THE EUROPEAN STRATEGIC AUTONOMY DILEMMA - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master’s thesis, 30 credits | MSSc International and European Relations
Autumn 2021 | LIU-IEI-FIL-A--21/03788--SE
The European Strategic Autonomy Dilemma
French and German Interpretations by Means of Comparative
Analysis and Realist Theory
Tuuli Vanhanen
Supervisor: Per Jansson
Examiner: Khalid Khayati
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.seAcknowledgements
Thank you to my family for all your support throughout my education and life.
A very special thank you to DVV Sodie Pop Group and Pinto.
I would like to thank my supervisor Per Jansson as well as my thesis examiner Khalid Khayati for
your support, help, and guidance.Abstract This research focuses on the concept of European strategic autonomy and what it really is. Through two different European Union Member States, France and Germany, the research will compare how European strategic autonomy is interpreted and why. The research will use different concepts from the theory of realism to focus on the conventional perspective of strategic autonomy in Europe. The research will show how France pushes for greater European strategic autonomy to secure the future of Europe through strategic hedging strategy when again Germany wants to strengthen European strategic autonomy to be taken more seriously by European external allies and by strengthening European bandwagoning strategy. Based on the previously mentioned, the research will analyze how France and Germany interpret the meaning of European strategic autonomy. The research suggests that France’s approach to European security is through Europeanism when Germany’s approach is through Atlanticism. The research will conclude with findings that the significance of European strategic autonomy is in its meaning of increasing Europe’s and European Union’s credibility, sovereignty, and European integration, to name a few. Keywords: Atlanticism, autonomy, balancing, bandwagoning, defence, Europeanism, European Union, European strategic autonomy, France, geopolitics, Germany, hedging, integration, NATO, realism, regional, security, sovereignty, The United States, transatlantic Word count: 23 407
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 6
List of figures and tables ..................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7
Problem formulation .......................................................................................................................... 8
Aim and research questions .............................................................................................................. 10
Literature review ..................................................................................................................... 12
Defining the term ‘strategic autonomy’ ............................................................................................. 12
Risks of a greater European strategic autonomy ................................................................................ 13
France, Germany, and the ESA .......................................................................................................... 13
The U.S. and NATO roles in European strategic autonomy ................................................................. 14
Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 16
Comparative research design ............................................................................................................ 16
Qualitative content analysis ............................................................................................................. 17
Choice of cases ................................................................................................................................. 18
Fixed purposive sampling strategy .................................................................................................... 20
Choice of material ............................................................................................................................ 20
Units of analysis and contextualizing the information........................................................................ 22
Methodological limitations ............................................................................................................... 23
Validity and reliability ...................................................................................................................... 24
Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................ 26
About realism – international system and state strategy ................................................................... 26
Balancing ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Bandwagoning ................................................................................................................................. 30
Strategic hedging.............................................................................................................................. 31
Atlanticism ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Europeanism .................................................................................................................................... 36
Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 39
French interpretation of European strategic autonomy – a push for more autonomous Europe .......... 39
The importance of European unity ...........................................................................................................................39
The role of external allies and co-operation .............................................................................................................41
The need for European defence capabilities.............................................................................................................46
Summarizing France’s interpretation of ESA in the light of realist theories .............................................................47German interpretation of European strategic autonomy – greater autonomy through a strong
partnership ...................................................................................................................................... 48
The importance of European unity ...........................................................................................................................48
The role of external allies and co-operation .............................................................................................................49
The need for European defence capabilities.............................................................................................................54
Summarizing Germany’s interpretation of ESA in the light of realist theories .........................................................55
Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 56
What really is ESA? How do France and Germany interpret conventional ESA? .....................................................56
The role of history in explaining the interpretations ................................................................................................61
The significance of European strategic autonomy ....................................................................................................61
The European Union’s role as a global security actor ...............................................................................................62
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 64
Bibliography............................................................................................................................ 66List of abbreviations EC European Community EUGS European Union’s Global Strategy ESA European Strategic Autonomy ESDP European Security and Defence Policy NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization List of figures and tables Figure 1. Core strategy and polarity Page 27 Figure 2. A Mechanism for identifying strategic hedging behavior Page 33 Table 1. Core strategies for secondary states in various system types Page 30
Introduction
The need for European unity and autonomous act was discussed by the French politician Jean
Monnet as early as 1950 (Ryon 2020, 238). However, conventional strategic autonomy has been
discussed and debated more consistently since the 1990s (Helwig 2020, 5). In 1998, the Franco-
British Saint-Malo Declaration stated that what comes to the European Union’s security and defence
matters, it should have “the capacity for autonomous action” (Howorth 2014, 7). In June 2016
Federica Mogherini, the former High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy, presented A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy (EUGS). It
states that “an appropriate level of ambition and strategic autonomy is important for Europe’s
ability to promote peace and security within and beyond its borders” (European Union 2016, 9). The
2016 EUGS calls for more efficient, credible, and interoperable defence for Europe (Brüls & Platteau
2016, 4). This is the first time a European Union document has clearly described strategic autonomy
as an unambiguous objective (Biscop 2016 a, 11).
The previous examples show that the current debate about greater European responsibility for its
security has been going on for a long time (Lippert & al. 2019, 5), and to be honest, there is no end
in sight. One could say that the world is becoming, or has become, multipolar yet again. Rising great
powers are increasingly challenging the role of the United States. This, in turn, means the return of
power rivalry and new security concerns, also for Europe. (Biscop 2019, 11.) But where does it leave
the European Union in the constantly changing world? In order for the European Union to change
with the rest of the world, it has to be able to recognize what is happening, make changes, agree
and act on them. The current European Union High Representative Josep Borrell has emphasized
that the world is becoming increasingly harsh. He argues that through strategic autonomy the
European Union can take charge of its own destiny. (Borrell 2020, n.d.) Just as Borrell (2020, parag.
3) paraphrased Montesquieu’s famous phrase, one will do the same right now to describe very
shortly what this research is about: "Oh! To be strategically autonomous, it should be a very
extraordinary thing! How can we be strategically autonomous?”
After this introduction, the research will continue by first explaining the research problem more
deeply and by presenting the main aim of the research. The research will also provide clearly
structured research questions and sub-questions, which will guide the research process. Secondly,
7a literature review will give out a short but comprehensive description of previous research related
to the topic and will help to better understand the frameworks of this research. The literature
review will also be used to connect with the findings at the end of the research. The methodology
chapter will explain and discuss the more practical aspects of the research: method, research design,
choice of cases and material, validity and reliability, and limitations. Before the analysis, the
theoretical framework chapter will present and discuss theories and concepts used in this research
to help guide the analysis. The analysis part will dig into the material and analyze it with the help of
all previously mentioned chapters. The outcome of the analysis will be summed up in the findings
chapter. The research will finish with concluding remarks.
Problem formulation
The United States, who until recently has presented itself as an international order supporter, has
ignored, undermined, and even exited international organizations and regimes and weakened them
considerably (Lippert & al. 2019, 6). This became rather evident after Donald Trump was elected as
the President of the United States at the end of 2016. Since then, he withdrew the United States
from the Paris Climate Agreement (McGrath 2020, parag. 1) and questioned the role and benefits
of being a member of NATO, for example (Lak & Pieper 2019, 32). As a great western superpower,
the United States’ actions under President Donald Trump showed a change in the international
system. The previously mentioned events, among other factors, raised doubts about the United
States’ reliability in Europe. It injected urgency into the debate that has been going on since the
European Union was established; How, when, and to what extent should European states take fate
into their own hands and be a more autonomous actor (Lippert & al. 2019, 5)? European politicians,
like European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, have
argued that Europe still cannot fully trust the United States’ reliability even after Joe Biden was
elected as the new President at the end of 2020, and even if Biden is trying to take the country back
to international agreements and back to its co-operative leading position. Borrell has argued that
this election result should not change Europe’s efforts to become more strategically autonomous.
(Besch & Scazzieri 2020, 2.)
Russia and China have started to seriously challenge the previous and/or current hegemonic
position of the United States. (Lippert & al. 2019, 5.) The United States’ security priorities are likely
to shift more and more away from Europe in the near future (Lippert & al. 2019, 32). However, as
8Europe rethinks its position in the world based on the United States’ changing priorities, it is old
news that since the Cold War the United States has demanded Europe to make more efforts to
ensure its security and stability. This has been the case with all previous and current administrations
in the United States, some demanding it more clearly than others. (Lippert & al. 2019, 32.) The
former President Donald Trump has blamed Europe very straightforward for taking advantage of
the security protection but not paying for it (Lak & Pieper 2019, 31–32). For a long time, European
Union defence and security policy developments have been reactive to the United States’
perceptions and positions (Lak & Pieper 2019, 37). The transatlantic element has made European
security conditional (Lak & Pieper 2019, 37). The problem in the future is whether Europe and the
European Union could and/or should blindly and solely rely on the United States’ security guarantee
or whether they should and/or could take security matters more in their own hands through greater
strategic autonomy.
When other major international actors seem to pick and choose of which international rules to
follow or what to do, the European Union is having a hard time playing its part in shaping and
molding the international order the way it would want it to be (Lippert & al. 2019, 7). In the middle
of global transformations, the European Union Member States should pursue to agree on a distinct
policy agenda (Helwig 2020, 5). After all, playing an active role in shaping the global environment
and expanding European strategic autonomy (ESA) is connected with the resources and capabilities
that the European Union Member States are willing to set into motion (Lippert & al. 2019, 16). All
three, Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, see the European Union as a serious regulatory and trade
power, but recognize its weaknesses especially in the military aspect in addition to the lack of
conflict and action readiness (Lippert & al. 2019, 32). However, all three major powers are negative
or ambivalent towards a more strategically autonomous Europe (Lippert & al. 2019, 32).
Nevertheless, the wish for European strategic autonomy cannot happen if the reality of
vulnerabilities and military capability resource gaps are not addressed (Lippert & al. 2019, 16). The
European Union established the Common Security and Defence Policy in 1999, but it has not
managed to create a fully autonomous security instrument through this due to the lack of
enthusiasm for European integration in many Member States (Lippert & al. 2019, 17). Many scholars
have argued that the European Union has been reluctant and incapable of devoting military
resources and using them in an effective and credible way (Smith 2018, 607). The problem is that
within the European Union there are nearly 27 different strategic cultures (Howorth 2014, 234), and
9the security issues are traditionally seen as a prerogative of the Member States (Zieliński 2020, 6–
7).
These previously mentioned developments and issues have once again triggered the debate on
European strategic autonomy and the need for it (Helwig 2020, 4). Also, understanding the meaning
of strategic autonomy is practically and politically challenging itself (Lippert & al. 2019, 32). Even if
all European Union Member States have signed the 2016 EUGS that sets strategic autonomy as an
objective (Biscop 2016 a, 11) and are politically committed to it (Tocci 2016, 5), the EUGS does not
spell out what ESA is (Biscop 2019, 2). Due to many different strategic cultures, it cannot be taken
for granted that European Union Member States would pursue European strategic autonomy
consistently as there are many different ideas of what it should and could mean (Lippert & al. 2019,
32). Reaching European strategic autonomy would require harmonizing strategic cultures and
recognizing its interdependencies and be strategic about them. Currently, the European Union
Member States do not share the same ideas about main threats and challenges or how to address
them. (Helwig 2020, 12.) The strategic autonomy debate is ultimately about the political cohesion
and consensus within European Union (Grevi 2019, 9). It is about figuring out what is strategic
autonomy for, to protect who from what, and agreeing on it (Biscop 2019, 2). But if European Union
Member States do not know or agree exactly on what European strategic autonomy is, how are they
able to use it for their benefit (Biscop 2019, 2–3)? This is an important problem because ESA has
generated expectations and resistance both within the European Union but also outside of it and
the debate is already impacting the European Union’s position (Biscop 2019, 3).
Aim and research questions
This research looks into the European strategic autonomy from the perspective of two strong
European Union Member States that are in favor of it, France and Germany (Zieliński 2020, 13).
Some scholars argue that a greater ESA is necessary to shape the global environment with European
interests instead of going along with strategic choices made by other international actors. Some
argue that greater ESA is urgent, due to the change towards a multipolar international order.
(Lippert & al. 2019, 32.) Some scholars emphasize that ESA is possible because the European Union
as an institution represents a suitable framework to pursue it, but also that ESA is challenging due
to conflicts of goals within the European Union. (Lippert & al. 2019, 34.) Because of all these reasons
to pursue a greater ESA, this research aims to find out what European strategic autonomy really is
10based on how France and Germany interpret it. The aim is to find out the significance and meaning
behind European strategic autonomy by researching the interpretations of it. The aim is to analyze
the material descriptively by means of comparative analysis and realist theory.
This research will focus on the conventional perspective of the ESA because even if the ESA debate
focuses on more than just military components, it would not be possible to achieve greater strategic
autonomy without the conventional aspect (Lippert & al. 2019, 35).
Based on the problem formulation and the aim of this research, the research questions are the
following:
• What really is European strategic autonomy (ESA)?
• How do France and Germany interpret conventional ESA?
Sub-question:
• Based on the interpretations of conventional ESA, how do France and Germany see
the European Union’s role as a global security actor?
Until this day, as the literature review will present next, explaining what the concept of European
strategic autonomy actually is has been bypassed. This means that everybody has an idea of what
it is, as explained in the “Defining the term ‘strategic autonomy’” chapter, but at the same time, no
one really knows how to explain and describe the meaning and significance of it. It is important to
note that talking about strategic autonomy as a term is a very different thing than talking about
what European strategic autonomy is in theory and practice. This is what makes this research
important because by answering the research questions one can contribute something new to the
existing literature.
At this point, it is important to mention that the research discusses European strategic autonomy
from the European Union perspective. However, as the debate on the differences between the
terms “Europe” and “European Union” is a totally different topic, this research will use both terms
while discussing the ESA. One expects the reader to understand that in this research both terms
include the meaning of each other if not mentioned otherwise.
11Literature review
This part will present an overview of the previous research by taking the form of a narrative review.
Through critical reading and comprehensive assessment, this narrative review tries to generate an
understanding of the topic areas related to this research (Bryman 2012, 102; 110). This narrative
literature review is also used to help develop arguments and to connect with the findings further in
the research (Ibid., 102).
Defining the term ‘strategic autonomy’
The vague meaning of the term strategic autonomy is discussed in a lot of the previous research
about the European Union. According to Eloïse Ryon, strategic autonomy was mentioned for the
first time in 1950 by French General Charles de Gaulle (2020, 239). However, to this day there is no
agreed definition of strategic autonomy due to its ambiguity, as Niklas Helwig among others
emphasizes (2020, 4). Lippert & al. argue that strategic autonomy can be understood as the ability
to make and set one’s own decisions and priorities in foreign policy and security. A strategically
autonomous actor is able to set, enforce, and modify international rules instead of obeying and
following rules set by other actors. (Lippert & al. 2019, 5.) Tocci and Helwig add to the previous
definition, that strategic autonomy is the political and institutional ability to manage the
interdependence with other parties (Helwig 2020, 4) and to have the material ability ‘to act upon
its decisions’ (Tocci 2016, 3).
Zieliński (2020, 10) and Lippert & al. (2019, 5) describe that strategic autonomy, just like power, is
relational. This means that the European Union, for example, can be autonomous in relation to
other actors. The previous research highlights strongly that strategic autonomy does not imply
isolation (Lippert & al. 2019, 5) or decoupling from alliances, but the freedom to pursue and manage
those partnerships and alliances itself (Helwig 2020, 4; Smith 2018, 613). Based on its own priorities,
as Lippert & al. argue, a strategically autonomous actor decides with who it seeks to form alliances
if needed (2019, 5). Nevertheless, as Giovanni Grevi claims, full autonomy is not always achievable
nor desirable as partners and allies are essential for advancing values and interests (2019, 11).
Strategic autonomy does not represent an end goal in itself, but rather a means to promote and
protect the interests and values of a certain actor (Lippert & al. 2019, 5). Just like in this research,
ESA is often linked to consider only the European Union, whose Member States mostly share
12common values and interests. But could ESA include other members as well as the term is European
strategic autonomy and not European Union’s strategic autonomy? For example, Sven Biscop (2016
b, 432) questions whether the United Kingdom should or could be part of the ESA project after
Brexit. However, Biscop also points out that the British objections about European defence have
been in the way of a greater ESA (2016, 432) and Grevi emphasizes that ESA is mostly “about the
future of European integration” (2019, 8), so Brexit is quite contrary with this belief.
Risks of a greater European strategic autonomy
Lippert & al. have researched the risks of a greater European strategic autonomy. They highlight
that the most obvious risks would be, firstly, frictions in the European internal security relationships,
which would decrease Europe’s readiness to act, and secondly, fragmentations with the United
States. Lippert & al. claim that some EU Member States, mostly Central and Eastern, see the
strategic autonomy project placing their security at risk due to general capacity deficits, for example.
Certain EU skeptic governments, such as Poland, might look into reinforcing the bilateral relations
with the U.S. to guarantee their own security while at the same time mistreat contributions to the
EU. (Lippert & al. 2019, 17.) Lippert & al. believe that even if all the EU Member States would sign
up to pursue the ESA, it is unlikely they would do it consistently (Ibid., 32). The biggest cost of a
greater ESA could be even greater division of Europe (Ibid., 28).
Even if the United States has constantly demanded the European states to assume bigger
responsibility what comes to security, Lippert & al. recognize that the United States does not
interpret the European strategic autonomy as a way to contribute to burden-sharing (2019, 17).
They remind that past transatlantic spats have always affected the wakening of intra-European
divisions and that the case of ESA would not be an exception (Lippert & al. 2019, 28). In addition, it
is emphasized that major powers and strategic rivals will not wait for Europe to have its internal
issues regarding the ESA resolved and will possibly try to sow division between the EU Member
States (Ibid., 33). ESA critics question the EU’s ability in achieving conventional strategic autonomy
and warn of the risks in deteriorating relations with the U.S., as Zieliński points out (2020, 12).
France, Germany, and the ESA
France and Germany are constantly mentioned in ESA-related research due to their strong presence
in European politics, however, actual research on solely their own interpretations of ESA has not
13been conducted. Lucie Béraud-Sudreau & Alice Pannier (2021, 300–301) argue that France has been
the strongest European country to push for ESA after having it been a part of its national defence
strategy cornerstone since the 1960s. Furthermore, according to Ringailė Kuokštytė’s research,
France has been highly visible as a conventional actor due to its status as a nuclear power and as
UN Security Council permanent member (2020, 23). Kuokštytė recognizes France’s recent
distinguishable role in European politics (2020, 23) and highlights president Macron’s role as a
prominent figure promoting the ESA project as the EU is nowadays seen as the priority framework
for the French security ambitions (2020, 27). Due to these facts, Kuokštytė recognizes France as an
inevitable actor in European internal and external politics (2020, 23).
In their research European Strategic Autonomy – Actors, issues, Conflicts of Interests, Lippert & al.
describe Germany as a leading European nation while at the same time ruling out its hegemonic
role in the EU (Lippert & al. 2019, 7). They point out that due to the previously mentioned, there
cannot be ESA without the German contribution (Ibid., 7.) but also, on the contrary, the European
Union forms an important strategic autonomy framework for Germany (Ibid., 9). Lippert & al.
question Germany’s willingness to assume greater responsibility what comes to its EU partners and
bearing associated costs (Ibid., 13). After Brexit ended the so-called informal triangle and left the
Franco-German powers in the heart of the European Union (Ibid., 10), Germany and France are each
other’s most important partners in Europe. It is also highlighted that the positions of which France
adopts ‘are of particular relevance of Berlin’, and vice versa, especially regarding ESA (Ibid., 9).
The U.S. and NATO roles in European strategic autonomy
By re-assessing Geir Lundestad’s Empire by Invitation concept, Martijn Lak & Moritz Pieper illustrate
that the United States’ long-lasting involvement in European security and defence affairs ‘was never
an invitation to empire’ due to being based on consent from both sides. They recognize that this
European consent has, especially after Donald Trump’s election, moved towards so-called strategic
estrangement – in other words, towards European strategic autonomy. (Lak & Pieper 2019, 23.) Yet,
they also identify that any ESA-related developments have been enabled by a margin of
permissiveness followed by the transatlantic defence cooperation (Ibid., 39). Lisbeth Aggestam &
Adrian Hyde-Price, on the other hand, suggest that the United States’ security guarantee to Europe
disappeared already after the Cold War (2019, 114) and that greater ESA developments did not start
due to Donald Trump’s policies because many presidents before him had also criticized the military
14weaknesses and pusillanimity of Europe (2019, 116). When Lippert & al. claim that the U.S. has seen
greater ESA developments with some skepticism and rejection (2019, 27), Gaens & al. argue that
the new Biden administration might support strengthening the conventional ESA as the U.S. security
efforts are focused elsewhere – as long as the ESA does not mean decoupling from NATO and the
U.S. (2020, 5).
Michael Smith suggests that as the ESA might help European Union tear away from the U.S. what
comes to security affairs, this might not be possible in territorial defence and deterrence where
NATO continues to dominate (2018, 614). Lak & Pieper believe that if Europe and EU want a greater
conventional strategic autonomy, a European army should be established and the dependency on
NATO should lessen. EU defence efforts, such as a common European army is, however, often seen
as an opponent to NATO (2019, 24) and Lak & Pieper demonstrate in their research that NATO as a
U.S.-dominated security organization has prevented the European autonomous defence structures
from developing (2019, 25–26). At this point, it is notable to mention that 21 EU Member States are
also members of NATO (NATO 2021, n.d.). In addition to Lak & Pieper, Jolyon Howorth suggests that
the most realistic option in advancing ESA while nourishing the transatlantic alliance at the same
time would be to strengthen the European pillar with NATO instead of decoupling from it (Lak &
Pieper 2019, 34; Howorth 2018, 524).
15Methodology
Comparative research design
This research will be conducted by using a comparative research design. The method of comparative
analysis contrasts two or more cases by using more or less similar methods (Bryman 2012, 72),
which enables the researcher to show consistency between the cases (Hammond & Wellington
2021, 21). In addition to pointing out what is common and shared, the method is often used in
research to identify similarities and differences across contexts (Ibid., 31). According to Hammond
& Wellington, the value of a comparative analysis approach is that the research findings can be
viewed through a wider lens (2021, 32). In other words, one may understand social phenomena
better by comparing contrasting situations or cases both in qualitative and quantitative research
(Bryman 2012, 72). Comparative research design has become rather common in certain social
science fields, for example in organizational studies, and writers and researchers have supported
greater use of comparative research (Ibid., 74). It can be said that in a way all research is
comparative since research findings are always contrasted or compared to previous studies. The
only difference is that comparative research does it systematically. (Hammond & Wellington 2021,
32.) This research will also compare the cases and look into what is common or shared between
them and what is not.
Comparative research is often conducted either in cross-national or cross-cultural form, which also
applies to this research. As mentioned previously, the aim for this kind of research is usually to seek
similarities and differences but also to seek explanations for these. Often comparative research
might also want to gain greater understanding and deeper awareness of social reality in contrasting
national contexts. (Bryman 2012, 72.) According to Hantrais, comparative research examines
different socio-cultural settings in two or more countries. The settings can be, for example,
institutions, traditions, language, customs, value systems, and thought patterns. (1995, n.d.)
Hantrais argues (1995, n.d.) that such research can be conducted by carrying out a whole new
empirical study or by conducting a secondary analysis using national data. However, even if cross-
national research has become an obvious form of comparative studies (Bryman 2012, 72) there are
a variety of cases and situations where the logic of comparison may be applied. In other words,
comparative research is not only concerned to compare nations (Ibid., 74). By conducting this
research with cross-national form, this research will look into the similarities and differences of
16France and Germany’s interpretations of ESA and tries to also explain the reasons behind the
interpretations.
Because we are comparing and looking into how France and Germany interpret the European
strategic autonomy, it is important to shortly point out what one actually means when talking about
interpretation. Kothari argues that interpreting happens when, after an analytical study, one draws
inferences from the facts that are collected in the analysis part. He argues that interpreting is
actually searching for broader meanings of the findings. (Kothari 2004, 344.) In this research, the
previous sentence is very important. To answer the main research questions about what European
strategic autonomy really is, one has to interpret how France and Germany interpret the concept.
In other words, what will the analyzed material tell and what is the underlying message that is not
necessarily clearly spelled out.
Qualitative content analysis
In addition to the comparative design, the analysis part of this research will be conducted by using
qualitative content analysis. Content analysis research technique is often described as systematic,
objective, and/or quantitative description of the content of the communication. By using the
content analysis techniques one can develop procedures to make inferences by identifying
characteristics of different text and messages. (Bryman 2012, 289; Klotz & Prakash 2008, 151.) As a
method content analysis can help look into the ways people invest in communication with different
meanings (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 151). To put it simply, content analysis helps to uncover what is
the apparent content clearly about (Bryman 2012, 290). When talking about specifically qualitative
content analysis, it is fair to say that the term qualitative brings analytical richness to the research.
In addition, instead of only using quantitative measures, qualitative analysis evokes a narrative by
offering more nuance and detail from the cases (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 211). Strictly speaking
qualitative content analysis as a method means that the data has been generated, for example, as
texts, pictures, or moving images. In other words, in non-numeric form. (Hammond & Wellington
2021, 155.) In this research, as will be discussed later, the data and material will be in a textual form.
Content analysis is often concerned with mass media such as television and newspapers. However,
content analysis can also be applied beyond the set boundaries of mass communications, generally
referred to as messages. These can include, for example, different forms of information like semi or
unstructured interviews. Yet, the data that is being analyzed does not necessarily have to be in a
17printed form. (Bryman 2012, 290.) Nowadays, with 24-hour-coverage on what is going on in the
world, the discussions of world leaders can be found on television and the internet (Klotz & Prakash
2008, 151), and due to this content analysis research is also commonly conducted on speeches
(Bryman 2012, 290), just like in this research. Such online data that is used in content analysis makes
it easier to learn more about the heads of states and public figures in general because it does not
require any kind of cooperation from their side (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 151). Even so, examination
of printed documents and texts, which can refer to any product of communication, have been the
main use of content analysis (Bryman 2012, 290; Hammon & Wellington 2021, 40). This chapter
emphasizes clearly all the points of why content analysis was chosen for this research. This will be
even more clear when the choice of material is explained later in this chapter.
Content analysis is a very flexible method and can be applied in many different ways (Bryman 2012,
305), which is one of the reasons why it was chosen to be used in this research. Sometimes a
distinction is made between themes in the text and counting specific words in the text (Ibid., 290).
Frequently researchers search for underlying themes and code the textual material in certain
subjects (Ibid., 297; 557). This research will focus more on the themes within the material, which
will be clear in the analysis chapter and especially in the findings section. The process of extracting
the themes, and content analysis in general, “is often not specified in detail”, however, many times
the themes are illustrated with short quotations from the analyzed material (Ibid., 557). In the
analysis chapter, this research will also use quotations to illustrate what is being analyzed and how
it reflects a certain theme. Essentially, it can be said that content analysis categorizes a phenomenon
of interest (Ibid., 297). Content analysis was also chosen to be used in this research due to its
flexibility. Because this research uses comparative design and many different concepts of the theory
of realism, it became obvious that content analysis was the best option; As a method, it would give
more room for the research to move around as it goes on.
Choice of cases
There would not be interesting research without interesting cases. The comparative research design
needs the research to have two or more cases (Bryman 2012, 72). Countries make up the most
common cases and units of analysis (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 54), and this research does not differ. In
order for the case selection to be well crafted, the researcher should take into account all the
possible cases, the universe of cases, and choose the best unit for the specific research (Ibid., 43). It
18is important for the researcher to identify the universe of cases (Ibid., 46) before deciding which
and how many cases to be compared, for example. While reading through different materials before
starting this research, it became rather clear that the universe of cases, in this case, would be all the
European Union Member States. It was a matter of choosing which cases would present the best
possible comparative analysis in answering the research questions.
The cases that were eventually chosen for this research are France and Germany. Many times, cases
are selected to represent extreme opposites (Bryman 2012, 75), which can make conducting the
research a lot easier. When the cases have notable similarities or differences in different aspects,
one would think it is easier to show them and answer the research questions, for instance. France
and Germany were selected to be the units of analysis partly due to this reason as well. While doing
some preliminary research on the previous studies related to European strategic autonomy, France
and Germany were pointed out many times, which made them interesting options for cases for this
research. However, the interesting point to make is that they are not total opposites; instead of one
of them opposing greater European strategic autonomy, for example, they both are in favor of it
(Zieliński 2020, 13). However, based on the previous research they still do not see eye to eye in it,
which is why they were chosen for this research. They were also chosen due to the fact that they
are both very strong and leading European Union Member States (Zieliński 2020, 6). By saying this,
one means their presence and prestige in the European Union is rather visible, valued, and heavy
some would say. They are also part of the countries that originally established the European Union
(European Union b, n.d.).
The case selection part often defines the methods used (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 43). This was also
the case in this research. When two cases, France and Germany, were selected it became rather
obvious that comparative research design would be the most suitable. According to Bryman, many
times case studies favor qualitative methods, because they help to generate a detailed and intensive
examination (2012, 68). Klotz and Prakash argue that when researching a particular phenomenon
with a few cases, the study is often qualitative, but that many cases turn it into quantitative research
(2008, 43). It has to be pointed out at this point, that only two cases were selected out of the
universe of cases due to a couple of different reasons; Firstly, this thesis examination research is, in
the end, rather short. If there were more than two cases to be compared, the analysis part could
not be as detailed and could end up being more general. Secondly, the two cases can be said to
represent different interpretations and views what comes to European strategic autonomy, even if
19they both are in favor of it. This said, by comparing France and Germany, one will get the best
outlook on the situation in general and will be able to answer the research questions through a
wider lens.
Fixed purposive sampling strategy
Before discussing the choice of material, one will shortly discuss the sampling strategy used in this
research. In qualitative research, most sampling entails some kind of purposive sampling (Bryman
2012, 418). Purposive sampling’s main idea is that the cases and units of analysis are selected by
using a non-probability form of sampling and keeping in mind the research questions and goals of
the research (Bryman 2012, 418). Non-probability means that that the units of analysis are not
sampled on a random basis but chosen carefully in a strategic way in order to provide relevant
material to answer the research questions (Bryman 2012, 418).
The cases and material used in this research were chosen by carefully thinking which cases and
material would best suit to answer the research questions. This researched followed a fixed
purposive sampling strategy, which means that the material was fixed at the beginning of the
research, and no material was added as the research proceeded (Bryman 2012 418). To be even
more precise, a priori purposive sampling approach was also used, because the material selection
criteria were established at the beginning and the criteria to select the material did not evolve as
the research progressed (Bryman 2012, 418). The criteria for this research material were based
around who (person) or what (institution) would best represent the chosen countries and what kind
of material would show it the best. Sample size is a balancing act; The sample should not be too
small to not to prevent data saturation nor too big not to prevent deep analysis. (Bryman 2012,
425.)
Choice of material
As Klotz & Prakash acknowledge (2008, 151), the use of internet sources has increased a lot. The
material used in this research has also been retrieved from online sources. These sources can be
said to be reliable as they are French and German governmental websites or well-known and
appreciated magazines that have published the speeches, interviews, and the opinion article. The
material that will be analyzed in this research is the following:
20For France:
- Speech by the French President Emmanuel Macron in Sorbonne in 2017
- Speech by President Macron at French Ambassador’s Conference in 2018
- Interview granted to Le Grand Continent magazine by the French President Emmanuel Macron
in 2020
- Speech by the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian in 2020
- Transcript of Macron’s speeches at the Atlantic Council on his vision for Europe and the future
of transatlantic relations in 2021
For Germany:
- Speech by German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel to the European Parliament in Strasbourg
in 2018
- Speech by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung event on Foreign
and Security Policy during Germany’s EU Council Presidency in 2020
- Speech by former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel at the Berlin Foreign Policy Forum at
the Körber Foundation in 2017
- Speech by German Federal Minister of Defence Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer at the Helmut
Schmidt University / Bundeswehr University Hamburg in 2020
- German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer opinion article for POLITICO in 202O
The collected material can be said to be primary data, as the material was collected specifically for
this research and has not been collected, analyzed, or interpreted by other researchers in between
(Bryman 2012, 13). For content analysis, usable material is anything that is communicating a
message (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 152). The research questions usually guide the process of choosing
the types of relevant material for each research (Ibid., 152), and the material that was chosen for
this research simply seemed the best one to answer the research questions. When studying
speeches or interviews one can assume that their nature is instrumental. This means that the
communicated message of the material cannot be taken necessarily at its face value but instead has
to be examined based on what it conveys given the circumstances and the context (Ibid., 156).
A wide range of materials was considered for this research from newspapers to administrative
documents. This exact material was chosen based on many options for a couple of different reasons.
First of all, one wanted to have material from the year 2017 onwards to this day. This is because the
21debate about European strategic autonomy can be said to be heated again after Donald Trump was
elected as the President of the United States at the end of 2016. One wanted to have a good
representation of the chosen countries’ interpretation of the ESA, and it seemed the most obvious
solution to analyze what has been said by the heads of those states. In addition to the heads of
states, it seemed important to have material from foreign and defence ministers, as the perspective
for this research is conventional. After going through many different choices of material, one chose
the ones that seemed to represent and include statements about the research topic the most. Five
most relevant speeches/interviews/articles were chosen for each case to have enough material, but
not too much for short research such as this.
Units of analysis and contextualizing the information
Now that one has discussed the methods used in this research, as well as the choice of cases and
material, one will go back to discussing more specifically how is content analysis used in this
research and what exactly will be examined within the chosen material.
As a method content analysis offers many possibilities for units of analysis (Bryman 2012, 295). The
units in this research are individual countries, France and Germany. They will be analyzed to explain
how they interpret ESA, but also to describe on a broader scale what ESA is. Just as Bryman argues,
many times in content analysis the material is coded in subjects and themes, and this will also
happen in this research. This means that the material used in this research, speeches, transcripts,
and an interview, are categorized based on the research interest. (Bryman 2012, 297.) This research
wants to assess and describe France and Germany’s interpretations of European strategic autonomy
in speeches and other material discussed earlier. The material will be sorted out by coding the
material based on different themes. These themes are chosen keeping in mind the conventional
perspective of the research aim and questions. For the content analysis to best describe and answer
the research questions one will use the following themes that the coding and analysis will be based
on: European unity, external allies and co-operation, and defence capabilities.
The coding will be done by simply carefully going through the chosen material and choosing parts
that best describe the interpretations of France and Germany under the previously mentioned
themes. The outcome of the coding will be presented in the analysis part with straight quotations
from the material under separate headlines that represent the units of analysis. Then, the coded
material (the quotations) will be analyzed more specifically for each unit and theme. The material
22will be analyzed descriptively by means of realist theory. Finally, in the findings chapter, the units of
analysis will be compared by doing a descriptive comparative analysis.
Methodological limitations
It is of high importance to discuss some limitations that concern this research. By acknowledging
the limitations, one can express that while doing this research the analysis and findings are not given
and that limitations might have some kind of impact on them. Starting with comparative analysis it
is fair to say that just as many other qualitative studies, this research falls into the small-n studies
category with only two comparative cases. As Klotz and Prakash argue, there are multiple inherent
problems with small-n studies, especially what comes to gathering detailed evidence. They also
state that compared to large-n studies, the small-n studies’ findings will inevitably be more
superficial. (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 54–55.) However, some also argue that large-n studies pay less
attention to the actual content and context and focus too much just on contrasting the cases on
different levels. One of the limitations on small-n studies is that due to the small number of cases
the approach to the research is often not so open-ended and the focus is developed at the outset
of the research. (Bryman 2012, 75.)
In addition, there are also some limitations to qualitative content analysis and the material used in
it. Even though the approach to qualitative content analysis is rather vague (Bryman 2012, 305) the
analysis itself can only be as good as the material used in the research. The validity and reliability of
the material play a huge part in this. The documents used should be authentic, credible, and
representative of all relevant existing documents. (Bryman 2012, 306.) As most of the material used
in this research is speeches, some caution must be used. Many times, speeches of officials are
written by someone else, for example, a speechwriter or another staff member. (Klotz & Prakash
2008, 152.) This is also noticeable in the material retrieved for this research: many of the speeches
have a statement “Check against delivery!” written on them. This means that there might be some
differences between the written and the delivered speech, which allows some leeway for the
speaker. (Moorhouse, 2014 n.d.) It is also notable, that speeches are always written for a specific
audience and will have certain kinds of argumentations and wordings to mobilize support for their
cause. (Klotz & Prakash 2008, 153.)
The material in this research also includes an interview transcript. Compared to speeches, the
answers to the interview questions can be said to be more spontaneous in general despite prior
23preparations as the interviewees have to answer quickly without any aid (Klotz & Prakash 2008,
153). In some cases, speeches might be translated to English from their original language. This is
often the case in speeches given in European Union conferences and meetings, for example. So, one
limitation of the material is concerned with the translation of speeches and other documents, even
if they were done by a professional translator. Different words have different meanings in different
cultures and languages (Ibid., 154), so when these kinds of texts are part of the research material,
one should consider the possible effects this might have, especially if the written language has a big
role in the analysis.
To discuss some material limitations a bit further, it is important to be aware of the fact that
different material choices could possibly have led to some changes in the findings. The material
chosen for this research is still rather limited, five speeches/interviews/articles per each case. If
there were more material to be analyzed, the findings could possibly be more specific. For this kind
of short research, however, that was not possible. It is also important to point out that the content
could have been different based on whom the heads of states were giving the speeches and other
material.
Validity and reliability
Before continuing to the analysis part, it is of high importance to discuss the validity and reliability
of this research. These are important terms and concepts because they can be said to show how
trustworthy and useful this research really is. When talking about reliability, one questions whether
the findings of the research can be repeated (Bryman 2012, 46). Depending on the data that is
analyzed in qualitative research reliability might be a difficult criterion to meet because it can be
hard to replicate different circumstances and social settings (Ibid., 390). Though, this does not
necessarily apply to this research the data being textual material as explained later. As the process
of content analysis is often not specified, there are no standard procedures to follow, and the
researcher’s predilections are influenced by her/his interpretations, it makes it harder to replicate
a content analysis study (Ibid., 405). The validity, on the other hand, questions the integrity of the
conclusions that are based on the analysis and findings of a research (Ibid., 47). It refers to
identifying, observing, and measuring what is said (Ibid., 390) and the fit between the data and the
interpretation (Hammond & Wellington 2021, 192). In some qualitative research, it might be hard
24to establish how did the researcher conduct the analysis and arrive at the conclusions (Bryman 2012,
406). This research will do its best to explain every step of the analysis to avoid this.
In this comparative study, one will try to be as objective and value-free as possible. But, due to being
a human and not a robot, keeping values totally in check is not possible (Bryman 2012, 39).
Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge this and for one to be self-reflective at the time of
conducting the research (Ibid., 40). According to Bryman (2012, 39–40), it would be good for the
reader to know a little bit about the researcher’s attitudes, aims, hopes, and expectations that might
influence the process and conclusions. In this research, the short answers to these questions were
tried to explain in the introduction and problem formulation part. Even if the process of content
analysis might be harder to replicate at times, the sampling and coding scheme should be feasible
to set out for replication (Ibid., 304). It is also important to point out that part of validity and
reliability are often contrasted. In this research, this has been acknowledged by making sure that
the methods that are used address what is being researched (Hammond & Wellington 2021, 194).
25You can also read
