Saint-Malo Sonrası Dönemde Avrupa Birliği’nin Uluslararası Kimliği: Bir Sivil Güçten Daha Fazlası Mı?

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, askeri kabiliyetlere sahip olmaması sebebiyle sivil bir güç olarak tanımlanan AB’nin 1990’lı yılların sonlarında hayata geçirilen AGSP/OGSP süreci ile askeri bir kapasiteye sahip olmasının Birliğin sivil güç kimliğini sona erdirip erdirmediği sorusuna cevap bulmaktır. Bu soruya cevap ararken makalenin ilk bölümünde, 1940’lı yılların sonlarından başlayarak savunma ve güvenlik boyutunun Avrupa bütünleşme sürecindeki yeri incelenmiştir. İkinci bölümde, askeri kabiliyetlere sahip olmanın AB’nin sivil güç olma kimliğini sona erdirip erdirmediği konusunda literatürdeki temel tartışmalara değinilmiştir. Genel bir değerlendirmenin yapıldığı son bölümde ise, AGSP/OSGP süreci ile 1970’li yılların başında François Duchêne tarafından ortaya konulan temelinde askeri araçlardan arındırılmış olmaya dayanan geleneksel Sivil Güç Avrupa anlayışının yani ‘Sivil Güç Avrupa versiyon 1.0’ın, sivil araçlar ile birlikte askeri araçları da etkin bir şekilde kullanabilme kapasitesine sahip olmaya dayanan modern bir Sivil Güç Avrupa anlayışına yani ‘Sivil Güç Avrupa versiyon 2.0’a evrildiği sonucuna varılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avrupa Birliği, Sivil Güç, Avrupa Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikası/Ortak Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikası, Uluslararası Kimlik

The European Union’s International Identity In The Post-SaintMalo Era: Is It More Than A Civilian Power?

Öz

This article aims to find out whether EU’s acquisition of military capabilities with the introduction of ESDP/CSDP in the late 1990s ends its civilian power identity, which has been characterized by lack of military capabilities. In order to answer this question, first of all, the place of defence and security dimension in the European integration process is analyzed. Secondly, major debates in the literature concerning whether EU’s acquisition of military capabilities results in demise of civilian power identity of the EU are examined. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that with the introduction of the ESDP/CSDP, traditional understanding of Civilian Power Europe which has been characterized by lack of military capabilities as introduced by François Duchêne in the early 1970s, ‘Civilian Power Europe version 1.0’ has evolved towards a modern understanding of ‘Civilian Power Europe’ based on possessing the capacity for effective use of military capabilities together with civilian capabilities, ‘Civilian Power Europe version 2.0’

Anahtar Kelimeler

• European Union, Civilian Power, European Security and Defence Policy/ Common Security and Defence Policy, International Identity

Kaynakça

1. Akgül Açıkmeşe, Sinem; Dizdaroğlu, Cihan. ‘NATO-AB İlişkilerinde İşbirliği ve Çatışma Dinamikleri’, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Cilt: 10, Sayı: 40, 2014, ss. 131-163.
2. Biscop, Sven; Coolsaet, Rik. The World is the Stage – A Global Security Strategy for the European Union, Groupement D’études et de Recherches Notre Europe Policy Paper No. 8, Aralık 2003. http://www.egmontinstitute.be/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/notre-eur.Policypaper8. pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 10 Kasım 2016).
3. Bretherton Charlotte; Vogler, John. The European Union as a Global Actor, (Oxon: Routle- dge, 2006).
4. Dedman, Martin J.. The Origins and Development of the European Union 1945-2008: A History of European Integration (2. Baskı), (New York: Routledge, 2010).
5. Duchêne, François. ‘Europe’s Role in World Peace’, içinde Richard Mayne, (der.) Europe Tomorrow: Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, (Londra: Fontana/Collins, 1972), ss. 32-47.
6. Duchéne, François. ‘The European Community and the Uncertainties of Independence’, içinde Max Hohnstamm ve Wolfgang Hager, (der.) A Nation Writ Large? Foreign Po- licy Problems Before the European Community, (Londra: Macmillan Press, 1973), ss. 1-21.
7. Ginsberg Roy H.; Penksa Susan E.. The European Union in Global Security: The Politics of Impact, (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012).
8. Ginsberg, Roy H.. Demystifying the European Union: The Enduring Logic of Regional In- tegration, (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007).

9. Howorth, Jolyon. Security and Defence Policy in the European Union, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).
10. Kagan, Robert. Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).
11. Keukeleire, Stephan. ‘European Security and Defence Policy: From Taboo to a Spearhead of EU Foreign Policy?’, içinde Federiga Bindi, (der.) The Foreign Policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s Role in the World, (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2010), ss. 51-72.
12. Keukeleire, Stephan; MacNaughtan, Jennifer. The Foreign Policy of the European Union, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
13. Larsen, Henrik. ‘The EU: A Global Military Actor?’, Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of Nordic International Studies Association, Cilt: 37, Sayı: 3, 2002, ss. 283-302.
14. Leites, Nathan; De La Maléne, Christian. ‘Paris from EDC to WEU’, World Politics, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 2, 1957, ss. 193-219.
15. Mahncke, Dieter. ‘The Need for a Common Foreign Policy’, içinde Dieter Mahncke, Alicia Ambos ve Christopher Reynolds, (der.) European Foreign Policy: From Rhetoric to Reality?, (Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2004), ss. 27-42.
16. Maull, Hanns W.. ‘Europe and the New Balance of Global Order’, International Affairs, Cilt: 81, Sayı: 4, 2005, ss. 775-799.
17. Maull, Hanns W.. ‘Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers’, Foreign Affairs, Cilt: 69, Sayı: 5, 1990, ss. 91-106.
18. Orbie, Jan. ‘Civilian Power Europe: Review of the Original and Current Debates’, Coope- ration and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, Cilt: 41, Sayı: 1, 2006, ss. 123-128.
19. ‘Paylaşılan Vizyon, Ortak Eylem: Daha Güçlü Bir Avrupa, Avrupa Birliği Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası için Küresel Strateji’, Haziran 2016. https://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 03 Ağus- tos 2016).
20. Rynning, Sten. ‘Why Not NATO? Military Planning in the European Union’, The Journal of Strategic Studies, Cilt: 26, Sayı: 1, 2003, ss. 53-72.
21. Sjöstedt, Gunnar. ‘The Exercise of International Civil Power: A Framework for Analysis’, içinde Wyn Rees ve Michael Smith, (der.) International Relations of the European Uni- on Cilt I, (Londra: Sage, 2008), ss. 106-128.
22. Sloan, Stanley. NATO, the European Union and the Atlantic Community, The Transatlantic Bargain Reconsidered, (Lanham: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 2003).
23. Smith, Hazel. ‘Consolidating EU Foreign Policy: the ‘Civilising Mission’ and the Develop- ment of Military Security as a Geo-issue Area’, (Tebliğ, CIDEL Workshop on ‘From Civilian to Military Power: the European Union at a Crossroads?’, Oslo, Norveç, 22-23 Ekim 2004). http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/projects/cidel/old/WorkshopOsloSecu- rity/HazelSmith.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 15 Ekim 2016).
24. Smith, Karen E.. ‘The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Con- cern?’, The International Spectator, Cilt: 35, Sayı: 2, 2000, ss. 11-28.
25. Smith, Karen E.. ‘Beyond the Civilian Power EU Debate’, Politique Européenne, Sayı: 17, 2005/3, ss. 63-82.
26. Stavridis, Stelios. ‘“Militarising” the EU: the Concept of Civilian Power Europe Revisited’, The International Spectator, Cilt: 36, Sayı: 4, 2001, ss. 43-50.
27. Stavridis, Stelios. ‘Why the ‘Militarising’ of the European Union is Strengthening the Con- cept of a Civilian Power Europe’, European University Institute Working Paper, 2001. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/1726/01_17.pdf?sequence=1& isAllowed=y. (Erişim Tarihi: 17 Ekim 2016).
28. Treacher, Adrian. ‘From Civilian Power to Military Actor: The EU’s Resistable Transforma- tion’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 1, 2004, ss. 49-66.
29. Whitman, Richard. ‘Muscles from Brussels: The Demise of Civilian Power Europe?’, içinde Ole Elgström ve Michael Smith, (der.) The European Union’s Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis, (Oxon: Routledge, 2006), ss. 101-117.
30. Whitman, Richard. ‘Road Map for a Route March?: (De-)civilianizing through the EU’s Security Strategy’, European Foreign Affairs Review, Cilt: 11, Sayı: 1, 2006, ss. 1-15. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17072.htm. (Erişim tarihi: 23 Kasım 2016).