two member states 

(Norheim-Martinsen 2012). Most of the instruments developed to strengthen the international 

visibility of the European Union, like the High Representative, the President of the European 

Council, and the European External Action Service, resulted from a situation in which France and 

Germany were on the same page, or managed to compromise. Since the European Council in 

December 2013, although French and German views have converged again, several initiatives 

have been introduced in order to make progress towards a European common defence (e.g., 

European defence action plan, European defence fund, permanent structured cooperation). 

However, as seen above, there have been fluctuations in the cohesion of the Franco-German 

partnership (Miskimmon 2007). In periods of rather low cohesion, CFSP – and even more so, 

CSDP – have stagnated. Between the creation of CFSP (1992-93) and the launching of CSDP 

(1998-99), and between the launching of CSDP (1998-99) and its recent revival (2013), there was 

no significant contribution from the two member states. On the contrary, they failed to present the 

EU as a military actor in Bosnia-Herzegovina (mid-1990s) and the Arab world crises (Libya 2011). 

Often instrumental in fostering integration on foreign and security matters, the partnership is in 

constant need of adjustment when it comes to military issues; this most certainly has an impact on 

CFSP.  

Turning to the substance of foreign and security policy (Table 3), it is obvious that areas of Franco-

German convergence are also areas where the EU is more likely to agree on common positions. 

Yet, this is not a systematic phenomenon. Sometimes the partners agree but fail to gather support 

from other member states. The war in Iraq is a case in point: while some governments supported 

the Franco-German opposition to war, others joined the British position in favour of the 

intervention. To a lesser degree, relations with Russia are not a matter of strong disagreement 

between Berlin and Paris but may be more conflictual at the level of the EU 28, where some 

members have asked for hard sanctions against Moscow (in particular with regard to the Crimean 

war), while others favour collaboration (Gower & Timmins 2013). 

When France and Germany are not on the same page, decision-making at the EU level is 

impossible, and CFSP might even be put aside as a framework for foreign policy action. 

Disagreement may arise from a unilateral decision made by one of the two partners (recognition 

of Slovenia and Croatia by Germany in 1991, the French initiative in favour of the Union for the 

Mediterranean in 2007). Quite often, disagreement follows the same pattern: France promotes a 

European action while Germany is reluctant to follow suit. Germany has opposed several French 

initiatives in Africa (e.g., Rwanda), has refused to join France in external operations in Libya and 

Syria, or has only accepted French proposals after a long period of negotiation (e.g., a strategy 



11     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

regarding the Sahel region, operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo) (Norheim-Martinsen 

2012). In these cases, the EU still has a position (non-intervention is a position), but it might be 

seen as a position by default (inaction caused by lack of consensus).  

 

However, when the two partners finally succeed in finding common ground, this usually leads to 

an active CFSP position. We can see this by looking at the main areas where a short distance 

separates the two member states but does not prevent EU action: the Western Balkans; relations 

with Africa/peacekeeping in Africa; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and Mediterranean policy in 

the midst of multiple crises (see Table 3). In the Balkans, and after a period of open divergences 

(unilateral recognition of Slovenia and Croatia by Germany in 1991), German and French positions 

grew closer, which led to a joint conflict settlement proposal presented by the foreign affairs 

ministers Alain Juppé and Klaus Kinkel in 1993. As far as crisis management in Africa is 

concerned, Germany used to be reluctant about following French initiatives (for example, the 

intervention in Rwanda during the genocide). Yet, thanks to a continuous process of bilateral 

cooperation, Germany has accepted command of EUFOR DR Congo (2005) and agreed to adopt 

an EU strategy in the region of Sahel (2011) (Norheim-Martinsen 2012). 

The Middle East peace process is not an area where Berlin and Paris can easily find a common 

position, due to their different approaches (pro-Israel for the former, pro-Palestinian for the latter). 

However, they have succeeded in finding a compromise at critical moments, in particular in the 

late 1990s (the Berlin declaration in 1999 regarding the possible recognition of a Palestinian state) 

(Soetendorp 2014, El-Din 2016). In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy proposed the creation of the Union for 

the Mediterranean (UfM), to include the countries of the region but not all EU member states. This 

was a strong point of contention for Germany, who feared that the EU Mediterranean policy would 

be circumvented, and that the EU Eastern policy would be set aside. One year later, Germany and 

France found a middle path (Schild 2010), with the UfM becoming one pillar of the EU 

neighbourhood policy and the Eastern Partnership becoming the second pillar.  

Military intervention appears to be the main issue limiting this Franco-German inclination towards 

compromise. This has obliged France and the UK to intervene outside the EU framework in Libya 

(2011) (Göler & Jopp 2011) and may have contributed to a decrease in the number of CSDP 

military operations between 2008 and 2013. As far as this issue is concerned, Franco-German 

cohesion fluctuates and the prospect of finding a bilateral compromise that could benefit the EU 

as a whole seems very dependent on the context, as we will see in the next section. 

Thus, in this section we have seen that: 1) Franco-German cohesion is a pre-requisite for an 

effective EU foreign and security policy; 2) the distance between the positions of the two actors 

have the effect of blocking EU foreign and security policy; and 3) Europeanization processes tend 

to reduce this distance, by removing existing obstacles. 

 

5. The Franco-German partnership in a wider system of interactions 

To some extent, the influence of Franco-German tandem can be inferred from the existence of a 

clear Franco-German proposal prior to an EU decision or action, but other pieces of evidence are 

required to prove an actual influence. This is why the cohesion of the Franco-German couple has 

to be placed in a wider context, where three other factors are added to the picture: domestic politics 

in France and Germany, European governance, and external (non-EU) factors. As specified in the 



12     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

methods section, when these four factors are negative, the cohesion of EU foreign policy is the 

least likely. When they are positive, the cohesion of EU foreign policy is the most likely. In 

between these two extremes are situations combining ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ factors. 

This framework of analysis has been applied to four case studies (Table 4), which have been 

selected on the basis of the degree of unity achieved within EU foreign policy. Two of these cases 

correspond to situations where the EU succeeded in developing its foreign and security policy: the 

creation of CFSP in 1990-91 and negotiation of the nuclear Iranian programme in 2006-07. In the 

other two cases, the war in Iraq (2002-03) and the intervention in Libya (2011), divergences clearly 

prevailed. These four models of interacting factors should help us to understand variations in the 

influence of the Franco-German partnership.  

Table 4: Factors influencing the unity of the European Union in four case studies 

 Case study 1 

Creation of 

CFSP (1990-93) 

 

 

 

 

Effective 

Cohesion 

Case study 2 

War in Iraq 

(2002-2003) 

 

 

 

 

Ineffective 

Cohesion 

Case Study 3 

Negotiations on 

the Iranian 

Nuclear 

Programme 

(2006-07) 

 

Diffuse 

Cohesion 

Case Study 4 

Intervention 

in Libya 

(2011) 

 

 

 

Blocking 

Dissensus 

Domestic 

politics 

France and 

Germany 

Positive Positive Positive Negative 

Franco-

German 

position 

Positive Positive Positive Neutral 

Impact of 

European 

governance 

Quite Negative Negative Quite Positive Quite Positive 

External 

(non-EU 

factors 

Neutral Negative Positive Quite Positive 

 

Case study 1. The creation of CFSP – Effective cohesion 

The creation of CFSP (Table 4) results from a combination of several ‘positive’ factors. This is 

mainly due to the Franco-German domestic context (positive) and cohesion as a ‘couple’ 

(positive). In the early 1990s, Berlin and Paris strived to present a united front in the new political 

world resulting from the end of the Cold War (Laursen & Vanhoonacker 1992; Gordon 1993, 

1994; Treacher 2003; Irondelle 2003; Charillon & Wong 2011; Daehnhardt 2011; Stark 2012; 

Calla & Demesmay 2013). France wants Germany to be anchored in the European Union for fear 

that its partner might choose a different path, be it Ostpolitik or a solitary form of power (Soutou 

2012). Germany wants German reunification to be accepted by its European partners. Public 

opinion in both countries is consistently supportive of European integration. Kohl and Mitterrand 



13     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

are said to have a close relationship. They defend a common approach to CFSP, with minor 

differences on military matters. At this juncture, there is no real bone of contention between the 

two member states, which can be explained by the fact that difficult topics like a European army 

are out of the discussion.  

European and international factors are less favourable to European unity (Krotz & Schild 2013). 

European governance can be seen as a ‘quite negative’ factor due to the strong opposition between 

member states who favoured the NATO framework (the United Kingdom, supported by the 

Netherlands and Italy) and member states who tried to advance the idea of the EU as a security 

actor (France and Germany, supported by Belgium, Luxembourg, and Spain) during the 

intergovernmental conference on political union (Laursen & Vanhoonacker 1992; Dover 2007; 

Dumoulin, Mathieu & Sarlet 2003; Lequesne 2008; Miskimmon 2007; Stark 2012; Aggestam 

2015). Yet, all the member states have agreed to negotiate, and there are procedures aimed at 

finding a common solution. At the international level, the picture is ambivalent, but quite positive, 

too (Gordon 1993, 1994; Dumoulin, Mathieu & Sarlet 2003; Miskimmon 2007; Balme 2009; 

Koutrakos 2010). The United States is reticent and cautious regarding CFSP. But the end of the 

Cold War provides a unique opportunity to develop a robust European foreign and security policy: 

with the collapse of the USSR, EU member states are less dependent on the US. Finally, this 

combination of ‘positive’ Franco-German factors, ‘quite negative’ EU factors and more ‘neutral’ 

external factors suggest that the Franco-German partnership has exerted a decisive influence on 

the creation of CFSP. This first model can therefore be called “effective cohesion.”  

Case study 2. The Crisis in Iraq (2002-2003) – Ineffective cohesion.  

The crisis in Iraq offers a more nuanced picture of positive and negative factors. This corresponds 

to a model of “ineffective cohesion,” which combines strong unity between the two partners with 

a lack of influence on the outcome of the negotiations. Indeed, the Franco-German factors are 

clearly positive – the two governments defend a common position, strongly supported by public 

opinion in their respective countries – while the other factors are negative (Dover 2007; 

Miskimmon 2007; Bulmer & Paterson 2010; Longhurst 2010; Daehnhardt 2011; Charillon & 

Wong 2011; Norheim-Martinsen 2012; Koutrakos 2013; Calla & Demesmay 2013; Keukeleire & 

Delreux 2014; Aggestam 2015). European governance exerts a negative influence due to the 

existing divergences between two groups of states (supporters and opponents of the US-led 

intervention) and the lack of leadership capable of resolving these divergences. External factors 

are also negative, with the United States pressuring several states in order to gain support for its 

policy. Thus, Franco-German cohesion is strong, but this does not translate into influence in this 

case.  

Case study 3. Negotiations on the Iranian Nuclear Programme (2006-07) – Diffuse cohesion 

Our third case study offers another combination of factors, defined as “diffuse cohesion.” The 

cohesion between France and Germany is rather strong: there is no distance between the positions 

of both governments, and domestic politics plays a positive role. Other factors are also positive, 

but to a lesser degree (Smith 2013; Soetendorp 2014; Musu 2010; Keukeleire & Delreux 2014; 

Aggestam 2015). The Troïka (France, Germany, and the UK), together with the High 

Representative, represent the EU’s position in the negotiation process. European demarches are 

welcomed by third states, including the United States, although the latter also use the threat of 

military action to try and get their way. To sum up, many factors work in favour of strong European 

actorness. Yet, the Franco-German ‘couple’ is certainly not as influential as it was in the first case 



14     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

study (the creation of CFSP). CFSP was created despite quite strong opposition from a number of 

member states (United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands) who were mainly interested in preserving the 

transatlantic alliance. In the case of the Iranian nuclear programme, the European setting / picture 

is much more favourable, and the UK contributes to a common position together with the French 

and the Germans. Diffuse cohesion denotes a situation where Franco-German cohesiveness is hard 

to distinguish from the cohesiveness of the EU as a whole (and to some extent Western partners).  

Case study 4: Military operation in Libya – Blocking dissensus 

Our fourth and last case is the only one where Franco-German cohesion is weak (Göler & Jopp 

2011; Menon 2011; Calla & Demesmay 2011; Koutrakos 2013; Aggestam 2015). Domestic 

politics negatively affect this cohesion (Paterson 2011). Faced with the prospect of forthcoming 

legislative and local elections, Angela Merkel fears that German participation in a military 

operation in Libya (2011) could undermine the chances of the Christian Democrats. Among 

political parties as well as public opinion, military interventions and political power more generally 

(Bulmer & Paterson 2013) remain unpopular. External factors, on the other hand, are quite 

positive. Indeed, the UK is in favour of a military operation and could envisage the EU as a 

framework for intervening in Libya. In addition, there are strong humanitarian arguments in favour 

of the operation; a local population who would welcome it, support from the United States and 

favourable public opinion in Western countries. This fourth model, called “blocking dissensus,” 

denotes a situation where the divergence between France and Germany is the main factor behind 

a Union deadlock. 

 

Conclusion  

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the cohesion between France and Germany in foreign 

and security affairs, and to see how it affects the cohesion of the EU as a whole. We have seen that 

the French and German positions are fundamentally compatible, in spite of some discordance on 

geostrategic priorities and the use of force. There have been ups and downs in the partnership, but 

the partnership itself has never been seriously questioned.  

The existing discrepancies between the two member states do not mean that cohesion is 

systematically lacking. When disagreements are minor, it is still possible to reach a common 

position, thanks to the Europeanization processes affecting their foreign policies (the Franco-

German partnership influences EU governance whilst simultaneously being influenced by the EU; 

Wong & Hill 2011, Keukeleire & Delreux 2014). Yet, when reaching a common position proves 

impossible, it has a blocking effect at the EU level; in several cases, the gap between France and 

Germany on military issues was so huge that EU action was impossible. Thus, most of the time, 

Franco-German cohesion is a prerequisite for a European position to be adopted and defended.  

The idea of a Franco-German ‘motor’ of Europe still has some relevance but might have been 

overestimated. Their influence does not always have a decisive impact. The four models presented 

in the last section place the Franco-German partnership in a wider perspective in order to determine 

their influence in relation to the influence of other factors. “Effective cohesion” (the creation of 

CFSP) denotes a situation where Franco-German cohesion has played a decisive role compared to 

other factors. “Ineffective cohesion” (the crisis in Iraq), on the other hand, means that bilateral 

cohesion has not been enough to reach a consensus at EU level. When France and Germany agree, 

but their position can hardly be distinguished from that of other (member or non-member) states, 



15     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

this can be seen as “diffuse cohesion” (negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme). Finally, 

“blocking dissensus” pertains to a situation where a Franco-German disagreement leads to 

European deadlock (the intervention in Libya).  

In addition to this, it can be stressed that, apart from the Franco-German ‘engine’, other actors may 

play the role of policy entrepreneur. The High Representative has been instrumental in launching 

CSDP operations (Buchet de Neuilly 2002). The EEAS sets the agenda more and more frequently 

(Vanhoonacker & Pomorska 2013, Balfour, Carta & Raïk 2015). The building of a sophisticated 

CFSP (Smith 2000) and CSDP (Dijkstra 2012, 2013) institutional system has been highlighted 

repeatedly, as well as the influence of large (Dover 2007, Aggestam 2015, on the UK) and 

small/medium-sized member states (Tonra 2001, Lee-Ohlsson 2009). 

  



16     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

REFERENCES  

Aggestam, L. (2015) Power and Leadership in European Foreign Policy: Britain, France and 

Germany. Routledge. 

Balfour, R., Carta, C., & Raik, K. (Eds.) (2015) The European external action service and 

national foreign ministries: Convergence or divergence? Ashgate. 

Balme, R. (2009) ‘France, Europe and the World. Foreign Policy and the Political Regime of the 

Fifth Republic’, in Brouard, S., Appleton, A. M., Mazur, A. G. (eds.), The French Fifth 

Republic at Fifty. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.  

Baun, M. J., & Marek, D. (Eds.). (2013) The new member states and the European Union: 

foreign policy and Europeanization. Routledge. 

Blunden, M. (2000) ‘France’, in Manners, I., Whitman, R. (eds.), The Foreign Policies of the 

European Union Member States. pp.19-43. Manchester University Press.  

Buchet de Neuilly, Y. (2002) L'irrésistible ascension du Haut Représentant pour la PESC : une 

solution institutionnelle dans une pluralité d'espaces d'action européens. Politique 

européenne, 4: 13-31. 

Bulmer, S. et Paterson, W. E. (2010) ‘Germany and the European Union: from “tamed power” to 

normalized power?’. International Affairs, 86: 1051–1073. 

Bulmer, S., & Paterson, W. E. (2013) “Germany as the EU's reluctant hegemon? Of economic 

strength and political constraints”. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10): 1387-1405. 

Calla, C. & Demesmay, C. (2013) Que reste-t-il du couple franco-allemand ? La documentation 

française. 

Cardwell, P. J. (2011) “EuroMed, European Neighbourhood Policy and the Union for the 

Mediterranean: Overlapping Policy Frames in the EU's Governance of the Mediterranean”. 

Journal of Common Market Studies, 49: 219–241. 

Cerny, Ph. G. (1980) The Politics of Grandeur. Ideological Aspects of de Gaulle’s Foreign 

Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Charillon, F. & Wong, R. (2011) ‘France: Europeanization by Default?’, in Wong, R. & Hill, 

Ch., (eds.). National and European Foreign Policies, Towards Europeanization, pp.19-34. 

Routledge. 

Cole, A. & Drake, H. (2000) ‘The Europeanization of the French Polity: Continuity, Change and 

Adaptation’. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1): 26-43. 

Daehnhardt, P. (2011) ‘Germany’. In Wong, R. & Hill, Ch., (eds.), National and European 

Foreign Policies, Towards Europeanization, pp.35-56. Routledge. 

Dijkstra, H. (2010) ‘The Military Operation of the EU in Chad and the Central African Republic: 

Good Policy, Bad Politics’. International Peacekeeping, 17(3): 395‑ 407. 



17     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

Dijkstra, H. (2012) ‘Agenda-setting in the Common Security and Defence Policy: An 

Institutionalist Perspective’, Cooperation and Conflict, (47)4: 454-472. 

Dijkstra, H. (2013) Policy-making in EU Security and Defense: an Institutional Perspective. 

Palgrave Macmillan. 

Dover, R. (2007) Europeanization of British Defence Policy, Ashgate. 

Drake, H. (2005) French Relations with the European Union: Europe and the Nation States. 

London: Routledge. 

Dumoulin, A., Mathieu, R. & Sarlet, G., (2003) La politique Européenne de Sécurité et de 

Défense : de l’Opératoire à l’identitaire : Genèse, Structuration, Ambitions, Limites. 

Bruxelles : Bruylant.  

El-Din, A. N. (2016) EU security missions and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Routledge. 

Göler, D. & Jopp, M. (2011) ‘L’Allemagne, la Libye et l’Union européenne’, Politique 

étrangère. 2: 417-428. 

Gordon, Ph. (1993) A Certain Idea of France: French Security Policy and the Gaullist Legacy. 

Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Gordon, Ph. (1994) ‘La normalisation de la politique étrangère allemande’, Politique étrangère. 

2: 497-516. 

Gower, J. & Timmins, G. (eds.) (2013) European Union, Russia and the Shared Neighbourhood. 

Routledge. 

Gross, E. (2009) The Europeanization of National Foreign Policy: Continuity and Change in 

European Crisis Management, Palgrave Macmillan.  

Irondelle, B. (2003) Europeanization without the European Union, French Military Reforms 

1991-1996, Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2): 208-226. 

Keukeleire, S. & Delreux, T. (2014) EU Foreign Policy and National Foreign Policy, In The 

Foreign Policy of the European Union, pp.16-34. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Kolodziej, E. A. (1974) French International Policy under de Gaulle and Pompidou: The 

Politics of Grandeur. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 

Koutrakos, P. (2013) The EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Oxford University Press. 

Krotz, U., & Maher, R. (2016) ‘Europe’s Crises and the EU’s “Big Three”’. West European 

Politics. 39(5): 1053-1072. 

Krotz, U., & Schild, J. (2013) ‘Foreign and Security Policy’, In Shaping Europe: France, 

Germany, and embedded bilateralism from the Elysée Treaty to twenty-first century 

politics, pp.212-230. Oxford University Press. 



18     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

Laursen, F., & Vanhoonacker, S. (Eds.) (1992) The Intergovernmental Conference on Political 

Union: institutional reforms, new policies and international identity of the European 

Community; professional research paper. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 

Lee-Ohlsson, F. (2009) ‘Sweden and development of the European security and defence policy: 

a bi-directional process of Europeanization’. Cooperation and conflict, 44(2): 123-142. 

Lequesne, C. (2008) La France dans la nouvelle Europe : assumer le changement d’échelle. 

Paris: Presses de Sciences po.  

Longhurst, K. (2010) Germany and the use of force: The evolution of German security policy 

1990-2003. Manchester University Press. 

Menon, A. (2011) ‘European defence policy from Lisbon to Libya’. Survival, 53(3): 75-90. 

Miskimmon, A. (2007) Germany and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European 

Union : Between Europeanisation and National Adaptation. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Müller, P. (2013) EU Foreign Policymaking and the Middle East Conflict: The Europeanization 

of National Foreign Policy. Routledge. 

Musu, C. (2010) European Union Policy towards the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan.  

Norheim-Martinsen, P.M. (2012) The European Union and Military Force: Governance and 

Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Paterson, W. E. (2011) ‘The Reluctant Hegemon? Germany Moves Centre Stage in the European 

Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 49 (issue supplement1): 57–75. 

Ruano, L. (ed.) (2013) The Europeanization of National Foreign Policies towards Latin 

America. Routledge. 

Saurugger, S., Terpan, F. (Eds.) (2015) Member States’ Resistance to Soft Law in Foreign and 

Security Policy. European Foreign Affairs Review, 20(2), Special Issue. 

Schild, J. (2010) ‘Mission Impossible? The Potential for Franco–German Leadership in the 

Enlarged EU’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(5): 1367–1390. 

Smith M. E. (2000) ‘Conforming to Europe: The Domestic Impact of EU Foreign Policy Co-

operation’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 7(4):613-631.  

Smith, K. (2013). European Foreign Policy in a Changing World. Polity.  

Soetendorp, B. (2014) Foreign Policy in the European Union: History, Theory & Practice. 

Routledge. 

Soutou, G.-H. (2012) ‘L’émergence du couple franco-allemand’, Politique étrangère, 2: 727-

738. 

Stark, H. (2012) ‘Paris-Berlin : relation solide, rapports asymétriques, politiques antinomiques’, 

Politique étrangère, 4 : 769-781. 



19     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 2019 

 

 

Terpan F. (2003). La politique étrangère et de sécurité commune de l’Union européenne, 

Bruxelles : Bruylant.  

Terpan F. (2010). La politique étrangère, de sécurité et de défense de l’Union européenne, Paris, 

La documentation française.  

Terpan F. (2014). Financing CSDP Operations. Explaining Change and Inertia in A Fragmented 

and Flexible Structure, European Security, 24(2), 221-263. 

Tonra, B. (2001) The Europeanisation of national foreign policy: Dutch, Danish and Irish 

foreign policy in the European Union. Ashgate. 

Treacher, A. (2003) French Interventionism. Europe’s Last Global Player, Ashgate. 

Vaïsse, M. (2009) La puissance ou l’influence ? La France dans le monde depuis 1958. Paris: 

Fayard. 

Vaïsse, M. (1998) La grandeur. Politique étrangère du général de Gaulle, 1958-1969. Paris: 

Fayard.  

Vanhoonacker, S., & Pomorska, K. (2013) ‘The European External Action Service and agenda-

setting in European foreign policy’. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9): 1316-1331. 

Wong, R. & Hill, Ch., (eds.) (2011) National and European Foreign Policies, Towards 

Europeanization. Routledge. 

Wong, R. (2006) The Europeanization of French Foreign Policy: France and the EU in East 

Asia. Basingstoke/New York Palgrave Macmillan. 

 

  

  



20     Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 13 (1) 2019  

 

 

Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of European 

and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: articles are 

subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its Member States, the 

former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is published by the Centre for 

European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at 

Carleton University. 

 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high quality 

research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

 

Tel: +01 613 520-2600 ext. 3117; E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

 

Creative Commons License 

 

 
 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial- 

No Derivs 4.0 Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  

 

Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced, provided the source is 

acknowledged. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purposes. 

 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

© 2019 The Author(s) 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

