Saldırgan Realizm Kuramı Bağlamında Amerikan Hegemonyasının Ardından Almanya’nın Stratejik Daralması

Year 2024, Issue: War and International System, 91 - 107, 30.12.2024

Tolga Öztürk

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Soğuk Savaş’ın ardından küresel uluslararası sistemin geleceğinin tartışılmaya başlandığı yıllardan günümüze kadar olan süreçte, Avrupa kıtasının uluslararası sistem içindeki yerini Almanya özelinde incelemektedir. 1990 sonrası, uluslararası sistemin, ABD’nin tek başına hegemon olarak mı kalacağı yoksa çok kutuplu bir dünyaya doğru mu evrileceği yaklaşık 30 senedir tartışılmaktadır. Avrupa kıtası özelinde ise Almanya Soğuk Savaş sonrası birleşmesinin akabinde yeni ve bilhassa ekonomik olarak parlak bir döneme giriş yapmıştır. Söz konusu dönem Uluslararası kuruluşların ve “yumuşak güç” kavramının ön plana çıktığı dönemler olarak tarihte yer edinmiştir. Makalenin araştırma sorusu ise; Almanya’nın ön plana çıktığı, Avrupa’nın demokrasi ve uluslararası iş birliği kavramlarının ABD hegemonyası ile ilintili olup olmadığı, eğer ilintili ise bunun hangi faktörlerle açıklanabileceğidir. Günümüzde uluslararası iş birliği ve uluslararası kurumların işlevselliği değil, çok kutuplu dünya ve potansiyel çatışma alanlarının fazlaca gündemde olmasından hareketle, Almanya’nın Küresel güçler karşısında yaşadığı sıkışmışlığın sistemsel nedenleri, söz konusu sıkışmışlıktan kurtulmasının seçenekleri John Mearsheimer’ın saldırgan realizm kuramından faydalanarak ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

Uluslararası Sistem, İstikrarsızlık, Almanya, Hegemonya, Avrupa

Germany’s Strategic Contraction Following American Hegemony in the Context of Offensive Realism Theory

Abstract

This study examines the position of the European continent within the international system, focusing specifically on Germany, from the years when the future of the global international system began to be debated following the Cold War up to the present day. Since the 1990s, there has been ongoing debate regarding whether the international system will remain dominated solely by the United States (U.S.) as a hegemon or evolve towards a multipolar world. Following the reunification of Germany after the Cold War, Europe and particularly Germany entered a new and notably economically prosperous period. This period has been characterized by the prominence of international organizations and the concept of “soft power”. The article’s research question is whether Germany’s prominence and the concepts of democracy and international cooperation in Europe are related to U.S. hegemony, and if so, which factors can explain this. Considering the current emphasis on the multipolar world and the prevalence of potential conflict areas rather than the functionality of international cooperation and institutions, the article aims to elucidate the systemic reasons for Germany’s constrictions vis-à-vis global powers and the options for alleviating this constriction by utilizing Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism.

Keywords

International System, Instability, Germany, Hegemony, Europe

References

• ALBERT Michel (1992). “The Rhine Model of Capitalism: An Investigation”, European Business Journal, 4:3, 8-22.
• ART Robert J. (2010). “The United States and the Rise of China: Implications for the Long Haul”, Political Science Quarterly, 125:3, 359–391.
• BADREDINE Arfi (1998). “State Collapse in a New Theoretical Framework: The Case of Yugoslavia”, International Journal of Sociology, 28:3, 15-42.
• BANISALAMAH Mohammad A. and AL- HAMADI Mariam I., (2023). “The New Turkey: The Spread of Turkish Military Bases Abroad, Role and Indications 2002-2020”, Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences, 50:2, 553-568.
• BARANOWSKI Shelley (2016). “Legacies of Lebensraum: German Identity and Multi-Ethnicity”, Manuel Borutta & Jan C. Jansen (eds.), Vertriebene and Pieds-Noirs in Postwar Germany and France: Comparative Perspectives, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 35-52.
• BAUN Michael J. (1995). “The Maastricht Treaty as High Politics: Germany, France, and European Integration”, Political Science Quarterly, 110:4, 605-624.
• BULMER, Simon and PATERSON, William E. (2013). “Germany as the EU’s Reluctant Hegemon? Of Economic Strength and Political Constraints”, Journal of European Public Policy, 20:10, 1387-1405.
• CISNEROS Ignacio Ramirez (2018). “German Economic Dominance within the Eurozone and Minsky’s Proposal for a Shared Burden Between the Hegemon and Core Economic Powers.”, Levy Economics Institute, Working Papers Series, 913,1-23.
• CRAMER Kevin (2007). The Thirty Years’ War and German Memory in the Nineteenth Century, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
• COX Robert W. (1983). “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method”, Millennium, 12:2, 162-175. FUKUYAMA Francis (1989). “The End of History?”, The National Interest, 16, 3-18.
• GENS, Bjorn (2019). “Germany’s Russia Policy and Geo-Economics: Nord Stream 2, Sanctions and the Question of EU Leadership Towards Russia”, Global Affairs, 5:4-5, 315-334.
• GULDESCU, Stanko (2014). The Croatian-Slavonian Kingdom: 1526–1792, Mouton & Co Printers, The Hague.
• JACKSON Richard (2006). “Religion, Politics and Terrorism: A Critical Analysis of Narratives of “Islamic Terrorism”, Centre for International Politics Working Paper Series, 21, 1-22.
• KAARBO Juliet OPPERMANN Kai and BEASLEY Ryan K. (2023). “What if? Counterfactual Trump and the Western Response to the War in Ukraine”, International Affairs, 99:2, 605-624.
• KENNEDY Andrew B. and DARREN J. Lim (2018). “The Innovation Imperative: Technology and U.S.–China Rivalry in the Twenty-first Century”, International Affairs, 94:3, 553-572.
• KLJAIĆ Stipe (2023). “Theories of Central European Integration in Croatian Politics and Culture (1848–1971)”, Great Theorists of Central European Integration, Legal Studies on Central Europe, CEA Publishing, Miskolc, Budapest, pp. 175-198.
• KLINKE Ian (2018). “Geopolitics And the Political Right: Lessons from Germany”, International Affairs, 94:3, 495-514.
• KRAUTHAMMER Charles (1990). “The German Revival”, New Republic, 202:13, 18-21.
• KRUGMAN Paul COOPER Richard N. and SRINIVASAN T. N. (1995). “Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1995:1, 327-377.
• KUGIEL Patryk (2017). “End of European Soft Foreign Policy”, The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 26:1, 59-72.
• LAYNE, Christopher (2013). “US Hegemony and the Perpetuation of NATO”, Ted Galen Carpenter (ed.), NATO Enters the 21st Century, Routledge, London, 59-91.
• LORENZİNİ Sara (2009). “Globalising Ostpolitik: Ostpolitik Revisited” Cold War History, 9:2, 223-242.
• LUTTWAK Edward (2013). The Endangered American Dream: How to Stop the United States from Becoming a Third World Country and How to Win the Geo-Economic Struggle for Industrial Supremacy, Touchstone Books, New York.
• MATSABERIDZE David (2015). “Russia vs. EU/US through Georgia and Ukraine”, Connections, 14:2, 77-86.
• MEARSHEIMER John (2021). “The Inevitable Rivalry: America, China, and the Tragedy of Great-Power Politics”, Foreign Affairs, 100, 48-58.
• MEARSHEIMER John J. (1990). “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War”, International Security, 15:1, 5-58.
• MILLER Steven E. and SAGAN Scott D. (2009). “Nuclear Power Without Nuclear Proliferation?”, Daedalus, 138:4, 7–18.
• MOROZOVA Natalia (2009). “Geopolitics, Eurasianism and Russian Foreign Policy under Putin”, Geopolitics, 14:4, 667-686.
• OJANEN Hanna (2010). “EU–NATO relations after the Cold War”, Jussi Hanhimäki, Georges-Henri Soutou & Basil Germond (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Transatlantic Security, Routledge, London, 180-193.
• OLIVER Tim (2016). “A European Union without the United Kingdom: The Geopolitics of a British Exit from the EU”, Strategic Update LSE, 16:1, 1-19.
• RAMET Sabrina P. (2007). “The dissolution of Yugoslavia: Competing Narratives of Resentment and Blame”, Comparative Southeast European Studies, 55:1, 26-69.
• SCHWELLER Randall (2018). “Opposite but Compatible Nationalisms: A Neoclassical Realist Approach to the Future of US–China Relations”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11:1, 23-48.
• SANDLER Willeke (2012). “‘Here Too Lies Our Lebensraum’: Colonial Space as German Space”, Claus-Christian W. Szejnmann & Maiken Umbach (eds.), Heimat, Region, and Empire: Spatial Identities under National Socialism, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 148-165.
• SELLAR Christian and BATTISTI Gianfranco (2023). “A Century of Struggles. A Comparison of Multiple Geopolitical Agendas in Europe, the USA, and Beyond.”, Geopolitical Perspectives from the Italian Border, Springer International Publishing, 103-119.
• SHENG Edmund L. (2023). “China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Triangle Great Game of Contemporary International Politics”, Edmund Li Sheng (ed.), The Reconstruction of the US–EU Alliance in Joe Biden’s Administration: The G7 and NATO as Instruments to Contain China and Russia, Springer Nature Singapore, 79-109.
• TARAPORE Arzan (2019). “The US Response to the Belt and Road Initiative: Answering New Threats with New Partnerships”, Asia Policy, 14:2, 34-41.
• TERRILL Damon A. (2019). “Power and Politics: The New German Question”, Gale Maltox, Geoffrey Oliver & Jonathan Tucker (eds.), Germany in Transition, Routledge, London, 2019. 23-38.
• WALLERSTEIN Immanuel (2002). “Revolts Against the System”, New Left Review, 18, 29-30.
• WALLERSTEIN Immanuel (2009). “Entering Global Anarchy”, Samir Dasgupta & Jan Nederveen Pieterse (eds.), Politics of Globalization, Sage Publications, New Delhi,147-154.
• WALLERSTEIN Immanuel (2021). Friends as Foes. The Political Economy: Readings in the Politics and Economics of American Public Policy, Routledge, Oxford, 2021.
• WALTZ Kenneth N. (1967). “International Structure, National Force, and the Balance of World Power”, Journal of International Affairs, 21:2, 215-231.
• AMERICAN-GERMAN INSTITUTE. https://americangerman.institute/2021/09/aicgs-asks-what-is-angelamerkels- foreign-policy-legacy/, accessed 26.09.2024.
• BRITISH GOVERNMENT. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975077/Global_Britain_in_a_Competitive_Age_the_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf, accessed 16.05.2024.
• BROOKINGS INSTITUTE. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/europes-messy-russian-gas-divorce/, accessed 26.09.2024.
• CONVERSI Daniele (1998). “German-Bashing and the Breakup of Yugoslavia.”, The Donald W. Treadgold Papers the University of Washington, 16, 7-58. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/35336/Treadgold_No16_1998.pdf?sequence=1, accessed 20.05.2024.
• EUROPEAN UNION. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31997Y0802%2801%29&qid=1728299709948, accessed 07.10.2024
• EXADAKTYLOS Theofanis (2010). “The EU Enlargement to the East: Europeanizing German Foreign Policy.”, ECPR 5th Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, 23-26 June 2010, https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/83225359/138-libre.pdf?1649121896=&response-contentdisposition=inline%3B+filename%3DEuropeanizing_German_Foreign_Policy.pdf&Expires=1716808401&Signature=c3qOrfhOMbr~F~uNMoL360f~l1BAfiyT2IRGSZhdlDtqdnriNqv6rMSkDHTjjpG~vVpa7fRRRv1HgJeuURBMtFBH1CyfVYv5aQywFu-9NSd6pUtZyNEnJjMTJc8IrOwrufHsagupbyePKVCUhjJr4W6dIfUltBqStev5NlBQMHcjlY8GMi0yZXH5WtoZx-AbiH6xZUATEuW--~vmz4AXuoEyFzI0qzUPuMU7rkz~tBw2uin194AWCvhMH3gzQ9KCpUeWHWom8Kgp11uyZDX5 WO6kE0jWyf187J605oNreZ1AVzI3~~WFcDl27IWOOGnzqNIGQCaitD7R3Df5ajJNig__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA , accessed 20.05.2024.
• RODMAN Peter W. (1995). “NATO’s Role in a New European Security Order” Academic Forum Conferences, October 1995, https://www.nato.int/acad/conf/future95/rodman.htm, accessed 06.05.2024.
• SELIGER Marco (2019). “The U.S. Military in Germany”, deutschland.de. https://www.deutschland.de/en/ usa/the-importance-of-american-troops-in-germany, accessed 04.05.2024.
• WORLDBANK. https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/CHN, accessed 15.05.2024.