DR Helmut Kohl refers to himself as "the last of the dinosaurs", the only surviving member of a generation of European leaders whose political formation was determined by the memory of the Second World war. The road to European unity as a. means of avoiding war has been the great political goal of his life, and, spurred on by his success in uniting Germany, he is determined to see it through to the end.
The events of 1989 were greeted with mixed feelings by many of Germany's neighbours, who were relieved to see the end of the human misery caused by partition but feared that the new country might become too powerful for anyone's good. European political integration was seen as a vital mechanism for curbing German power, while European Monetary Union promised to limit Frankfurt's scope for economic hegemony.
Remarkably, this argument was embraced by Dr Kohl himself, who has spent much of the past five years warning his fellow leaders that, unless Germany is allowed to pool sovereignty with its neighbours now, he cannot be answerable for the actions of his successors. He went even further at the Christian Democratic Union party conference this year when he declared that European integration was "a question of war and peace".
If this was meant to reassure Germany's neighbours, it has almost certainly had the opposite effect. After all, if the Chancellor believes that Germany is so unpredictable and potentially dangerous, why should such a country be entrusted with the political leadership of the entire continent?
In a recent interview with Der Spiegel the German-born sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf questioned the reasoning behind Dr Kohl's lack of confidence in Germany's reliability.
"Whether Germany drifts away, departs from the path of democracy, nurses hegemonic ambitions or cuts loose from its ties to the west depends on its internal structures, not on some external integration." he said.
Genany's internal structures have, in fact, never been more stable than they are today and the popular commitment to democracy has never been stronger. The upheavals of reunification have tested that commitment by imposing a huge burden of taxation on west Germans and plunging easterners into traumatic economic uncertainty.
Yet there have been no riots, no surge of support for the extreme right and no rise in ugly nationalism. Germans may have broken new records for grumbling in recent years but they have swallowed the bitter medicine of change and continued to vote for the same, democratic political parties as before. If the deutschmark is abolished in three years time against the wishes of the majority of the German people, it is a fair bet that they will complain loudly for a week and then carry on spending their Euros.
BY RAISING the spectre of an aggressive new Germany, Dr Kohl risks nourishing the genuine but groundless fears of other Europeans and undermining the very project he seeks to promote. And by forcing the pace of European political and economic integration, he is storing up resentment among those member states that are unable or unwilling to keep LIP with the German timetable.
Such ill-feeling is already in evidence where EMU is concerned, with countries such as Italy which were once at the core of the European project risk being pushed to the periphery if they fail to meet the strict economic criteria agreed at Maastricht. Germany's inflexible stance on the conditions and timetable for EMU, a project which is likely to divide rather than unite the EU in the short term, has often appeared bullying and insensitive to other member states.
By insisting on EMU as the centrepiece of European integration, Germany may also be reverting to an unhappy historical pattern. In his book A German Identity, published last year, the Princeton historian Harold James argues that an excessive emphasis on economic advance has been the greatest weakness in Germany's history of nation-building.
"Clio should warn 05 not to trust Mercury (the economic god) too much. Economics are unlikely to be forever flushed with the rosy bloom of optimism and expansion when they sicken, it may be helpful to have a dense network of loyalties, traditions and old institutions which can retain a legitimacy more profound and more satisfying," he writes.
Although Dr Kohl has called for a strengthening of European political institutions to accompany the creation of a single currency, he has offered no suggestions as to how Europe's ideological vacuum might be filled. And the breakneck pace of integration allows no time for the people of Europe to grow together in a union strong enough to withstand the first severe economic setback.
The generation of German politicians who will succeed Dr Kohl do not share his passion for Europe. The new Social Democrat leader, Oskar Lafontaine, has already declared that he will put Germany's national economic interest before the creation of European Monetary, Union.
The world is unaccustomed to hearing German politicians using the frank language of national interests and the sound will grate on many ears. But an open acknowledgment of those interests may be preferable to Dr Kohl's approach, as tomorrow's Germans realise that their primary national interest lies in living in harmony with their neighbours.
