The Future of the Franco‐German Relationship: Three Views

Citation

Taylor, J. (1998), "The Future of the Franco‐German Relationship: Three Views", European Business Review, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 291-292. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.1998.98.5.291.2

If Europe is to survive in the increasingly competitive global market of the twenty‐first century, so the argument goes, it must be perceived as an entity. But before the last links in the Federal chain can be forged and convergence criteria implemented, historical tensions must be addressed. At the heart of these lies the classic confrontation between France and Germany.

One of the strengths of The Future of the Franco‐German Relationship, a Discussion Paper issued by the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House in 1997, is that the future is contemplated without ignoring the past.

So Dominique Bocquet, an economist in the French Finance Ministry and former Secretary General of the European Movement, the first of three contributors to this paper, examines the history of the post‐war relationship of the two countries before proceeding to a cautiously optimistic analysis of future prospects. Recent differences of opinion (over Yugoslavia, for example) will not prejudice the rapprochement which he discerns in such recent developments as the support of French public opinion for German unification.

Christian Deubner, Senior Researcher at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Ebenhausen, offers a somewhat more sceptical view. He argues that convergence was imposed from outside and that after 1989 the positive framework had started to disintegrate. He stresses historical and constitutional differences, and warns against a too rapid expansion of the EU, especially in Eastern Europe. Such considerations should, he maintains, influence approaches to future developments such as monetary union.

Deubner’s scepticism is shared by Quentin Peel, Foreign Editor of the Financial Times, the final contributor to this Paper. After a thorough historical survey of this post‐war marriage of convenience, Peel considers the future of Nato as the key to the Franco‐ German partnership. Additionally, British bloody‐mindedness will, he feels, act as a political force which will set a high premium on the success of the partnership.

This Discussion Paper fulfils its purpose admirably in that it poses more questions than it answers, and does so within a predominantly positive framework. The decision to footnote is welcomed, but standards could be more consistently applied. In the age of microfilm, page numbers for newspapers are particularly useful, but Peel’s references omit this detail. In all other respects, however, this Discussion Paper is beautifully presented and is to be recommended as a valuable contribution to the current debate.