DOĞU ASYA’DA WASHINGTON SİSTEMİNİN JAPON GİRİŞİMLERİYLE TESTİ VE CAYDIRICILIĞIN BAŞARISIZLIĞI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki savaş arası dönemde Doğu Asya’da ABD’nin liderliğinde Washington Sistemi’yle kurulan statükonun Japonya’nın girişimleriyle test edilmesi sürecini caydırıcılık perspektifinden değerlendirmektir. Caydırıcılık, kazanç/maliyet hesabına dayanmaktadır. Statükoya meydan okumanın maliyeti potansiyel kazanca göre daha fazla ise meydan okuma niyetinde olan devlet statükoyu tercih edecektir. Bu noktada caydırıcılığın başarıyla işlemesi ve statükonun sürdürülmesi için belirleyici olan iki temel kriter statükocu devletlerin sahip olduğu cezalandırma kapasitesinin inanılırlığı ve aktörlerin statükodan memnuniyetidir. 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren Doğu Asya bölgesel sisteminde meydana gelen güç asimetrisindeki değişim, Çin İmparatorluğu’nun düşüşü, Japonya’nın yükselişi ve bölge devletlerinin Batılı uluslararası ilişkiler sistemine girmesiyle sonuçlanmıştır. Ancak I. Dünya Savaşı sonrasında ABD’nin önderliğinde kurulan Washington Sistemi bölgede statükodan memnuniyetsiz bir Japonya ortaya çıkarmıştır. Sahip olduğu materyal yetenekler arttıkça Japonya, Washington Sistemi’ni sarsacak adımlar atmaya başlamıştır. ABD’nin iki savaş arası dönemde yeniden yalnızcılık politikası benimsemesi sebebiyle bu adımlara verdiği pasif yanıtlar, Japonya’nın gözünde ABD’yi misilleme yeteneğini sahip ama misilleme yapma niyeti olmayan bir statükocu devlet olarak konumlandırmıştır. Bu çalışma, ABD ve Japonya arasında savaşı başlatan Pearl Harbor saldırısına giden süreçte caydırıcılığın başarısızlığının temel nedenlerinin Japonya’nın statükodan memnuniyetsizliği ve Japonya’nın Amerikan inanılırlığına ilişkin sahip olduğu yanlış algı kalıpları olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak savaş, Japonya’nın gözünde kabul edilemez maliyetlerine rağmen daha kazançlı bir seçenek haline gelmiş ve caydırıcılık başarısız olmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Caydırıcılık
• Washington Sistemi
• Algı
• Statüko

THE TESTING OF WASHINGTON SYSTEM WITH JAPANESE INITIATIVES AND THE FAILURE OF DETERRENCE IN EAST ASIA

Öz

The study aims to assess the Japanese challenge to the status quo established with the “Washington System” during the interwar period under the American leadership from the perspective of deterrence. Deterrence is based on cost/benefit calculations. When the cost of challenging the status quo is greater than the potential benefit, the challenger prefers to maintain the status quo. At this point, satisfaction with the status-quo and credibility are two determining factors of deterrence success and sustainability of the status quo. The changes in power asymmetry in East Asian regional order since the second half of 19 th century caused the fall of the Chinese Empire, the rise of Japan, and the opening of the regional states to Western-style international relations. However, the Washington system established under the US leadership after World War I (WWI) created a dissatisfied Japan with the status-quo in the region. As its capabilities increased, Japan began to take challenging initiatives shaking the Washington System. Due to the isolationist policy of the US after the WWI, US’ responses toward Japanese aggression were minimal and shied away. Thus, it made the US in the eyes of Japan as a status-quo power having retaliatory capacity but not the intention. This study shows that the main reasons for the deterrence failure on the road to the Pearl Harbor attack were the dissatisfaction of Japan with the status-quo and Japan’s misperception of American credibility. As a result, the war became a more beneficial option in Japan’s eyes despite its unacceptable costs, and deterrence failed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Deterrence
• the Washington System
• Perception
• Status-Quo

Kaynakça

1. Best, A. (2010). The Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the “Open Door” and International Politics in Asia, 1902-1923. (Ed. A. Best). In The International History of East Asia, 1900–1968: Trade, Ideology and the Quest for Order (p. 21-35). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
2. Best, A.; Hanhimaki, J. M. and Schulze, K. E. (2012). 20. Yüzyılın Uluslararası Tarihi. (Translator: T. U. Belge). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
3. Blakeslee, G. H. (1933). The Japanese Monroe Doctrine. Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/1933-07-01/japanese-monroe-doctrine (Accessed: 04.03.2021).
4. Borg, D. (1964). The United States and the Far East Crisis of 1933–1938 From the Manchurian Incident through the Initial Stage of the Undeclared Sino-Japanese War. NY: Harvard University Press.
5. Boyle, J. H. (1993). Modern Japan the American Nexus. California: Harcourt College Pub.
6. Chang, D. W. (2003). The Western Powers and Japan’s Aggression in China: The League of Nations and ‘The Lytton Report’. American Journal of Chinese Studies, 10(1), 43-63.
7. Danilovic, V. (2001). Conceptual and Selection Bias Issues in Deterrence. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(1), 97-125.
8. Deuchler, M. (1977). Confucian Gentlemen and Barbarian Envoys: The Opening of Korea, 1875-1885. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

9. Dilion, M. (2016). Modernleşen Çin Tarihi. (Translator: E. Atılgan and A. Atılgan). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
10. Edwards, W. (1987). British Diplomacy and Finance in China 1895–1914. Oxford: Clarendon.
11. FRUS (1919). Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Conference Volume XIII. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch10subch1 (Accessed: 02.04.2021).
12. FRUS (1932). The Far East, Volume III. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1932v03/d10 (Accessed: 04.04.2021).
13. FRUS (1943). Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Japan, 1931–1941, Volume II. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931-41v02 (Accessed: 03.04.2021).
14. Holcombe, C. (2016). Doğu Asya Tarihi: Çin, Japonya, Kore Medeniyetin Köklerinden 21. Yüzyıla Kadar. (Translator: M. M. Özeren). İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları.
15. Hopper, H. M. (2005). Fukuzawa Yukiçi: Front Samurai to Capitalist. New York: Pearson Longman.
16. Hosoya, C. (1968). Miscalculations in Deterrent Policy: Japanese-U. S. Relations, 1938-1941. Journal of Peace Research, 5(2), 97-115.
17. Hosoya, C. (1982). Britain and the United States in Japan’s View of the International System, 1919-37. (Ed. I. Nish). In Anglo-Japanese Alienation, 1919–52 (p. 57-77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Hull, C. (1948). The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Vol. I. Montana/ABD: Kessinger Publishing.
19. Hunt, M. (1983). The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and China to 1914. New York: Columbia University Press.
20. Huth, P. K. (1988). Extended Deterrence and The Outbreak of War. The American Political Science Review, 82(2), 423-443.
21. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and The Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. NY: Princeton University Press.
22. Ishii, V. K. (1933). The Permanent Bases of Japanese Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/1933-01-01/permanent-bases-japanese-foreign-policy (Accessed: 31.08.2020).
23. Jervis, R. (1982-83). Deterrence and Perception. International Security, 7(3), 3-30.
24. Jun, T. (1980). The Navy’s Role in the Southern Strategy. (Ed. J. W. Morley). In The Fateful Choice: Japan's Advance into Southeast Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.
25. Kim, K. H. (1979). The Last Phase of The East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan and Chinese Empire 1860-1882. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26. Matsuura, M. (2010). Japan and Pan-Asianism. (Ed. A. Best). In The International History of East Asia 1900- 1968: Trade, Ideology and The Quest for Order (p. 81-99). New York: Routledge.
27. McLaren, W. W. (1979). Japanese Government Documents. Bethesda: University Publications of America.
28. Nish, I. (1966). The Anglo-Japanese Alliance: The Diplomacy of Two Island Empires, 1894–1907. London: Athlone.
29. Oka, Y. (1988). The First Anglo-Japanese Alliance in Japanese Public Opinion. (Ed. S. Henny and J. P. Lehmann). In Themes and Theories in Modern Japanese History (185-194). London: Athlone.
30. Otte, T.G. (1995). Great Britain, Germany, and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1897–8. English Historical Review, 110(439), 1157-1179.
31. Park, S. H. (2013). Changing Definitions of Sovereignty in Nineteenth-Century East Asia: Japan and Korea Between China and the West. Journal of East Asian Studies, 13(2), 281-307.
32. Peattie, M. R. (1975). Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s Confrontation With The West. NY: Princeton University Press.
33. Sagan, S. D. (1988). The Origins of the Pacific War. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 893-922.
34. Tanter, R. and Hayes, P. (2011). Beyond the Nuclear Umbrella: Re-Thinking the Theory and Practice of Nuclear Extended Deterrence in East Asia and Pacific. Pacific Focus, XXVI(1), 5-21.
35. Wasserstrom, J. N. (2010). 21. Yüzyılda Çin: Çin Hakkında Bilmek İstediğiniz Her Şey. (Translator: H. Güldü). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
36. Zagare, F. C. (2004). Reconciling Rationality with Deterrence: A Re-examination of the Logical Foundations of Deterrence Theory. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(2), 107-141.