BM Kolektif Güvenlik Sisteminin Etkinliği Sorunu: Realist Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Birleşmiş Milletler kolektif güvenlik sistemi Soğuk Savaş dönemi ve sonrasında birçok uluslararası güvenlik krizi karşısında etkisiz bir konumda kalmıştır. Bunun en önemli nedeni, BM Güvenlik Konseyi (BMGK) daimi üyelerinin kendilerini ilgilendiren sorunlarda veto kartına başvurarak sistemi kilitlemesi olarak görülmektedir. Sistemi etkin kılabilmek için ortaya atılan reform önerileri, BMGK’nın yapısı ve karar alma sistemi üzerine düzenlemeler içermektedir. Buna karşın realizm, uluslararası örgütlerin barış ve güvenliğin korunmasında rol oynayabilen özerk bir aktör olarak ele alınmasına karşı çıkmaktadır. Uluslararası örgütler en güçlü devletler tarafından biçimlendirilmekte ve kendi çıkarları çerçevesinde kullanılmaktadır. Bu bakımdan örgütler sadece sistemdeki güç dengesinin bir yansımasıdır. Savaş ve barışın ardındaki en önemli faktör güç dengesidir. Bu çalışma BM kolektif güvenlik sisteminin etkinliği sorununu realist bir perspektiften incelemektedir. Çalışmanın ana iddiasına göre, uluslararası krizlere askeri müdahale kararını etkileyen temel faktörler ulusal çıkarlar ve bölgesel güç dengeleridir. BMGK onayı, müdahaleye uluslararası destek ve meşruiyet sağlaması açısından yalnızca karar almayı kolaylaştırıcı bir rol oynamaktadır. Uluslararası krizlere müdahale edilmesi yolunda yukarıdaki faktörlerin nasıl işlediğini ortaya koyabilmek için, Soğuk Savaş sonrası yaşanan önemli örnek olaylar incelenmektedir. Bunlar; I. Körfez Savaşı, Kosova krizi ve Suriye iç savaşıdır. Suriye’de yaşanan kriz, benzer bir biçimde ortaya çıkan ancak BMGK kararıyla müdahale edilen Libya kriziyle karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BM Güvenlik Konseyi
• Güç dengesi
• Körfez krizi
• Kosova
• Libya
• Suriye

The Efficiency Problem of the UN Collective Security System: A Realist Review

Öz

The United Nations collective security system has been inefficient vis-à-vis many international security crises during and after the Cold War. The conventional wisdom suggests that this is mainly because the permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have often applied to the veto with regard to problems concerning their interests. Therefore reform suggestions for the system focus on the UNSC’s structure and decision-making process. However, realism does not agree that international organizations are autonomous actors that could preserve peace and security. International organizations are shaped by the most powerful nations who utilize them to pursue their interests. International organizations are just a reflection of the distribution of power which is the main factor leading to war and peace. This paper examines the efficiency problem of the UN collective security system from a realist perspective. It argues that national interests and regional balance of power are the main factors affecting decisions for military intervention in a given international crisis. The UNSC authorization plays a role only in facilitating such a decision as it provides international support and legitimacy for the intervention. In order to show how those factors function in practice, the paper turns to the significant cases from the post-Cold-War era: The First Gulf War, the Kosovo crisis, and the Syrian civil war. The Syria crisis is analyzed comparatively with the Libya crisis which emerged on the basis of similar causes but led to an intervention authorized by the UNSC.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• UN Security Council
• Balance of power
• Gulf crisis
• Kosovo
• Libya
• Syria

Kaynakça

1. Abdulghafour, G.I. (1992). United Nations’ Role in the Gulf Crisis. Lancers Books, New Delhi.
2. Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: Explaining Alignment with a Regime in Crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795-823.
3. Alterman, J. B. (2007). Iraq and the Gulf States: The Balance of Fear. United States Institute of Peace, Special Report no. 189.
4. Amiri, R. E., & Soltani, F. (2011). Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as Turning Point in Iran-Saudi Relationship. Journal of Politics and Law, 4(1), 188-194.
5. Archer, C. (2001). International Organizations (3rd Ed.). Routledge, London.
6. Aydın, M. (2004). Uluslararası İlişkilerin "Gerçekçi" Teorisi: Kökeni, Kapsamı, Kritiği. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1(1), 33-60.
7. Baranovsky, V. (2000). Russia: Reassessing National Interest. A. Schnaber & R. Thakur (Ed.), Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship, United Nations University Press, New York, 101-116.
8. Barry, B. (2011). Libya's Lessons. Survival, 53(5), 5-14.

9. Bekaj, A. (2010). The KLA and the Kosovo war: From Intra-State Conflict to Independent Country. Berghof Transitions Series, No. 8.
10. Bellin E. & Krause P. (2012). Intervention in Syria: Reconciling Moral Premises and Realistic Outcomes. Middle East Brief, Crown Centre for Middle East Studies, No. 64.
11. Bennett, A. L., & Oliver, J., K. (2002). International Organizations: Principles and Issues. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
12. Brands, H. (2004). George Bush and the Gulf War of 1991. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(1), 113-131.
13. Burchill, S. (2005). The National Interest in International Relations Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
14. Charap, S. (2013). Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention. Survival, 55(1), 35-41.
15. Chaziza, M. (2014). Soft Balancing Strategy in the Middle East: Chinese and Russian Vetoes in the United Nations Security Council in the Syria Crisis. China Report, 50(3), 243-258.
16. David, S. R. (1991). Explaining Third World Alignment. World Politics, 43(2), 233-256.
17. Demir, İ. (2017). Overconfidence and Risk Taking in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Case of Turkey’s Syria Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
18. Deniz T. (2013). Suriye’nin Durumu, ABD-Rusya ve Türkiye’nin Tutumu. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 27, 314-332.
19. Eralp A. (2004). Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininin Oluşumu: İdealizm-Realizm Tartışması. A. Eralp (Ed.), Devlet, Sistem ve Kimlik: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Yaklaşımlar, İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 57-88.
20. Ergun, D. (2018). External actors and VNSAs: An analysis of the United States, Russia, ISIS, and PYD/YPG. Ö. Z. Oktav, E. P. Dal, & A. M. Kurşun (Ed.), Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War, Springer, Cham, 149-172.
21. Esad’a Koltuğunu Bırak Çağrısı. (2011). Deutsche Welle, 19 Ağustos, https://www.dw.com/tr/esada-koltu%C4%9Funu-b%C4%B1rak-%C3%A7a%C4%9Fr%C4%B1s%C4%B1/a-15327021 (Son erişim: 02.12.2020).
22. France Says Ready to Act over Syria, Despite British Refusal. (2013). Reuters, August 30, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-job-syria-crisis-france-idUSBRE97T0DF20130830 (Son erişim: 02.12.2020).
23. Goodarzi, J. M. (2013). Syria and Iran: Alliance Cooperation in a Changing Regional Environment. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 4(2), 31-54.
24. Hehir, A. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
25. Hokayem, E. (2014). Iran, the Gulf States and the Syrian Civil War. Survival, 56(6), 59-86.
26. Holsti, K. J. (1991). Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989. Cambridge University Press, New York.
27. Hopf, T. (2005). Identity, Legitimacy, and the Use of Military Force: Russia’s Great Power Identities and Military Intervention in Abkhazia. Review of International Studies, 31, 225-243.
28. Howorth, J. (2013). Humanitarian Intervention and Post-Conflict Reconstruction in the Post-Cold War Era: A Provisional Balance-Sheet. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(2), 288-309.
29. Ikenberry, G. J. (2000). The Costs of Victory: American Power and the Use of Force in the Contemporary Order. A. Schnaber & R. Thakur (Ed.), Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship, United Nations University Press, New York, 85-100.
30. IISS (2012). Syria: Foreign Intervention Still Debated, but Distant. Strategic Comments, 18(6), 1-5.
31. Judah, T. (2009). Kosovo: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, New York.
32. Kaczmarski, M. (2011). Russia on the Military Intervention in Libya. OSW Analyses, March 23, https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2011-03-23/russia-military-intervention-libya (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
33. Keskin, F. (2006). İnsancıl Müdahale: 1999 Kosova ve 2003 Irak Sonrası Durum. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 3(12), 49-70.
34. Kostakos, G. (2000). The Southern Flank: Italy, Greece and Turkey. A. Schnaber & R. Thakur (Ed.), Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship, United Nations University Press, New York, 166-180.
35. Kuperman, A. J. (2013). NATO’s Intervention in Libya: A Humanitarian Success? A. Hehir & R. Murray (Ed.), Libya, the Responsibility to Protect and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 191-221.
36. Kutlu, İ. (2018). Birleşmiş Milletler Güvenlik Konseyi’nde Reform Tartışmaları. Bilge Strateji, 10(19), 177-200.
37. Lynch D. (2000). Russian Peacekeeping Strategies in the CIS: The Cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan. Macmillan Press Ltd, London.
38. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
39. Missiles over Damascus. (2018). Economist, April 14, https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/14/america-britain-and-france-strike-syria (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
40. Morgenthau, H. J. (1960). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
41. Obama's Syria Plan Faces Skeptical Public. (2013). Wall Street Journal, September 1, https://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-syria-plan-faces-skeptical-public-1378062310 (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
42. Partnership for Peace Programme. (2020). NATO, March 23, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50349.htm (Son erişim: 02.12.2020).
43. Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft Balancing in the Age of US Primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46-71.
44. Polk W. R. (2005). Irak’ı Anlamak. NTV Yayınları, İstanbul.
45. Reus-Smit, C. (2014). International Law. J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Ed.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (6th Ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 274-288.
46. Richardson, L. (2000). A Force of Good in the World? Britain’s Role in the Kosovo Crisis. P. Martin & M. R. Brawley (Ed.), Alliance Politics, Kosovo, and NATO’s War: Allied Force or Forced Allies? Palgrave, New York, 145-164.
47. Sagramaso, D. (2008). Russian Peacekeeping Policies. J. Mackinlay & P. Cross (Ed.), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press, New York, 13-33.
48. Sander O. (2005). Siyasi Tarih: 1918-1994 (13. Baskı). İmge Kitabevi, İstanbul.
49. Schwab O. (2009). The Gulf Wars and the United States: Shaping the Twenty-First Century. Praeger Security International, London.
50. The US Warned the Russians ahead of Syria Missile Strikes. (2017). CNBC, April 7, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/the-us-warned-the-russians-ahead-of-syria-missile-strikes-official.html (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
51. Trenin D. (2013). The Mythical Alliance Russia’s Syria Policy. Carnegie Moscow Center, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/mythical_alliance.pdf (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
52. Tudoroiu, T. (2015). The Reciprocal Constitutive Features of a Middle Eastern Partnership: The Russian–Syrian Bilateral Relations. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 6(2), 143-152.
53. U.S., Russia Reach Agreement on Syrian Flights. (2015). Wall Street Journal, October 20, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-russia-reach-agreement-on-syrian-flights-1445371698 (Son erişim: 03.12.2020).
54. Walt, S. M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Cornell University Press, New York.
55. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.
56. Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5-41.
57. World Report 2019, Syria: Events of 2018. (2019). Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/syria (Son erişim: 02.12.2020).
58. Wouters, J., & Ruys, T. (2005). Security Council Reform: A New Veto for a New Century. Egmond Paper, No 9.
59. Yalçınkaya, H. (2008). Savaş: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güç Kullanımı. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
60. Zhang, Y. (2000). China: Whither the World Order after Kosovo. A. Schnaber & R. Thakur (Ed.), Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, and International Citizenship, United Nations University Press, New York, 117-127.