A Critique on the Concerns About Structure of International System After the Cold War Era

Abstract

With the collapse of former Soviet Union, while bipolar international system lost its validity, intellectual debate about possible structure of new international system emerged. At these debates, scholars stressed the US’s absolute superiority, lack of capability of other great powers that possibly would balance existing US power and establishment of unipolar international system under the US hegemony. But in the course of time the concerns about the system moved from unipolarity to multipolarity, because the 2003 Iraqi operation has weakened the US’s economic and military power capabilities. Separately Russia, China, and the European Union do not fulfill all requirements of being a great power mentioned by the structural realism, such as having great military, economic and political capabilities, pursuing global policies, and ability of changing attitudes of their allies. While the United States still supports unipolar structure, Russia, China and the European Union prefer to see establishment of multipolar one. At the end it is possible to see that in the post – Cold era a multipolar structure with several regional centers will be formed and the relations among the actors will be loose rather than tight ones. 

Keywords

• USA, International System, Russia, China, Multipolarity. 

Soğuk Savaş Sonrası Dönemin Uluslararası Sisteminin Yapısına İlişkin Görüşler Üzerine Bir Eleştiri

Abstract

Sovyetler Birliği’nin yıkılmasıyla birlikte, iki kutuplu sistem geçerliliğini yitirirken, sistemin yapısına ilişkin tartışmalarda ortaya çıktı. Tartışmalarda akademisyenler, ABD’nin mutlak üstünlüğüne, diğer devletlerin bu üstünlüğe karşı koyamayacaklarına ve ABD’nin hegemonyasında tek kutuplu sistemin kurulacağına vurgu yapıyordu. Ancak zamanla sistemin yapısına ilişkin görüşler, tek kutupluluktan çok kutupluluğa doğru evrildi. Çünkü 2003 Irak operasyonu, ABD’nin askeri ve ekonomik gücünü zayıflattı. Ayrıca büyük devlet olarak adlandırılan Rusya, Çin ve Avrupa Birliği de, yapısal gerçekçilik yaklaşımının benimsediği büyük devlet olma vasıflarının tamamını – ki bunlar, askeri, ekonomik ve siyasi güce sahip olma, müttefiklerine sözünü geçirebilme ve küresel temelde politikalar gütme – taşımamaktadır. ABD, yine de tek kutuplu bir sistemi savunurken; Rusya, AB ve Çin, çok kutuplu bir yapının kurulmasını arzulamaktadır. Sonuçta çok bölgesel merkezli, çok kutuplu bir sistemin kurulması ve bu yapının da gevşek ilişkiler üzerine oturması yüksek ihtimaldir. 

Keywords

• ABD, Uluslararası Sistem, Rusya, Çin, Çok Kutupluluk. 

References

1. ‘Remaking America’, Commonweal, 13 Şubat 2009.
2. “Barack Obama’s ambitious budget is unveiled”, Economist, 26 Şubat 2009.
3. “Hillary Clinton tours Asia. What sort of secretary of state will she prove to be?”, Eco- nomist, 17 Şubat 2009.
4. “Hillary says hello to Asia”, Economist, 21 Şubat 2009; “America needs to show more patience – and more delicacy – on both sides of the Afghan – Pakistani bor- der”, Economist, 19 Şubat 2009.
5. ABD Ulusal İstihbarat Konseyi, “Mapping the Global Justice”, NIC 2004 – 3, Aralık 2004, , www.cia.gov/nic, s. 47 – 64.
6. ABD Ulusal İstihbarat Konseyi, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, ABD, Kasım 2008, s. 28 – 37, 80 – 99.
7. JAFFE Amy Myers ve diğerleri, “Russia Back to the Future?”, Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Haziran 2006.
8. POSEN Barry R., “ESDP and the Structure of World Power”, The International Spectator, Sayı 1, 2004, s. 8.

9. GILL, Bates “Contrasting Visions: United States, China and World Order”, Remarks pre- sented before the US-China Security Review Commission Session on US-China Relationship and Strategic Perceptions, 3 Ağustos 2001, s. 10 – 18.
10. RUSSETT Bruce ve diğerleri, World Politics: The Menu for Choice, Boston, St. Martin’s, 1992, s. 68 – 70; 72 – 78.
11. Christopher Layne, “The Unipolar Illusion Revisited, The Coming End of the United Sta- tes’ Unipolar Moment”, International Security, Cilt 31, Sayı 2, Kış 2006, s.7 – 41.
12. LEGGEWIE Claus, “The Worried Friend or Hegemony vs. Globalization”, Working Paper PRI-2, 8 Kasım 2002, www.berkeley.edu/pubs/workingpapers/PRI-2-W.
13. GOMPERT David, “Right Makes Might: Freedom and Power in the Information Age”, McNair Paper 59, Mayıs 1998, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair.html.
14. LAMPTON David M., “What Growing Chinese Power Means for America”, testimony pre- pared for US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, hearing on “The Emergence of China Throughout Asia: Security and economic Consequences for the US”, The East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, 7 Haziran 2005, s. 2 – 3.
15. WILKINSON David, “Unipolarity without hegemony”, International Studies Review, Cilt 1, Sayı 2, 1999, s. 141.
16. KRAHMANN Elke, “American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of International Security”, International Studies Review, Sayı 7, 2005.
17. German Development Institute, “Unstable Multipolarity? China’s and India’s Challen- ges for Global Governance”, briefing paper, 1/2006, s. 2 – 3.
18. BINNENDIJK Hans, “Back to Bipolarity”, The Washington Quarterly, Cilt 22, Sayı 4, Güz 1999, s. 7 – 14.
19. BULL Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, Londra, Macmillan, 1995.
20. http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/ (Erişim Tarihi: 20 Mart 2009).
21. IKENBERRY John G., “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Po- litics in the Age of Unipolarity”, National Intelligence Council, 28 Temmuz 2003, www.dni.gov/nic/confreports_strareact.html (Erişim Tarihi: 25.04.2007).
22. ROURKE John – Mark A. Boyer, International Politics on the World Stage, Guilford, Brown ve Banchmark Yayıncılık, 2004, s. 60 – 66.
23. ADAMS Karen Ruth, “New Great Powers: Who Will They Be, and How Will They Rise?”, Uluslararası Çalışmalar Derneği’nin 2005 yılında gerçekleştirdiği yıllık toplan- tısında sunulan bildiri, ABD, Hawai, 2 – 5 Mart 2005.
24. VIOTTI Paul R. ve KAUPPI Mark V., International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism and Globalism, ABD, Allyn & Bacon, 1993, s. 228 – 449.
25. NESS Peter Van, “Hegemony, not anarchy: why China and Japan are not balancing US unipolar power”, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Cilt 2, 2002, s. 133 – 134.
26. PINR, “China’s Geostrategy: Playing a Waiting Game”, 7 January 2005, www.pinr.com/re- port.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=253&language_id=1, (25 Nisan 2007).
27. PINR, “Testing the Currents of Multipolarity”, 15 Aralık 2004, http://www.pinr.com/re- port.php?ac=view_report&report_id=246&language_id=1.
28. DELLIOS Rosita, “The Rise of China as a Global Power”, The Culture Mandala, Cilt 6, Sayı 2, www.international_relations.com/CM6-2WB/GlobalChinaWB.htm (24.04.2007).
29. RYNNING Sten, “NATO’s Enduring Challenge: Matching American Primacy and Euro- pean Ambitions”, UNISCI Discussion Papers, Sayı 9, Ekim 2005, www.ucm.es/info/ unisci/UNISCI9Rynning.pdf
30. VOLGY Thomas J. – Alison Bailin, International Politics and State Strength, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 2003.
31. JONES Walter S., The Logic of International Relations, New York, Longman, 1997, s. 5.
32. WOOHLFORTWilliam C. h, “The Stability of Unipolar World”, International Security, Cilt 24, Sayı 1, 1999, s. 5 – 41.
33. OVERHOLT William H., “China and Globalization”, CT 244, Testimony presented to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 19 Mayıs 2005, s. 2.
34. XINBO Wu, “The Promise and Limitations of a Sino – US Partnership”, The Washington Quarterly, Güz 2004, s. 115 – 126.
35. QUANSHENG Zhao, “Changing Regional Economic and Security Framework in East Asia”, Korea Review of International Studies, www.koreagsis.ac.kr/research/journal/ vol7/7-06-Qunsheng%20Zhao.pdf,s.81.