TERÖRLE SAVAŞTAN BÜYÜK GÜÇLER MÜCADELESİNE GERİ DÖNÜŞ

Öz

Bu makalede, 2000 – 2018 döneminde yayımlanmış Amerikan Ulusal Güvenlik Strateji Belgeleri (NSS’ler), Stephen Walt’ın “tehdit dengesi” kavramı ışığında analiz edilmektedir. 2000 yılının başlangıç noktası seçilmesinin sebebi, 11 Eylül terör saldırılarının ABD dış politikasında bir dönüm noktası olmasıdır ve ilgili son NSS ise Trump yönetimi tarafından hazırlanan NSS 2017’dir. Politika oluşturma sürecindeki hâkim eğilimleri daha da netleştirmek için Ulusal Savunma Stratejisi (NDS) belgeleri de değerlendirilmeye alınmıştır. Makalenin amacı NSS belgelerindeki önemli kavramların ve kılavuz prensiplerin evrimini tasvir etmektir. Soğuk Savaş sonrası, herhangi bir büyük güç tarafından varoluşsal bir tehdidin olmadığı dönemin NSS’lerinde kavramsal bir değişim görülmektedir ve yeni tehdit tanımı Teröre Karşı Küresel Savaş (GWOT) temeline dayalıdır. Bu yeni yaklaşım, 11 Eylül terör saldırıları sonrasında, yeni milenyumun ilk NSS’lerini domine etmiştir. Ancak, son NSS’lerde geçmişteki tehdide dayalı yaklaşıma bir dönüş olduğu görülmekte, Çin ve Rusya gibi rakip ulus devletlerden açıkça bahsedilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, klasik büyük güç rekabeti anlayışına kavramsal bir dönüş olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tehdit Dengesi
• Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi
• GWOT
• Yapısal Realizm

FROM WAR ON TERROR BACK TO GREAT POWER COMPETITION

Abstract

In this article, selected documents of American national security strategy (NSS) in the 2000-2018 period are analyzed in the light of Stephan Walt’s “balance of threat” concept. Year 2000 was chosen as the starting point since 9/11 terror attacks correspond to a historic turning point in U.S. foreign policy, and the last NSS concerned is NSS 2017, prepared by the Trump administration. National Defense Strategy (NDS) documents are also taken into consideration, to further clarify the dominant trends in policy making. The aim of the article was to plot the evolution of key concepts and guiding principles in the NSS documents. It is seen that there has been a conceptual shift in the NSSs after the Cold War, where no great power existential threat was perceived, and the new threat definition was based on the Global War on Terror (GWOT). This new approach dominated the first NSSs of the new millennium, after the 9/11 terror attacks. However, in the last NSSs, there has been a return to the previous, threat-based approach, where competitor nation-states such as China and Russia are explicitly mentioned. It is concluded that there has been a conceptual return to the classical sense of great power competition.

Keywords

• Balance of threat
• National Security Strategy
• GWOT
• Structural Realism

References

1. Crowley, P. J. (2016). Red Line: American Foreign Policy in a Time of Fractured Politics and Failing States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
2. Department of Defense. (2005). The National Defense Strategy of United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nds/2005_NDS.pdf?ver=tFA4Qqo94ZB0x_S6uL0QEg%3d%3d
3. Department of Defense. (2008). The National Defense Strategy of United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nds/2008_NDS.pdf?ver=WEYyBjnf6UkNioPqfkSr3Q%3d%3d
4. Department of Defense. (2018). The National Defense Strategy of United States of America. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
5. Dowding, K. M. (2011) Encyclopedia of Power. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.
6. Goldgeier, J., & Suri, J. (2015). Revitalizing the U.S. national security strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 38(4), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660x.2015.1125828
7. Kugler, R. L. (2011). New Directions in U. S. National Security; Strategy, Defense Plans, and Diplomacy: A Review of Official Strategic Documents.
8. Legro, J. W., & Moravcsik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), 5–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228899560130

9. Lucas, N. J. (2015). The 2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
10. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539078
11. The White House. (1999). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss1999.pdf?ver=SLo909OTm5lAh0LQWBrRHw%3d%3d
12. The White House. (2001). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss2000.pdf?ver=vuu1vGIkFVV1HusDPL21Aw%3d%3d
13. The White House. (2002). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss2002.pdf?ver=oyVN99aEnrAWijAc_O5eiQ%3d%3d
14. The White House. (2006). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss2006.pdf?ver=Hfo1-Y5B6CMl8yHpX4x6IA%3d%3d
15. The White House. (2015). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy_2.pdf
16. The White House. (2017). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
17. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) (1st ed.). Cornell University Press.
18. Walt, S. M. (1991). The Renaissance of Security Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 211-239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600471