You are here

ABD Başkanları G.W. Bush ve B. Obama Dönemlerinde Yayımlanan Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejilerinde İttifak Söylemleri ve S.Walt’un İttifak Teorisi

The Alliance Discourses in “the White House” Part of the National Security Documents Released in the Terms of USA Presidents G.W. Bush and B. Obama and S. Walt’s Alliance Theory

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study, the alliance discourses of “the White House” parts in US National Security Strategies signed by the presidents in 2002, 2006 and 2010 are comparatively analyzed within the context of Stephen Walt’s Alliance Theory and broading concept of security and new transnational threats in post Cold War. Therefore, it aims at determining the US threat understanding and behaviors toward her Alliance for balancing the threat in three documents. The US behavior toward her Alliance has an importance to explain the international order. This study has showed that the threat perception in 2002 US National Security Strategy was built upon the discourse which US could balance the threats alone and would gain a great freedom of action on the Earth with this threat perception, moreover the international community had to accept this as just and right. This perception suits Buzan’s thought that Security can be used for legitimating the use of force. Although 2006 US National Security Strategy was terrorism centric in threat perception, it also accepted all other transnational threats. Moreover, it was a “Transition Strategy” from unilateralism to multilateralism which included the characteristics of both. And last but not least, the context of threat in 2010 US National Security Strategy became transnational and alliance relations were the main goal. This suits Walt’s balancing the threats concept, “strong state with weak allies”.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada; G.W. Bush döneminin 2002, 2006, Obama döneminin 2010 tarihli ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi belgelerinin başkan imzalı “Beyaz Saray” başlıklı bölümlerinin söylemleri, Soğuk Savaş sonrası gelişen güvenlik kavramı ve ulusötesi-transnasyonel tehditler bağlamında, Walt’un ittifak teorisi çerçevesinde analiz edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. 2002 ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi’ndeki tehdit algısının terörizm temelli olduğu, tek taraflı ABD müdahaleleriyle dengelenebileceği, söz konusu tehdit algısı ile ABD’nin dünya çapında büyük bir hareket serbestisi elde edeceği ve uluslararası toplumun bunu meşru görmesi gerektiğine dayanan bir söylem üzerine kurulduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu söylem Buzan’ın güvenliğin “güç kullanılmasını meşrulaştırma”da anahtar hâle geldiği savı ile örtüşmektedir. 2002 Stratejisinde kurumsal ittifakların konunun öznesi olmadığı, verdikleri destek ölçüsünde tercih edilecekleri görülmüştür. 2006 Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi, tehdit olarak terörizm merkezlidir. Ancak ulusötesi tehditlerin de varlığını benimsemektedir. 2006 Stratejisinde söylem, çok taraflılığın gerekliliğini kabul ederek gelişmekte, ABD’nin askerî gücünün benzersizliğinin, siyasi ve ekonomik üstünlüğünün devam ettirilebilmesi kaygısı ile ittifaklar ABD ulusal güçünün dayandığı önemli unsurlardan biri olarak zikredilmektedir. 2006 Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisinin tek taraflılıktan çok taraflılığa yönelişte her iki karakteri de barındırabilen bir “Geçiş Stratejisi” olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. 2010 ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi’nde ise tehdit kavramının bağlamı ulusötesileşmiş, tehditlerin dengelenmesi için ittifak ilişkileri ana amaç hâline gelmiştir. Bu durum Walt’un güçlü bir devletin zayıf müttefikler ile tehditleri dengelemesi konseptine uygundur.

REFERENCES

References: 

Akın, A. (2011). İngilizce Ders Notları, Ankara, Akın Dil Eğitim Merkezi
ve Yayıncılık Hizmetleri.
Baylis, J. (1998). International Security in Post-Cold War Era, İçinde S.John
Baylis, ve S. Smith (Ed.), The Globalization of World Politics: An
Introduction of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
192-215.
Booth, K. (2005). Security, İçinde, K. Booth (Ed), Critical Security Studies
and World Politics, London. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 21-27.
Buzan, B. (1991). New Paterns of Global Security in the Twenty-First
Century, International Affairs 6(3), 432-451.
Buzan, B., Waever, O. ve Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for
Analysis, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Wohlforth, C.W. (1999). The stability of a unipolar world, International
Security, 24(1), 5-41.
Caldwell, D. ve Williams, R. (2006). Seeking Security in an Insecure World,
Maryland: Rowman Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Cornish, P. (1999). European security: The end of architecture and the new
NATO. International Affair, 72(4), 751-769.
Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, Kasım 2011, Cilt 10, Sayı 2, 122-151. 148
Dijk, T.A. (1997). The Study of Discourse. İçinde T. A. Dijk (Ed.),
Discourses As Structure And Process, London: SAGE Publications,
1-34.
Dilanian, K. (2009). Clinton says U.S. must use 'smart power'.
USATODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-
13-hillary_N.htm adresinden alınmıştır.
Doltaş, D. (2009). Söylem ve Yazın. İçinde A. Kocaman (Ed.), Söylem
Üzerine, Ankara, ODTÜ Yayıncılık, 48-55.
Drew, D.M. ve Snow, D. (2002). Making Strategy: An ıntroduction to
National Security Processes and Problems, Honolulu: University
Press of the Pasific.
Fisher, J. (2006). Dünya ABD’nin Çok Taraflılığa Dönmesine Muhtaç. The
Guardian’dan Çeviren Radikal Gazetesi,
http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=208268&tarih=25/12/
2006 adresinden alınmıştır.
Gates, R. U.S Department of Defense, http://www.defense.gov/bios/
biographydetail.aspx?biographyid%3D115 adresinden alınmıştır.
Heartfiled, M. (1996). Nursing Documentation and Nursing Practice: A
Dsicourse Analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 98-103.
Kandemir, E. (2008). Uluslararası Sistemin Yeni Düzen Arayışında
Karadeniz'in Değişen Jeopolitiği, İstanbul: IQ Kültür Sanat
Yayıncılık.
Katzenstein, P.J. (1996). Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National
Security, İçinde P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National
Security: norms and Identity in World Politcs, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1-37.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (1990). Back to the Future:Instability in Europe after Cold
War. International Security, 5-56.
Neuman, W.L. (2010). Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri: Nitel ve Nicel
Yaklaşımlar. Cilt-II. 4.b. (Çev.Sedef Özge). İstanbul:Yayın Odası
(Orijinal baskı tarihi 2006).
Nye Jr.J.S. (2003). Amerikan Gücünün Paradoksu: Dünyanın Tek Süper
Gücü Neden Tek Başına Davranamaz? İstanbul, Literatür
Yayıncılık.
Nye Jr.J.S. (2009). Get Smart:Combining Hard and Soft Power, Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65163/joseph-s-nyejr/
get- smart?page=2 (20 Ekim 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
149 Eyyub KANDEMİR
Obama Likely to Change US Leadership Style. 14 Şubat 2009. Voice of
America, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-01-14-
voa43-68711032.html (20 Ekim 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
Obama says Gates a bipartisan model of civility. (1 Temmuz 2011).
http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/01/obama-says-gates-a-bipartisanmodel-
of-civility.html (20 Ekim 2011) adresinden alınmıştır..
Oudenaren, J.V. (2003). What’s “Multilateral”?, Policy Review,
February&March, 33-49.
President George W.Bush, The White House, http://georgewbushwhitehouse.
archives.gov/president/biography.html (01 Ekim 2011)
adresinden alınmıştır..
Rothschild, E., (1995). What's Security?, Deadalus Journal, Summer 1995,
125, 53-91.
Rumsfeld, D.H. (2011). U.S. Department of Defense,
http://www.defense.gov/specials/secdef_histories/bios/rumsfeld.htm
(01 Ekim 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
Snow, D.D. (2007). Globalization and Geopolitics. New York: Pearson,
Longman.
Stake, R.E. (2010). Qualitative Research:Studying How Things Work. New
York, London: The Guilford Press.
Türk Dil Kurumu, Büyük Türkçe Sözlük, http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (22 Ekim
2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
U.S National Security Strategy (2002, September). The White House,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/
(27 Haziran 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
U.S National Security Strategy (2006, March). The White House,
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
(22 Eylül 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
U.S National Security Strategy (2010, May). The White House,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_se
curity_strategy.pdf (27 Haziran 2011) adresinden alınmıştır.
Walt, S., (1987). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University
Press.
Waltz, K.N. (1979). Theory of International Politics, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, Kasım 2011, Cilt 10, Sayı 2, 122-151. 150
1 “Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies
against us. To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal—military power,
better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist
financing.”
2 “The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America
will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror.”
3 “…The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new
home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.”
4 “…The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our
enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence
indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to
succeed.”
5 “America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend
America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans,
using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who
saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace
and security is the path of action.”
6 “Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the
clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread
poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph
over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.”
7 “The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millenium
Challenges Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic
freedom.”
8 “Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and
political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for
unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom:
conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges
of political and economic liberty.”
9 “…and America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who
harbor terrorists because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization.”
10 “…Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. The
United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade
Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing
alliances. Coalitions of the willing can augment these permanent institutions....”
11 “…This is a wartime national security strategy required by the grave challenge we face – the rise
of terrorism fueled by an aggressive ideology of hatred and murder, fully revealed to the American
people on September 11, 2001.”
12 “We have focused the attention of the world on the proliferation of dangerous weapons – although
great challenges in this area remain.
We have stood for the spread of democracy in the broader Middle East – meeting challenges yet
seeing progress few would have predicted or expected.”
151 Eyyub KANDEMİR
13 “We have seen great accomplishments, confronted new challenges, and refined our approach as
conditions changed. We have also found that the defense of freedom brings us loss and sorrow,
because freedom has determined enemies. We have always known that the war on terror would
require great sacrifice – and in this war, we have said farewell to some very good men and women.”
14 “America now faces a choice between the path of fear and the path of confidence. The path of fear
– isolationism and protectionism, retreat and retrenchment – appeals to those who find our challenges
too great and fail to see our opportunities. Yet history teaches that every time American leaders have
taken this path, the challenges have only increased and the missed opportunities have left future
generations less secure.”
15 “This Administration has chosen the path of confidence. We choose leadership over isolationism,
and the pursuit of free and fair trade and open markets over protectionism. We choose to deal with
challenges now rather than leaving them for future generations. We fight our enemies abroad instead
of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it;
to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy.”
16 “To follow this path, we must maintain and expand our national strength so we can deal with
threats and challenges before they can damage our people or our interests.”
17 “The second pillar of our strategy is confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing
community of democracies. Many of the problems we face – from the threat of pandemic disease, to
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to terrorism, to human trafficking, to natural disasters –
reach across borders. Effective multinational efforts are essential to solve these problems. Yet
history has shown that only when we do our part will others do theirs. America must continue to
lead.”
18 “And we are fighting alongside Iraqis to secure a united, stable, and democratic Iraq – a new ally in
the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East.”
19 “…Yet our strength is not founded on force of arms alone. It also rests on economic prosperity and
a vibrant democracy. And it rests on strong alliances, friendships, and international institutions,
which enable us to promote freedom, prosperity, and peace in common purpose with others. “
20 “As we face multiple threats- from nations, nonstate actors, and failed states- we will maintain the
military superiority that has secured our country and underpinned global security, for decades.”
21 “The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our time- countering
violent extremism, and insurgency, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear
materials, combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth…”
22 “Even as we end one war in Iraq, our military has been called upon renew our focus on
Afghanistan as a part of a commitment to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliaties.
This is a part of a broad, multinational effort that is right and just, and we will be unwavering in our
commitment to the security of our people, allies and partners.”
23 “We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that served us so well, while modernizing
them to meet the challenges of new century.”

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com