Amerikan Dış Politikasını Anlamak: Teorik Bir Analiz

Öz

Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri açısından, “Amerika ve dünya”yı anlamak çoğunlukla dünya ile ilgilidir: ABD önemli bir aktördür, ancak çoğunlukla uluslararası eğilimlere yanıt olarak hareket etmektedir. Bununla birlikte, Amerikan siyaseti teorileri açısından bakıldığında, “Amerika ve dünya” çoğunlukla Amerika ile ilgilidir: Amerikan dış politikası öncelikle iç siyasi kurumların ve bunların yapılandırılmasına yardımcı oldukları siyasi süreçlerin sonucudur. Bu bağlamda, bu makale Amerikan dış politika çalışmalarının kapsamlı bir analizini sağlamak için üç uluslararası ilişkiler teorisi; realizm, liberalizm ve konstrüktivizm ile üç Amerikan siyaseti teorisini; kitle siyaseti, psikolojik açıklamalar ve kurumsal yaklaşımları incelemektedir. Yapılan çalışma sonucunda uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin Amerikan dış politikasının neden belirli bir şekilde hareket ettiğini açıklarken, Amerikan siyaset teorilerinin Amerikan dış politikasının neden özellikle bu şekilde hareket ettiğini ve neden alternatif bir şekilde hareket etmediğini açıkladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin Amerikan dış politikasındaki genel eğilimleri açıklamak hususunda başarılı olduğu, Amerikan siyaset teorilerinin ise Amerikan dış politikasının karmaşıklığını daha iyi analiz ettiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dış Politika
• Amerika Birleşik Devletleri
• Realizm
• Liberalizm
• Kamuoyu

Understanding US Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Analysis

Öz

From the point of view of International Relations theory, understanding “America and the world” is mostly about the world: the U.S. is an important actor, but it acts mostly in response to international trends. However, from the point of view of theories of American politics and domestic politics theories of foreign policy, “America and the world” is mostly about America: American actions are primarily the result of domestic political institutions and the political processes they help to structure. In that manner, this articles surveys three selected theories of International relations namely, realism, liberalism and constructivism and three selected theories of American politics namely, mass politics, psychological explanations, and institutional approaches to provide a thorough analysis of US foreign policy studies. Further, it argues that international relations theories usually explain why US foreign policy acts in a particular way while American politics theories explain why US foreign policy specifically acts that way and why it does not act in an alternative way. Hence, this article argues that while international relations theories are useful to explain general trends in US foreign policy, American politics theories are better to capture the complexity of US foreign policy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Policy
• United States of America
• Realism
• Liberalism
• Public Opinion

Kaynakça

1. Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American political science review, 63(3), 689-718.
2. Art, R. J. (1973). Bureaucratic politics and American foreign policy: A critique. Policy Sciences, 4(4), 467-490.
3. Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. Columbia University Press.
4. Baumgartner, J. C., Francia, P. L., & Morris, J. S. (2008). A clash of civilizations? The influence of religion on public opinion of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 171-179.
5. Bendor, J., & Hammond, T. H. (1992). Rethinking Allison's models. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 301-322.
6. Berinsky, A. J. (2008). Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict. The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 975-997.
7. Drezner, D. W. (2000). Ideas, bureaucratic politics, and the crafting of foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science, 733-749.
8. Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2013). International relations theories. Oxford University Press.

9. Franz, M. M. (2008). Choices and Challenges: Interest Groups in the Electoral Process. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
10. Garthoff, R. L. (1990). Changing Realities, Changing Perceptions: Deterrence and US Security after the Cold War. The Brookings Review, 8(4), 13-20.
11. Goldsmith, B. E., & Horiuchi, Y. (2012). In search of soft power: Does foreign public opinion matter for US foreign policy?. World Politics, 64(3), 555-585.
12. Haney, P. J., & Vanderbush, W. (1999). The role of ethnic interest groups in US foreign policy: the case of the Cuban American National Foundation. International Studies Quarterly, 43(2), 341-361.
13. Holsti, O. R. (1989). Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy. Diplomatic History, 13(1), 15-43.
14. Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann consensus. International studies quarterly, 36(4), 439-466.
15. Jentleson, B. W., & Britton, R. L. (1998). Still pretty prudent: Post-cold war American public opinion on the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(4), 395-417.
16. Jervis, R. (1999). Realism, neoliberalism, and cooperation: understanding the debate. International Security, 24(1), 42-63.
17. Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutionalist theory. International security, 20(1), 39-51.
18. Larson, D. W. (1989). Origins of containment: A psychological explanation. Princeton University Press.
19. Lieberfeld, D. (2005). Theories of conflict and the Iraq war. International Journal of Peace Studies, 1-21.
20. Martin, L. L., & Simmons, B. A. (1998). Theories and empirical studies of international institutions. International organization, 52(4), 729-757.
21. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The false promise of international institutions. International security, 19(3), 5-49.
22. Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2006). The Israel lobby and US foreign policy. Middle East Policy, 13(3), 29-87.
23. Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International organization, 51(4), 513-553.
24. Morgenthau, H., & Nations, P. A. (1948). The struggle for power and peace. Nova York, Alfred Kopf.
25. Nguyen, H. T. T. (2013). Theories of US Foreign Policy: An Overview. World Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 20.
26. Nugroho, G. (2008). Constructivism and international relations theories. Global and Strategies, 2(1), 85-98.
27. Owen, J. M. (1994). How liberalism produces democratic peace. International security, 19(2), 87-125.
28. Paul, D. M., & Paul, R. A. (2009). Ethnic lobbies and US foreign policy. Londres: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
29. Powlick, P. J. (1995). The sources of public opinion for American foreign policy officials. International Studies Quarterly, 39(4), 427-451.
30. Risse-Kappen, T. (1991). Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies. World Politics, 43(4), 479-512.
31. Rousseau, D. L. (2005). Democracy and war: institutions, norms, and the evolution of international conflict. Stanford University Press.
32. Rubenzer, T., & Redd, S. B. (2010). Ethnic minority groups and US foreign policy: examining congressional decision making and economic sanctions. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 755-777.
33. Saideman, S. M. (2002). The power of the small: The impact of ethnic minorities on foreign policy. Sais Review, 22(2), 93-105.
34. Soroka, S. N. (2003). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 27-48.
35. Stein, A. A. (1982). Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world. International organization, 36(2), 299-324.
36. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization, 46(2), 391-425.
37. Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International security, 20(1), 71-81.
38. Zarifian, J. (2014). The Armenian-American lobby and its impact on US foreign policy. Society, 51(5), 503-512.
39. Zegart, A. (1999). Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the NSC, JCS, and CIA.