11 Eylül Terör Saldırılarının Devletlerin Silah Ticareti ve Savunma Harcamaları Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2025, Issue: 11, 1 - 24, 29.06.2025

Müge Palancı

https://doi.org/10.58685/dsd.1580461

Abstract

Savunma harcamaları devletlerin iç ve dış tehdit risklerden korunması ve güvenliğin sağlanması adına önem taşımaktadır. Bu bağlamda 11 Eylül terör saldırıları sonrası savunma harcamalarının güvenlikleştirilmesi ülkelerin savunma harcamalarını arttırmış, güvenliğin değişen gündemiyle birlikte terörizmin küreselleşmesini de beraberinde getirmiştir. 11 Eylül terör saldırıları devletlerin savunma harcamalarının artmasına neden olmuştur. Asimetrik tehditlerin artışı, derinleşen ve genişleyen güvenlik tartışmalarıyla, 11 Eylül sonrası devletler küresel terörizm riskine karşı ortak hareket etmeye başlamıştır. Bu durumda Soğuk Savaş sonrası tehdidin doğasında yaşanan belirsizliğin etkisi olmaktadır. Tehdidin doğasında yaşanan bu belirsizlik, Soğuk Savaş sonrası devletlerin referans nesnesi olduğu güvenliği korunacak “şey”olarak, özellikle 11 Eylül terör saldırıları ile birlikte güvenlik arayışı içerisine girmelerine neden olmuştur. Bu güvenlik arayışı savunma harcalarının artmasına sebebiyet vermiştir. Bu anlamda makalenin amacı 11 Eylül saldırıları sonrası devletlerin savunma harcamalarındaki değişimin eleştirel güvenlik yaklaşımlarından olan Kopenhag Okulu güvenlikleştirme ve güvenlik-dışılaştırma yaklaşımı yoluyla analizini yapmaktır.

Keywords

Terörizm, 11 Eylül, Güvenlikleştirme, Güvenlik sektörleri, Kopenhag Okulu

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde etik ilkelere uyulmuştur

The Impact of The September 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on the Arms Trade and Defense Expenditures of States

Abstract

Defense expenditures are important for the protection of states from internal and external threats and for ensuring security. In this context, the securitization of defense expenditures after the September 11 terrorist attacks increased the defense spending of countries and brought about the globalization of terrorism together with the changing agenda of security. The September 11 terrorist attacks caused an increase in the defense expenditures of states. With the increase in asymmetric threats and the deepening and expanding security discussions, states started to take joint action against the risk of global terrorism after September 11. In this case, the uncertainty experienced in the nature of the threat after the Cold War had a significant impact. This uncertainty experienced in the nature of the threat caused states to seek security, especially with the September 11 terrorist attacks, as the reference object of security to be protected as the referent object of protection. This search for security led to an increase in defense expenditures. In this sense, the aim of the article is to analyze the change in the defense expenditures of states after the September 11 attacks through the Copenhagen School securitization and desecuritization approaches, which are critical security approaches.

Keywords

Terrorism, September 11, Copenhagen School, Securitization, Security Sector

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical research principles

References

• Arms Control Association. 2007. Accessed: 19.05.2024. https://www.armscontrol.org/content/subject-resources?field_resource_library_target_id=All&field_resource_library_target_id_1=All&taxonomy_vocabulary_2_target_id=1063&taxonomy_vocabulary_3_target_id=31&page=1 .
• Baldwin, D. A. 1995. “Security studies and the end of the Cold War.” World politics 48(1): 117-141. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1995.0001
• Baldwin, D. A. 1997. “The Concept Of Security.” Review Of International Studies 13: 10-14. https://dbaldwin.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf4596/files/dbaldwin/files/baldwin_1997_the_concept_of_security.pdf
• Balzacq, T. 2005. “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context.” European Journal of International Relations 11(2): 171-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105052960
• Bambals, R. 2015. “European Security, Defence, and Global Role: A Year After Crimea.” In The War in Ukraine: Lessons for Europe, eds. Artis Pabriks and Andis Kudors, 13-40. Riga: University of Lavtiva Press. Accessed: 23.04.2024. https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/21646/file.pdf
• Baysal, B. & Lüleci, Ç. 2011. “Kopenhag Okulu ve Güvenlikleştirme Teorisi.” Güvenlik Stratejileri 11(22): 61-96. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/84601
• Baylis, J. 2008. “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güvenlik Kavramı.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 5(18): 69-85.
• Bush, G. W. 2002. “State of the Union.” Accessed: 05.05.2025 https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html .
• Bush, G. W. 2004. “Adress to Republican National Convention.” Accessed: 01.04.2024. https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf .
• Bowden B. 2002. “Reinventing Imperialism in the Wake of September 11.” Alternatives 1(2): 1-19.
• Buzan, B. 1991. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for İnternational Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Buzan, B. 1997. “Rethinking Security after the Cold War.” Cooperation and Conflict 35(1): 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367970320010
• Buzan, B. 2001. People, States and Fear: An Agenda For International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1555872824.
• Buzan, B. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed: 01.12.2024. https://ir101.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Buzan-Waever-2003-Regions-and-Powers-The-Structure-of-International-Security.pdf
• Buzan, B. 2006. “Will the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ be the New Cold War?” International Affairs 82(6): 1101-1118.
• Buzan, B. 2008. “Askeri Güvenliğin Değişen Gündemi.” Uluslararası İlişkiler 5(18): 107-123.
• Buzan, B. & Wæver, O. 2009. “Macrosecuritisation and Security Constellations: Reconsidering Scale in Securitisation Theory.” Review of international Studies 35(2): 253-276.
• Buzan, B., Wæver, O. & De Wilde, J. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne RiennerPublishers. Accessed: 30.08.2024. https://www.academia.edu/39047709/Buzan_Waever_and_De_Wilde_1998_Security_A_New_Framework_For_Analysis
• Bilmes, L. 2013. The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security Budgets. Harvard: Kennedy School.
• Chomsky, N. 2007. “Terrorism, American Style.” World Policy Journal 24(1): 44-45. https://doi.org/10.1162/wopj.2007.24.1.44
• Çona, Ö. 2023. “Bir Güvenlikleştirme Pratiği Olarak Terörizm Söylemi ve Etiketi: Eleştirel Terörizm Çalışmaları Perspektifinden Kavramsal Bir Analitik Çerçeve.” Diplomasi ve Strateji Dergisi 11(22): 96-146.
• Dedeoğlu, B. 2008. Uluslararası Güvenlik ve Strateji. İstanbul: Derin Yayınları.
• Drehle, V. D. 2001. “Cold War Won. Now the Grey War.” The Washington Post, September 12, 2001.
• Emmers, R. 2016. “Securitization.” In Contemporary Security Studies, eds. A.Collins, 131-146. UK: Oxford University Press.
• European Defense Agency. 2010. “Annual Report.” Accessed: 30.09.2023. https://eda.europa.eu/publications-and-data/all-publications/annual-report-2009
• European Parliament. 2017. “The European Union’s Policies on Counter-Terrorism, Relevance, Coherence and Effectiveness.” Accessed: 11.11.2024. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583124/IPOL_STU(2017)583124_EN.pdf
• Fatić, A. 2002. “Conventional and Unconventional – ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ Security: The Distinction.” SEER: Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe 5(3): 93-98.
• Global Issues. 2013. “Global Financial Crisis.” Accessed: 24.03.2025. https://www.globalissues.org/article/768/global-financial-crisis
• Hansen, L. 2011. “Reconstructing Desecuritisation: The Normative-Political in the Copenhagen School and Directions for How to Apply it.” Review of İnternational Studies 38(3): 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000581
• Huysmans, J. 2006. The Politics of Insecurit Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. Abingdom: Routledge.
• Hook, S. & Spanier, J. 2016. Amerikan Dış Politikası: İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan Günümüze. Çeviri, Özge Zihinoğlu. İstanbul: İnkılab Yayıncılık. ISBN-10. 9751034094.
• Hinnebusch, R. 2007. “The US Invasion of Iraq: Explanations and Implications.” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 16(3): 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669920701616443
• Krause, K. & Williams, M. C. 1996. “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods.” Mershon international Studies Review 40(Supplement_2): 229-254.
• Krtalic, S. & Major, A. 2010. “Military Expenditures in the Maelstrom of the Globalized World.” Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 23(2): 142-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2010.11517418
• Mabee, B. 2007. “Re-imagining the Borders of US Security After 9/11: Securitization, Risk and the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security.” Globalizations 4(3): 385-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14747730701532567
• NSS. 2002. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Accessed: 21.09.2024. Washington: The White House, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/
• NSS. 2006. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” Accessed: 21.03.2024. Washington: The White House, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
• Ortega, M. 2003. “CFS Confronting Iraq.” EU Security Institute Note. Accessed: 4.12.2024. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/occ40.pdf
• Özerim, G. 2014. “Avrupa’da Göç Politikalarının Ulusüstüleşmesi ve Bir Güvenlik Konusunda Dönüşü: Avrupa Göç Tarihinde Yeni Bir Dönem mi?” Ege Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi 5(1): 11-48.
• Reuters. 2022. “Germany to Increase Defence Spending in Response to ‘Putin’s War’ – Scholz”. Accessed: 27.02.2025 https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/germany-hike-defense-spending-scholz-says-further-policy-shift-2022-02-27/
• Rumelili, B. & Karadağ, S. 2017. “Göç ve Güvenlik: Eleştirel Yaklaşımlar.” Toplum ve Bilim 140: 69-92.
• Selected Speeches of President George W.Bush 2001-2008. 2001. “And We Have Made Clear That Any Government That Chooses To Be An Ally Of Terror Has Also Chosen To Be An Enemy Of Civilization.” Accessed: 22.01.2025. https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf
• SIPRI. 2004. Yearbook. Accessed: 30.09.2024. https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2004/10
• SIPRI. 2010. Yearbook. Accessed: 05.08.2024. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/SIPRIYB201005A.pdf
• SIPRI. 2022. Yearbook. Accessed: 21.09.2024. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/yb22_summary_en_v2_0.pdf.
• The Guardian. 2001. “Text of George Bush’s Speech.” September 20, 2001. Accessed: 21.09.2024. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13.
• Waever, O. 1995. “Securitisation and Desecuritisation.” In On Security, Eds. Ronnie D. Lipschutz. Accessed: 01.12.2024. https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf
• Waever, O. 2012. “Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: The Europeannes of New Schools of Security Theory in an American field.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, eds. Arlene T. and David B., 48-71. London: Routledge.
• Wallsten, S. 2006. “The Economic Cost of the Iraq War.” Economists’ Voice 3(2): 1-4. DOI: 10.2202/1553-3832.1134
• Wolfers, A. 1952. “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol.” Political Science Quarterly 67(4): 481-502.
• White House. 2006. “President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror.” Accessed: 26.09.2024. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060929-3.html
• World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers. 2005. Accessed : 04.03.2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/wmeat/2005/index.htm
• World Bank Group. 2022. Accessed: 20.04.2025. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2020&start=1960&type=shaded&view=chart&year=2020