Soğuk Savaş'ın Barışçıl Olarak Sona Ermesi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri

Öz

Bu makale, Soğuk Savaş’ın sonunun Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri tarafından neden öngörülmediğini incelemektedir. Soğuk Savaş’ın sonu Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri açısından iki açıdan beklenmeyendi. Birincisi çift kutuplu yapının sürdürülmesi beklenirken bu yapının dönüşmesi ve ikincisi de bu dönüşümün barışçıl olmasıydı. Uluslararası İlişkiler teorilerinin Soğuk Savaş’ın sonunu öngörememesinin bu alanda Realizm ve özellikle Neo-realizmin hakimiyetiyle ilgili olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Bu nedenle özellikle Neo-realizmin temel varsayımları ve Soğuk Savaş’a bakışı değerlendirilmiştir. Dönüşümün barışçıl olmasının ise Neo-realizmin savaş ile ilgili varsayımlarıyla ve genel mantığıyla bağdaşmadığı fikri savunulacaktır. Bunun yanında Neo-realizmin hakimiyetinin benimsediği pozitivist bilim felsefesiyle ve özellikle ABD’nin dünya politikasındaki konumuyla yakından ilişkili olduğu ve bu nedenle düzenin devamlılığını, yani “uzun barış”ı açıklamaya odaklanırken değişim olanaklarının görmezlikten gelinmesine neden olduğu da ayrıca gösterilmeye çalışılacaktır. Son olarak Soğuk Savaş’ı sona erdiren süreçle ilgili ortaya atılan farklı görüşler tartışılarak, bu sonun Neo-realizmin bakmayı reddettiği etkenlerden kaynaklandığı gösterilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Soğuk Savaş’ın sonu
• uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri
• ABD
• realizm/neo-realizm
• savaş

The Peaceful Ending of the Cold War and International Relations Theories

Öz

This article focuses on the failure of International Relations theories to anticipate the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War regarding International Relations theories was unexpected in two ways. The bipolar structure was resolved and transformed while it was thought to endure and secondly this trasformation come out to be peaceful. It is argued that the failure to anticipate the end of the Cold War by theories of International Relations is primarily related to the dominance of Realism and especially neorealism on this subject. Thus, this paper is focused especially on the central assumptions of neo-realism and its view of the Cold War. The peaceful end is argued to be inconsistent with assumptions of neo-realism about war as well as its general logic. Besides, it will be shown that the dominance of neo-realism is closely related to its commitment to positivism and especially the US position in world politics, thus the focus given to explain the endurance of the order or the “long peace” caused to overlook the possibilities for change. Finally after discussing different views about the process of ending the Cold War, it will be shown that this end was caused by factors necglected by Neo-realism.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The End of the Cold War
• international relations theories
• USA
• realism/neo-realism
• war

Kaynakça

1. Ashley, Richard (1984), “The Poverty of Neorealism”, International Organization, 38 (2): 225-286.
2. Aydın, Mustafa (2004), “Uluslararası İlişkilerin “Gerçekçi” Teorisi: Kökeni, Kapsamı, Kritiği”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1 (1): 33-60.
3. Brooks, Stephen G. ve William C. Wohlforth (2000/01), “Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War”, International Security, 25 (3): 5-53.
4. Brown, Chris (2000), “Turtles All The Way Down”: Anti-foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations”, Andrew Linklater (der.), Critical Concepts in International Relations Vol. IV (New York: Routledge): 1655-1678.
5. Booth, Ken (2005), “Two Terrors One Problem”, Ersel Aydinli ve James N. Rosenau (der.), Globalisation, Security, and the Nation-State: Paradigms in Transition (Albany: State University of New York Press): 27-48.
6. Burchill, S. (1995) “Realism and Neo-realism,” S.Burchill ve A.Linklater (der.) Theories of International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
7. Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones ve Richard Little (1993), The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, (New York: Columbia University Press).
8. Buzan, Barry ve Lene Hansen (2009), The Evolution of International Security (New York: Cambridge University Press).

9. Carr, E. H. (1981), The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan Press).
10. Cox, Robert (1981), “Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Millennium, 10 (2): 126-155.
11. Cox, Robert W. (1986), “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”, Robert O. Keohane (der.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press): 204-254.
12. Creswell, Michael ve Marc Trachtenberg (2003), “France and the German Question, 1945–1955”, Journal of Cold War Studies, 5 (3): 5-28.
13. Crockatt, Richard (2001), “The End of the Cold War”, John Baylis ve Steve Smith (der.), The Globalization Of World Politics, An Introduction to International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press): 92-110.
14. Donnelly, Jack (2004), Realism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
15. Donnelly, Jack (2005), “Realism”, Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit ve Jacqui True, Theories of International Relations (New York: Palgrave): 29-54.
16. Dunne, Tim ve Brian C. Schmidt (2001), “Realism”, John Baylis ve Steve Smith (der.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press): 141-161.
17. Engerman, David C. (2010), “Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917–1962”, Melvyn P. Leffler ve Odd Arne Westad (der.), The Cambridge History of the Cold War vol. 1: Origins, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 20-43.
18. Eralp, Atila (2010), “Hegemonya”, Atila Eralp, Fuat Keyman, Oktay Tanrıseven, Fatih Tayfur, Faruk Yalvaç, Devlet ve Ötesi: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar (İstanbul: İletişim): 155- 182.
19. Erhan, Çağrı, “Siyasi Tarih’in Kaynakları”, Gökhan Erdem (der.), Türkiye’de Siyasi Tarih’in Gelişimi ve Sorunları Sempozyumu (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2006): 103-112.
20. Gaddis, John Lewis (1986), "The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System," International Security, 10 (4): 99-142.
21. Gaddis, John Lewis (1997), “The Cold War, the Long Peace, and the Future”, Michael J. Hogan, The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 21-38.
22. Gaddis, John Lewis (1992-1993), “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”, International Security, 17 (3): 5-58.
23. Garthoff, Raymond L. (1998), “Who is to Blame for the Cold War?”, Ken Booth (der.), Statecraft and Security: The Cold War and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 56- 70.
24. Halliday, Fred (1986), The Making of the Second Cold War (London: Verso).
25. Halliday, Fred (1996), “The Future of International Relations: Fears and Hopes”, Steve Smith, Ken Booth ve Marysia Zalewski (der.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyonds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 318-327.
26. Herrmann, Richard K. ve Richard Ned Lebow (2004), “What Was the Cold War? When and Why Did it End?”, Richard K. Herrmann ve Richard Ned Lebow (der.), Ending the Cold War: Interpretations, Causation, and the Study of International Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan): 1-30.
27. Hogan, Michael J. (1985), “Marshall Planners and the Search for a European Neocapitalism”, The American Historical Review, 90 (1): 44-72.
28. Hoffmann, Stanley (1977), “An American Social Science: International Relations”, Daedalus, 106 (3): 41-60.
29. Hollis, Martin ve Steve Smith (1990), Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
30. Jackson, Robert (2005), Classical and Modern Thought on International Relations: From Anarchy to Cosmopolis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
31. Jackson, Robert ve Georg Sorensen (2007), International Relations: Theories and Approaches (New York: Oxford University Press).
32. Keohane, Robert (1988), “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, 32 (4): 379-396.
33. Lebow, Richard Ned ve Janice Gross Stein (1994), We All Lost the Cold War (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
34. Lebow, Richard Ned ve Thomas Risse-Kappen (1996), “Introduction: International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”, Richard Ned Lebow ve Thomas Risse-Kappen (der.), International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press): 1-22.
35. Mearsheimer, John J. (1990), “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War”, International Security, 15 (1): 5-56.
36. Mearsheimer, John (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton).
37. Morgenthau, Hans (1954), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
38. Reagan, Ronald (1982), “Address to Members of the British Parliament” June 8, http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/60882a.htm (29.05.2012).
39. Reus-Smit, Christian (1992), “Realist and Resistance Utopias: Community, Security and Political Action in the New Europe”, Millennium 21 (1): 1-28.
40. Saull, Richard (2007), The Cold War and After: Capitalism, Revolution and Superpower Politics (London: Pluto Press).
41. Saull, Richard (2008), “American Foreign Policy During the Cold War”, Michael Cox ve Doug Stokes (der.) içinde, US Foreign Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 63-87.
42. Schmidt, Brian C. (1998), The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: State University of New York Press).
43. Scott, Len (2001), “International History 1945-1990”, John Baylis ve Steve Smith (der.), The Globalization Of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press): 74-91.
44. Smith, Steve (1995), “The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory”, Ken Booth ve Steve Smith (der.), International Relations Theories Today (University Park: Pennsylvania State University): 1-37.
45. Smith, Steve (2000), “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?”, British Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 2 (3): 374-402.
46. Smith, Steve (2002), “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’”, International Studies Association, 4 (2): 67-85.
47. Smith, Steve (2007), “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory”, Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki ve Steve Smith (der.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (New York: Oxford University Press): 1-12.
48. Smith Steve ve Patricia Owens (2008), “Alternative Approaches to International Theory”, John Baylis, Steve Smith ve Patricia Owens (der.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press): 174-191.
49. Smith, Thomas W. (1999), History and International Relations (New York: Routledge).
50. Sorensen, Georg (2005), “State Transformation and New Security Dilemmas”, Ersel Aydınlı and James N. Rosenau (der.), Globalization, Security, and the Nation-State: Paradigms in Transition (Albany: State University of New York Press): 81-98.
51. Sorensen, Georg (2011), “‘Big and Important Things’ in IR: Structural Realism and the Neglect of Changes in Statehood”, Ken Booth (der.), Realism and World Politics (New York: Routledge): 107-123.
52. Vasquez, John A. (2004), The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
53. Viotti, Paul R. ve Mark V. Kauppi (2010), International Relations Theory (New York: Longman).
54. Yalvaç, Faruk (2010), “Devlet”, Atilla Eralp, Fuat Keyman, Oktay Tanrıseven, Fatih Tayfur, Faruk Yalvaç, Devlet ve Ötesi: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Kavramlar (İstanbul: İletişim): 15- 52.
55. Yalvaç, Faruk (2011), “Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramında Anarşi Söylemi”, Uluslararsı İlişkiler, 8 (29): 71-99.
56. Waever, Ole (1996), “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate”, Steve Smith, Ken Booth ve Marysia Zalewski (der.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 149-185.
57. Waever, Ole (1998), “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations,” International Organization 52 : 687–727.
58. Waltz, Kenneth (2001[1954]), Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press).
59. Waltz, Kenneth (1964), “The Stability of a Bipolar World”, Daedalus, 93 (3): 881-909.
60. Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison Wesley).
61. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1988), “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History,18 (4): 615-628.
62. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1993), “The Emerging Structure of International Politics”, International Security, 18 (2): 44-79.
63. Waltz, Kenneth (2000), “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security, 25 (1): 5-51.
64. Westad, Odd Arne (2010), “The Cold War and the International History of the Twentieth Century”, Melvyn P. Leffler ve Odd Arne Westad (der.), The Cambridge History of the Cold War vol. 1: Origins, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 1-19.
65. Wight, Martin (1966), “Why is There no International Theory?” Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (der.), Diplomatic Investigations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press): 17-34.
66. Wohlforth, William C. (1994-1995), “Realism and the End of the Cold War”, International Security, 19 (3): 91-129.
67. Wohlforth, William C. (2008), “Realism”, Christian Reus-Smit ve Duncan Snidal (der.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, (New York: Oxford University Press): 131-149.