NATO’yu Anlamak: Dönüşümü, Yeni Kimlikleri ve Uyum Süreçleri

Yıl 2014, Sayı: 31, 209 - 225, 01.02.2014

Erdem Özlük Duygu Özlük

Öz

Bu çalışma NATO’nun dönüşümünü, bu dönüşümün gerekçelerini ve örgütün geleceğini tartışmaktadır. Soğuk Savaş’ın bir ürünü olarak NATO, sadece Sovyet/komünist/kızıl/doğu vs. gibi tehditlere göğüs germek ve belirli bir alanda güvenliği tesis etmek amaçlarıyla kurulmamıştır. NATO, Pozitivist ittifak ya da güvenlik yaklaşımlarının çizdiği epistemik çerçeveden analiz edilebilecek sıradan bir kolektif güvenlik/savunma veya askeri ittifak modeli değildir. NATO, Soğuk Savaş’tan sonra genişleyerek ve derinleşerek ayakta kalan ve bu bağlamda “içsel uyum süreci” olarak tanımlanabilecek süreç kapsamında kurumsal reformlar hayata geçirmekte, güvenlik kimliği dışındaki kimliklerini öne çıkarmakta ve AB müktesebatına benzer bir program olan Üyelik Eylem Planıgibi programlar geliştirmektedir. Paralel olarak BİO, NATO-BM ilişkileri, NATO-Rusya ilişkileri, Akdeniz Diyalogu gibi programlarla da “dışsal uyum sürecini” hayata geçirmektedir. Örgüt, benimsediği Stratejik Konseptlerle demokrasi, insan haklarıve ekonomik işbirliği vurgularına giderek daha çok atıfta bulunmaktadır. Zira hem 1991 güncelleştirilmişhaliyle 1999 hem de 2010 yılında benimsenen Stratejik Konsept’te ittifakın üzerinde yükseldiği vurgulanan “özgürlük, demokrasi, insan hakları, hukukun üstünlüğü” gibi ortak değerlerin, askeri bir güvenlik/savunma yapısınıtanımlamak için kullanılmasıdikkat çekicidir. Uluslararasısosyalleşme sürecinin en önemli örneklerinden biri olarak NATO, Pozitivist yaklaşımlar açısından anomali gibi görünse de raison d’etreortadan kalkmasına rağmen varlığınısürdürmekte ve uluslararasıbarışve güvenlik dışında da serbest piyasa, liberal demokrasi gibi meşruiyet kaynaklarıüretmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

NATO’nun dönüşümü, uluslararasısosyalleşme, jeopolitik kimlik, içsel ve dışsal uyum süreci, stratejik konsept

Understanding NATO: Transformation, New Identities and Adaptation Process of NATO

Öz

This study deals with transformation of NATO and discusses the reasons of transformation and future of the alliance. As an outcome of the Cold War, NATO was founded for both challenging the threats such as Soviet/communism/red/east and providing security and stability for the defined territory that stated in the article 5 of the Washington Treaty. NATO is also not an ordinary collective defense/security or military alliance that can be analyzed through classical security approach or Positivist alliance theory. NATO has been enlarging, deepening, reforming its own institutional structure via “internal adaptation process”, emphasizing security identity and new identities and developing new programs such as Membership Action Plan that similar to EU’s acquis communautaire after the Cold War. Accordingly, NATO has been carrying out its “external adaptation process” through The Partnership for Peace PfP , NATO-UN relations, NATO-Russia relations, and Mediterranean Dialogue. NATO by adopting Strategic Concepts has been mainly addressing democracy, human rights and economic cooperation. It is remarkable that even though NATO is a collective security/defense alliance, NATO has been referring common values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law to define the bases of the alliance in the strategic concepts. Despite the fact that raison d’etre died out, NATO as an example of international socialization process, -although it is considered as an anomaly according to positivist approaches- still subsists and develops new legitimacy foundations not only in the area of international peace and security also in the area of free market and liberal democracy

Anahtar Kelimeler

Transformation of NATO, international socialization, geopolitical identity, internal and external adaptation process, strategic concept The type of research: Research

Kaynakça

• “Statement on Iraq”, NATO Istanbul Summit, http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2004/p04-098e.htm
• ____ “Bucharest Summit Declaration”, http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2008/p08-049e.html
• ____ “Chicago Summit Declaration”, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_87593.htm?mode=pressrelease
• ____ “Lisbon Summit Declaration”, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68828.htm
• NATO’nun genişlemesiyle ilgili endişe taşıyan kesimler, örgütün genişlediği ülkelerde şeffaflılığın giderek azaldığını ve
• demokratikleşme sürecinin yara aldığını savunmaktadır. Bu konudaki kaygılar için bakınız (Roberts ve Blanton, 2003; 12–14).
• Sovyet tehdidinin sona ermesiyle NATO, varlık nedenlerinden biri olarak Avrupa’daki istikrar vurgusunu öne çıkarmaya
• başlamış ve Trans-Atlantik ilişkilerin Avrupa’nın istikrarı için elzem olduğunu dile getirmiştir (Clarke, 1993; 25).
• ____ “Riga Zirvesi ve NATO’nun Dönüşümü”, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi-TÜSİAD Dış Politika Forumu, http://www.dispolitikaforumu.com/RigaZirvesi.pdf
• ____ NATO El Kitabı, Kamu Diplomasisi Departmanı, Brüksel, 2001.
• ____ NATO Handbook, NATO Public Diplomacy Division, Brussels, 2006.
• ADLER E. (2008). “The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO's Post-Cold War Transformation”, European Journal of International Relations, Cilt 14, No 2.
• AKLAR Y. (2007). “NATO Riga Zirvesi: Ne NATO ile Ne de NATO’suz”, Stratejik Analiz, Cilt 7, No
• ALVAREZ J. E. (2001). “Constitutional Interpretation in International Organizations”, Jean M. Coicaud, Veijo Heiskanen (der.), The Legitimacy of International Organizations, Tokyo, United Nations University Press.
• ANIS R. M. (2006). The Reinvention of NATO, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Norfolk, Old Dominion University.
• ASMUS R. (1995). “NATO Expansion: The Next Steps”, Survival, Cilt 37, No 1.
• BALL C. (1998). “Nattering NATO Negativism? Reasons Why Expansion May Be A Good Thing”, Review of International Studies, Cilt 24, No 2.
• BARANY Z. (2006). “NATO’s Post-Cold War Metamorphosis: From Sixteen to Twenty-Six and Counting”, International Studies Review, Cilt 8, No 1.
• BARNATHAN G. P. (2006), “Managing the Hegemon: NATO Under Unipolarity”, Security Studies, Cilt 15, No 2.
• BAYLIS J. (1997), “International Security in the Post Cold War Era”, John Baylis ve Steve Smith (der.), The Globalization of World Politics, New York, Oxford University Press.
• BENANTAR A. (2006), “NATO, Maghreb and Europe”, Mediterranean Politics, Cilt 11, No 2.
• BENNETT L. (1991), International Organizations: Principles and Issues, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
• BILINSKY Y. (1999), Endgame in NATO’s Enlargement, Westport, Greenwood.
• BLANK S. (2001), “Map Reading: NATO’s and Russia’s Pathways to European Military Integration”, The Review of International Affairs, Cilt 1, No 1.
• BOAS M. (2000), “Security Communities: Whose Security”, Cooperation and Conflict, Cilt 35, No 3.
• BÖLME S. M. (2010), “NATO Zirvesi ve Füze Kalkanı Projesi”, SETA Analiz, Sayı 30.
• CIUTĂ F. (2002), “The End(s) of NATO: Security, Strategic Action and Narrative Transformation”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 23, No 1.
• CLARKE J. (1993), “Replacing NATO”, Foreign Policy, No 93.
• CORNISH P. (2004), “NATO: The Practice and Politics of Transformation”, International Affairs, Cilt 80, No 1.
• COTTEY A. (2004), “NATO: Globalization or Redundancy?”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 25, No 3.
• CRAWFORD R. M. (1998), “Political Realism in International Theory”, The American Political Science Review, Cilt 92, No 1.
• CROFT S. vd. (2000), “NATO’s Triple Challenge”, International Affairs, Cilt 76, No 3.
• ÇALIŞ Ş. ve Erdem Özlük (2007), “Jeopolitik: Mekânın Siyasallaştırılması ve Suiistimali”, Zeynep Dağı (der.), Uluslararası Politikayı Anlamak, İstanbul, Alfa Yayınları.
• ÇAYHAN E. ve Nurşin A. Güney (1996), Avrupa’da Yeni Güvenlik Arayışları NATO, AB, Türkiye, İstanbul, Afa Yayınları.
• ÇOMAK H. (2005), Avrupa’da Yeni Güvenlik Anlayışları ve Türkiye, İstanbul, Tasam Yayınları.
• DALBY S. ve G. Ó. Tuathail (1998), “Towards a Critical Geopolitics”, Simon Dalby (der.), Rethinking Geopolitics, London, Routledge Press.
• DEDEOĞLU B. (2003), Uluslararası Güvenlik ve Strateji, İstanbul, Derin Yayınları.
• DEIGHTON A. (2002), “The Eleventh of September and Beyond: NATO”, The Political Quarterly, Cilt 73, No 1.
• DEUTSCH K. W., vd. (1957), Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
• DIETL R. (2006), “In Defence of the West: General Lauris Norstad, NATO Nuclear Forces and Transatlantic Relations 1956–1963”, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Cilt 17, No 2.
• DITTMER J. (2007), “Changing American Metanarratives of Russia in NATO Expansion Debates, 1993–2002”, National Identities, Cilt 9, No 1.
• DOĞAN N. (2005), “NATO’nun Örgütsel Değişimi, 1949–1999: Kuzey Atlantik İttifakından Avrupa- Atlantik Güvenlik Örgütüne”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 60, No 3.
• DORMAN A. M. (2012), “NATO’s 2012 Chicago Summit: A Chance to Ignore the İssues Once Again”, International Affairs, Cilt 88, No 2.
• DREW N. S. (1995), “American Leadership in NATO”, Ted Galen Carpenter (der.) The Future of NATO, London: Frank Cass.
• DUFFIELD J. S. (1992), “International Regimes and Alliance Behavior: Explaining NATO Conventional Force Levels”, International Organization, Cilt 46, No 4.
• DUFFIELD J. S. (1994), “NATO's Functions after the Cold War”, Political Science Quarterly, Cilt 109, No 5.
• ERHAN Ç. (2003), “Çok Taraflı İşbirliğine Geçiş Sürecindeki Tehdit Algılamaları ve Uluslararası Mukabele Yöntemleri”, Küreselleşme ve Uluslararası Güvenlik Sempozyumu, Ankara, Atase Başkanlığı Yayınları.
• FEDDER E. H. (1968), “The Concept of Alliance”, International Studies Quarterly, Cilt 12, No 1.
• FEITH D. (2002), “NATO Transformation: Securing Freedom for Future Generations”, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, Cilt 7, No 1.
• FIERKE K. M. (2007), “Constructivism”, Tim Dunne, et al. (der.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• FIERKE K. M., Antje Wiener (1999), “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement”, Journal of European Public Policy, Cilt 6, No 5.
• FORSTER A. ve William Wallace (2001), “What is NATO for?”, Survival, Cilt 43, No 4.
• FREDERKING B. (2003), “Constructing Post-Cold War Collective Security”, The American Political Science Review, Cilt 97, No 3.
• GARDEN T. (2002), “NATO in Trouble”, The World Today, Cilt 58, No 11.
• GHECIU A. (2005), “Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the New Europe”, International Organization, Cilt 59, No 2.
• GHECIU A. (2005), NATO in the New Europe: The Politics of International Socialization after the Cold War, Palo Alto, Standford University Press.
• GIBLER D. M. ve Jamil A. Sewell (2006), “External Threat and Democracy: The Role of NATO Revisited”, Journal of Peace Research, Cilt 43, No 4.
• GIBLER D. M. ve Scott Wolford (2006), “Alliances, Then Democracy: An Examination of the Relationship Between Regime Type and Alliance Formation”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Cilt 50, No 1.
• GLASER C. L. (1993), “Why NATO is Still Best: Future Security Arrangements for Europe”, International Security, Cilt 18, No 1.
• GÖZEN R. (2006), “NATO: ABD Patentli Savunma Örgütü”, Şaban Çalış, et al., (der.), Uluslararası Örgütler ve Türkiye, Konya, Çizgi Kitabevi.
• GÜRKAYNAK M. (2004), Avrupa’da Savunma ve Güvenlik, Ankara, Asil Yayınları.
• HAM P. V. (2005), “Büyüme Sancıları”, NATO Review, No 3.
• HAM P. V. (2001), “Security and Culture, or, Why NATO Won't Last”, Security Dialogue, Cilt 32, No 4.
• HARTLEY K., T. Sandler (1999), “NATO Burden-Sharing: Past and Future”, Journal of Peace Research
• HENDRICKSON R. C. (2007), “The Miscalculation of NATO’s Death”, Parameters, Cilt 37, No 1.
• HOTZ A. J. (1953), “NATO: Myth or Reality”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Cilt 288.
• HUNTINGTON S. P. (1998), Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London, Touchstone.
• JACKSON P. T. (2003), “Defending the West: Occidentalism and the Formation of NATO”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Cilt 11, No 3.
• JONES J. L. (2004), “Transforming NATO’s Military Structures”, NATO Review Istanbul Summit Special.
• KAISER K. (1996), “Reforming NATO”, Foreign Policy, No 103.
• KANN R. A. (1976), “Alliances versus Ententes”, World Politics, Cilt 28, No 4.
• KAY S. (2004), “NATO, Kosovo War and Neoliberal Theory”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 25, No 1.
• KAY S. (2005), “What Went Wrong with NATO”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Cilt 18, No 1.
• KEOHANE R. O. (1989), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder, Westview.
• KIM W. (1991), “Alliance Transitions and Great Power War”, American Journal of Political Science, Cilt 35, No 4.
• KIRIUNIN V. (2007), “Minsk, Riga Host CIS, NATO Summits”, International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy&International Relations, Cilt 53, No 1.
• KLEIN B. S. (1990), “How the West was One: Representational Politics of NATO”, International Studies Quarterly, Cilt 34, No 3.
• KOREMENOS B. vd. (2001), “The Rational Design of International Institutions”, International Organization, Cilt 55, No 4.
• KRAHMANN E. (2003), “Conceptualizing Security Governance”, Cooperation and Conflict, Cilt 38, No 3.
• KRAMER M. (2005), “The United States, NATO and the Role of Alliances in International Politics: Theoretical Expectations and the Empirical Record”, Managerial Law, Cilt 47, No 5.
• KYDD A. (2001), “Trust Building, Trust Breaking: The Dilemma of NATO Enlargement”, International Organization, Cilt 55, No 4.
• LAKE D. A. (2001), “Beyond Anarchy: The Importance of Security Institutions”, International Security, Cilt 26, No 1.
• LUBKEMEIER E. (1990), “NATO’s Identity Crisis”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Cilt 46, No 8.
• MAJEVSKI J. D. (2005), NATO as Social Construction: Explaining Cooperation and Discord within the Atlantic Community, Unpublished PhD Thesis, New York, University of Albany.
• MÄLKSOO M. (2004), “Enabling NATO Enlargement: Changing Constructions of the Baltic States”, Trames, Cilt 8, No 3.
• McCALLA R. B. (1996), “NATO’s Persistence after the Cold War”, International Organization, Cilt 50, No 3.
• MEYER S. E. (2003), “Carcass of Dead Politics: The Irrelevance of NATO”, Parameters, Cilt 33, No 1.
• MILLEN R. A. (2004), “Reconfiguring NATO for Future Security Challenges”, Comparative Strategy, Cilt 23, No 2.
• MONIEN S. H. (1998), “Russia and European Security: The Case Against NATO’s Eastward Expansion”, Mary McKenzie (der.), Promise and Reality of European Security Cooperation: States, Interests and Institutions, Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group.
• MOORE R. R., (2002) “NATO's Mission for the New Millennium: A Value-Based Approach to Building Security”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 23, No 1.
• MORGAN P. M. (2003), “NATO and European Security: The Creative Use of an International Organization”, Journal of Strategic Studies, Cilt 26, No 3.
• NEVERS R. (2007), “NATO’s International Security Role in the Terrorist Era”, International Security
• NIOU E., P. C. Ordeshook (1994), “Alliances in Anarchic International Systems”, International Studies Quarterly, Cilt 38, No 2.
• OJANEN H. (2006), “The EU and NATO: Two Competing Models for A Common Defence Policy”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Cilt 44, No 1.
• OSTROM C. W., F. W. Hole, (1978), “Alliances and Wars Revisited: A Research Note”, International Studies Quarterly, Cilt 22, No 2.
• PFALTZGRAFF R. (1991), “NATO's Future Role: An American View”, Academy of Political Science, Cilt 38, No 1.
• RATTI L. (2006), “Post-Cold War NATO and International Relations Theory: The Case for Neo- Classical Realism”, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Cilt 4, No 1.
• RAUCHHAUS R. W. (2001), “Marching NATO Eastward: Can International Relations Theory Keep Peace”, Robert W. Rauchhaus (der.), Explaining NATO Enlargement, Portland, Frank Cass.
• REITER D. (2001), “Why NATO Enlargement Does not Spread Democracy”, International Security, Cilt 25, No 4.
• RIES J. C. (1965), “NATO Reorganization: A Critique and Analysis”, The Western Political Quarterly, Cilt 18, No 1.
• ROBERTS A., T. Blanton (2003), “NATO's Dirty Little Secret”, Foreign Policy, No 134.
• ROBERTSON D. (1991), “NATO's Future Role: A European View”, Academy of Political Science, Cilt 38, No 1.
• RUPP R. (2001), “NATO 1949 and NATO 2000: From Collective Defense Toward Collective Security”, T. G. Carpenter, (der.), NATO Enter 21st Century, London, Frank Cass Publisher.
• SANDLER T. (1999), “Alliance Formation, Alliance Expansion, and the Core”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Cilt 43, No 6.
• SCHIMMELFENNIG F. (2000), “International Socialization in the New Europe: Rational Action in an Institutional Environment”, European Journal of International Relations, Cilt 6, No 1.
• SCHIMMELFENNIG F. (1998), “NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation”, Security Studies, Cilt 8, No 2.
• ŠEDIVÝ J. (2001), “The Puzzle of NATO Enlargement”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 22, No 2.
• SHEA J. (2002), “NATO, Upholding Ethics in International Security Policy”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Cilt 15, No 1.
• SHILEDS R. (2003), “Geopolitical Spatialisations: Critical Geopolitics and Critical Cultural Studies”, Geopolitics, Cilt 8, No 1.
• SJURSEN H. (2004), “On the Identity of NATO”, International Affairs, Cilt 80, No 4.
• SLOAN S. (1995), “NATO and the US”, Victor S. Papacosma ve Mary Ann Heiss (der.), NATO in the Post-Cold War Era, New York, St Martin Press.
• SMITH M. A. (2004), “Where is NATO Going?”, Contemporary Security Policy, Cilt 25, No 3.
• SNYDER G. H. (1990), “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut”, Journal of International Affairs, Cilt 44, No 1.
• STEINBRUNER J. D. (2000), Principles of Global Security, Washington, Brookings Institution Press.
• STUART D. T. (2004), “NATO and the Wider World: From Regional Collective Defence to Global Coalitions of the Willing”, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Cilt 58, No 1.
• TROTMAN J. T. (1971), “NATO in Theory and Practice”, Survival, Cilt 13, No 2.
• TROYAN A. G. ve G.V. Grigoryev (2004), “NATO’s Strategic Concept: Basic Military-Political Aspects”, Military Thought, Cilt 13, No 3.
• TUATHAIL G. Ó. (2003), “Condensing Critical Geopolitics: Reflections on Joanne Sharp’s Condensing the Cold War”, Geopolitics, Cilt 8, No 2.
• TÜRKEŞ M. (1998), “Doksanlı Yıllarda NATO’nun Öncelikleri ve Türkiye”, Gencer Özcan, Şule Kut, (der.), En Uzun On Yıl, İstanbul, Boyut Kitaplar.
• ULLMAN H. (2007), “NATO Going but not yet Gone”, National Interest, March/April.
• UZGEL İ. (2002), “ABD ve NATO’yla İlişkiler”, Baskın Oran (der.), Türk Dış Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşı’ndan Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar Cilt II, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
• UZGEL İ. (2004), “Uluslararası Rekabet ve Ulusal Egemenliğin Kırılma Noktası Olarak NATO’nun Yugoslavya’ya Müdahalesi”, Mülkiye, Cilt 23, No 216.
• VINCENT J. E., vd. (2001), “Capability Theory and the Future of NATO's Decisionmaking Rules”, Journal of Peace Research, Cilt 38, No 1.
• VOLKER K. (2006), “The Road to North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Riga Summit”, Journal of International Security Assistance Management, Cilt 28, No 3.
• WALLANDER C. A. (2000), “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War”, International Organization, Cilt 54, No 4.
• WALT S. M. (1989), “Alliances in Theory and Practice: What Lies Ahead?”, Journal of International Affairs, Cilt 43, No 1.
• WARBURG J. P. (1960), “How Useful Is NATO?”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Cilt 330.
• WEINROD W. B. (2003), “NATO after Prague and Copenhagen”, Mediterranean Quarterly, Cilt 14, No
• WHITE S., vd. (2006), “NATO: The View from the East”, European Security, Cilt 15, No 2.
• WIJK R. D. (1997), NATO on the Brink of the New Millennium: The Battle for Consensus, London, Brassey’s Publishing.
• WOLFERS A. (1958), “Europe and the NATO Shield”, International Organization, Cilt 12, No 4.
• YOST D. S. (2007), “NATO and the Anticipatory Use of Force”, International Affairs, Cilt 83, No 1.
• YOST D. S. (1998), “The New NATO and Collective Security”, Survival, Cilt 40, No 2.