KOSOVA KRİZİ VE NATO MÜDAHALESİNİN REALİZMİN (NEO-KLASİK REALİZM) TEMEL İLKELERİYLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Sosyalist Federal Yugoslavya Cumhuriyeti’nin (SFYC) çöküşü Slovenya ve Hırvatistan’da başladı, bu felaket Bosna Hersek’e sıçradı ve Kosova’nın son kalesine kadar ulaşmıştı. Eski Yugoslavya’daki en uzun ve en kritik savaşlardan biri Kosovalı Arnavutlar ile Sırplar arasındaki etnik gruplar arası çatışmaydı. Özellikle bu makalenin ele alacağı insani krizlerden en öne çıkanı 1998-1999 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Sırbistan hükümetinin Silahlı Kuvvetleri “savunmacı realizm” saflarında sınıflandırılabilir. Kosova Kurtuluş Ordusu (KKO), Arnavut sivil halkı Miloseviç rejiminden korumak için mücadele ederken, Sırbistan, ulusal güvenliğini de korumaya ve sağlamaya kararlıydı. Buna ek olarak, KKO’nun o dönemde devlet organları tarafından terörist bir örgüt olarak ilan edilmesi nedeniyle güvenlik ikilemi ilkesi de söz konusudur. Öte yandan, NATO’nun Kosova’ya müdahalesi, sadece insani değerlerin korunması için değil, aynı zamanda anarşik uluslararası siyasi sistem dünyasında jeopolitik ve hegemonik stratejilerini de hedeflemiştir. Yine de uluslararası ilişkiler teorisinde bu durum saldırgan realizmin bir yapısı olarak sınıflandırılabilir. Bu makale iki ana bölümden oluşmaktadır: Birinci bölüm, klasik realizmin Kosova’daki çatışmaya ilişkin pozisyonunu; hayatta kalma, kendi kendine yardım ve güvenlik ikilemi gibi temel ilkeleri kullanarak ve daha çok devlet aktörlerine ve iç politikaya odaklanan neoklasik realizmin pozisyonunu ve bu devlet değişkenlerinin dış politikaların inşasındaki etkisine yönelik yansımasını araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın ikinci bölümü, Realist okulun of NATO’nun Kosova’ya müdahalesine yönelik eleştirilerine odaklanmaktadır. Bu makalenin temel amacı, güç kullanımında münhasır tekelin devletlere ait olduğunu iddia eden realizmin pozisyonunu incelemektir. Buna ek olarak, bu çalışma realizmin içişlerine yönelik herhangi bir dış müdahaleye karşı kullandığı eleştirileri ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Oysa devletler, anarşik küresel sistemde kendi halklarına ve egemenliklerine karşı tekel konumunda olan başlıca aktörlerdir. Her türlü iç karışıklık ve dışarıdan müdahale şiddetle kınanmakta ve diğer egemen devletlerin iç işlerine karışmama ilkesini ihlal etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NATO
• Yugoslavya
• Kosova
• Miloseviç
• Sırbistan

An Evaluation of The Kosovo Crisis and NATO Intervention Using The Basic Principles of Realism (Neo-Classical Realism)

Abstract

The collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) began in Slovenia and Croatia, and this disaster was discharged into Bosnia and Herzegovina and ended up in the last bastion of Kosovo. One of the longest and most critical wars in the former Yugoslavia was the inter-ethnic conflict between Kosovo Albanians and Serbs. In particular, the most prominent humanitarian crisis that this paper will deal with concerns the period of 1998- 1999. The Armed Forces of the government of Serbia might be classified in the ranks of “defensive realism”. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was struggling to protect the Albanian civilian population from the Milosevic regime, while Serbia was committed to preserving and attaining national security. In addition, there the principle of security dilemma because the KLA was declared a terrorist organization by state organs at that time. On the other hand, NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, even though it was missioned to protect human values, additionally aimed at its geopolitical and hegemonic strategies in the world of the anarchic international political system. Yet, in the theory of international relations, this can be classified as a form of offensive realism. This article consists of two main parts: The first part aims to research the position of classical realism regarding the conflict in Kosovo using the main principles as they are; survival, self-help, and security dilemma, and the position of neoclassical realism, which focuses more on state agents and domestic policy and the reflection of these state variables toward the impact on the construction of foreign policies. The second part of this study focuses on criticisms of the realist school’s criticism of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. The main purpose of this article is to investigate the position of realism claiming that; the exclusive monopoly in the use of power belongs to states. In addition, this study aims to illuminate the criticisms that realism uses against foreign interference in domestic affairs. Yet, states are major actors in the anarchic global system that possesses a sole monopoly over their people and sovereignty. Any domestic disturbance and intervention from abroad is strongly condemned and violates the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.

Keywords

• NATO
• Yugoslavia
• Kosovo
• Milosevic
• Serbia.

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, Jack. 2000. “Kosovo and the Legality of NATO’s Actions.” Irish Studies in International Affairs 11: 31-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30001910.
2. Archer, Rory. 2022. “Student Mobilisation in Kosovo: 1968, 1981 and 1997.” Sprawy Narodowościow. 54: 1-5. DOI: 10.11649/sn.2627.
3. Balcı, Ali. 2019. “Realizm.” In Uluslararası İlişkilere Giriş, edited by Şaban Kardaş and Ali Balcı, 119-146. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
4. Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. 2017. “The Globalization of World Politics 7e: Case Study: The 1999 Kosovo Crisis.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 1-20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Becker, Jens. 1998. “The Kosovo Conflict: Political and Socio-Economic Aspects.” Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe 1(3): 9-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40130374.
6. Berridge, G.R. 2001. “Machiavelli: Human Nature, Good Faith, and Diplomacy.” Review of International Studies 27(4): 539-556. DOI:10.1017/S0260210501005393.
7. Branson, Louise, and Dusko Doder. 1999. Milosevic: Portrait of a Tyrant. Accessed 17.4.2024. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/branson-milosevic.html.
8. Butterfield, Herbert. 1950. Christianity and History. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

9. Butterfield, Herbert. 1951. History and Human Relations. London: Collins.
10. Buzan, Barry. 1996. “The Timeless Wisdom of Realism.” In International Theory: Positivism & beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Both and Marysia Zalewski, 47-65. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. “Camp Bondsteel.” Accessed 28.10.2023. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/campbondsteel/.
12. Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. California: Stanford University Press.
13. Dalipi, Samet, and Krenar Shala. 2016. “The Role of Decentralization on Security: Improvement and Peace-building in Kosovo.” Friedrich Ebert Stiftung 185: 1-28. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/kosovo/13856.pdf.
14. Deudney, Daniel, and John Ikenberry. 1999. “The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order.” Review of International Studies 25: 179-196. https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/8357287.pdf.
15. Devlen, Balkan, and Özgür Özdamar. 2009. “Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Crises.” In Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation, edited by Annete Freyberg-Inan, Ewan Harrison and Patrick James, 136-164. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
16. Donnelly, Jack. 2005. “Realism.” In Theories of International Relations, edited by Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, and and Mathew Peterson, 30-52. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Dunne, Tim, and Brian C. Schmidt. 2020. “Realism.” In The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, edited by John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, 130-144. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Ersoy, Eyüp. 2016. “Realizm.” In Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorileri, edited by Ramazan Gözen, 159-186. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
19. Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention, Changing Beliefs About The Use of Force. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
20. Gilligan, Michael, and Stephen John Stedman. 2003. “Where Do the Peacekeepers Go?” International Studies Review 5(4): 37-54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3186392.pdf.
21. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Gorodetsky, Gabriel. 1990. “The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy.” Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique 31(1): 27-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i20170693.
23. Herz, John H. 1950. “Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 2(2): 157-180. DOI: 10.2307/2009187.
24. Hobbes, Thomas. 1992. Leviathan. Translated by Semih Lim. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
25. Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan. edited by J.C.A. Gaskin. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Holzgrefe, J. L. 2003. “The Humanitarian Intervention Debate.” In Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, edited by J. L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane, 15-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Hosmer, Stephen T. 2001. The Conflict Over Kosovo: Why Milosevic Decided to Settle When He Did. California: RAND Corporation.
28. Jagodić, Miloš. 1998. The Emigration of Muslims from the New Serbian Regions 1877/1878. Accessed: 18.6.2024 https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/265
29. James, Patrick. 2009. “Elaborating on Offensive Realism.” in Rethinking Realism in International Relations: Between Tradition and Innovation, edited by Annete Freyberg-Inan, Ewan Harrison, and Patrick James, 45-63. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Jervis, Robert. 1978. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30(2): 167-214. https://www.sfu.ca/~kawasaki/Jervis%20Cooperation.pdf.
31. “KFOR in Kosovo – 20 years later.” European Western Balkans. Accessed 26.10.2023 https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2019/06/12/kfor-in-kosovo-20-years-later/.
32. Koinova, Maria. 2013. “Four Types of Diaspora Mobilization: Albanian Diaspora Activism For Kosovo.” Foreign Policy Analysis 9: 433-453. https://watermark.silverchair.com/9-4-433.pdf?token.
33. Kosovo Air Campaign (March-June 1999). Accessed 10.10.2023. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49602.html.
34. Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign. Accessed 15.4.2024. https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/hrw/2000/en/32567#:~:text=Human%20Rights%20Watch%20concludes%20on,occurred%20in%20just%20twelve%20incidents.
35. Kosovo: The Jerusalem of Serbia. Accessed 14.6.2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/overview/kosovo.htm#TOP.
36. Kushi, Sidita. 2013. “Divergent Perspectives on the Kosovo Crisis Through a Realist Lens.” Northeastern Political Science Association 18: 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2718634.
37. Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2003. The Art of War. Translated by Christopher Lynch. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38. Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1992. The Prince. Translated by Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton & Company, Inc.
39. Malcolm, Noel. 2002. Kosovo: A Short History. London: Macmillan.
40. Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Nanon & Company, Inc.
41. Nardin, T. 2009. “International Political Theory.” In Theories of International Relations, edited by S. Burchill, A. Linklater and et.al, 284-310. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
42. Özerdem, Alpaslan. 2003. “From a ‘Terrorist’ Group to a ‘Civil Defence’ Corps: The ‘Transformation’ of the Kosovo Liberation.” International Peacekeeping 22(4): 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310308559337.
43. Posen, Berry R. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict.” Survival 20(4): 27-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539045.
44. Roe, Paul. 2005. Ethnic Violence and Societal Security Dilemma. London: Routledge.
45. Roe, Paul. The Societal Security Dilemma. n.d. Accessed 14.6.2024. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/rop01/#txt21.
46. Rose, Gideon. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics 51(1): 144-172. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/326196/mod_resource/content/1/Rose_Neoclassical%20realism%20and%20theories%20of%20foreign%20policy.pdf.
47. Rusinow, Dennison. 1991. “Yugoslavia: Balkan Breakup?” Foreign Policy 83: 145. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1148723.
48. Salihu, Fitim. The Politicization of Having Children. Accessed 14.6.2024. https://kosovotwopointzero.com/en/the-politicization-of-having-children/.
49. Scahill, Jeremy. “1999: NATO Bombıng of Serbıa and Montenegro.” The Intercept. Accessed 10.10.2023 https://theintercept.com/2021/04/27/biden-nato-bombing-serbia-montenegro/.
50. Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19(1): 72-107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539149.
51. Sıvış, Efe. 2020. “Foreign Policy Perspectives and Superpower Politics: Competition of U.S. and Russia over Kosovo.” TJSS The Journal of Social Science 4(7): 87-101. DOI:10.30520/tjsosci.688610
52. Smith, Michael J. 1986. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Louisiana: Baton Rouge Louisiana State University Press.
53. Snyder, Jack. 2004. “One World, Rival Theories.” Foreign Policy 4(18): 52-62. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/26/one-world-rival-theories/.
54. Stradner, Ivana. Russia’s Failed War Has Created an Opening in the Balkans. Accessed 18.4.2024. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/03/russia-serbia-ukraine-war-kosovo-vucic-putin-balkans/.
55. Tang, Shiping. 2009. “The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis.” Security Studies 18(3): 587-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410903133050.
56. The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. 2000. Oxford: The Independent International Commission on Kosovo: Oxford University Press.
57. Thucydides. 2012. The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Richard Crawley. Durham, North Carolina: Duke Classics.
58. Vickers, Miranda. 1998. Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo. New York: Columbia University Press.
59. Volkan, Vamık. 2004. Blind Trust: Large Groups and Their Leaders in Times of Crisis and Terror. Virginia: Pitchstone Publishing.
60. Vučetić, Radina. 2021. “Kosovo 1989: The Abuse of the Kosovo Myth in Media and Popular Culture.” Comparative Southeast European Studies 69(2-3): 223–243. DOI: 10.1515/soeu-2021-0043.
61. Waever, Ole. 1993. “Societal Security: The Concept.” In Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, edited by Ole Waever, Barry Buzan and et.al, 17-41. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
62. Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca and London: Cornell University.
63. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc.
64. Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
65. Zivanovic, Maja, and Serbeze Haxhiaj. 78 Days of Fear: Remembering NATO’s Bombing of Yugoslavia. Accessed 1.5.2024. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/22/78-days-of-fear-remembering-natos-bombing-of-yugoslavia/.