Gökhan AKŞEMSETTİNOĞLU

20132

AB’NİN BAĞIMSIZ BİR GÜVENLİK ve SAVUNMA POLİTİKASI GELİŞTİRME DÜŞÜNCESİ ve STRATEJİK PUSULA

Soğuk Savaş döneminde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ve NATO odaklı bir güvenlik ve savunma politikası benimsemek zorunda kalan Avrupa Birliği (AB), üzerinde uzun zamandır tartıştığı bağımsız bir güvenlik ve savunma politikası geliştirme düşüncesini hayata geçirme fırsatı bulamamıştır. Ancak, Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde uluslararası sistemin yapısının değişmesi, tehditlerin farklılaşması ve AB’nin özellikle son on yıl içinde yaşadığı iç ve dış krizler, üye devletlerin bağımsız bir güvenlik ve savunma politikası geliştirme konusundaki girişimlerini önemli ölçüde artırmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, AB’nin bağımsız bir güvenlik ve savunma politikası geliştirme düşüncesini, zaman içinde duyurduğu stratejiler çerçevesinde hangi düzeyde hayata geçirebildiğini araştırmaktır. Çalışma, AB’nin bağımsız bir güvenlik ve savunma politikasını ABD ve NATO’ya rağmen değil, ABD ve NATO ile işbirliği içinde gerçekleştirebileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, bu varsayımı desteklemek için de kısa süre önce duyurulan Stratejik Pusula ile açıklanan yeni yaklaşıma vurgu yapmaktadır. Nitel araştırma metodu içinde yer alan nitel veri toplama yöntemlerinden doküman/metin analizini kullanan bu çalışma sonuç olarak, Stratejik Pusula ile duyurulan yeni anlayışın AB’nin bağımsız bir güvenlik ve savunma politikası geliştirme düşüncesini, ABD ve NATO ile işbirliği içinde ileri taşıyabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Avrupa Birliği, OGSP, Küresel Strateji, Stratejik Pusula, Avrupa Bütünleşmesi

THE EU'S THOUGHT TO DEVELOP AN INDEPENDENT SECURITY AND DEFENSE POLICY AND THE STRATEGIC COMPASS

The European Union (EU), which had to adopt a security and defense policy focused on the United States of America (USA) and NATO during the Cold War, could not find the opportunity to implement the idea of developing an independent security and defense policy, which it had been focusing on for a long time. However, the change in the structure of the international system in the post-Cold War period, the differentiation of threats and the internal and external crises experienced by the EU, especially in the last ten years, have significantly increased the attempts of the member states to develop an independent security and defense policy. The aim of this study is to investigate at what level the EU has been able to implement the idea of developing an independent security and defense policy. The study reveals that the EU can realize an independent security and defense policy not in spite of the USA and NATO, but in cooperation with the USA and NATO. To support this assumption, the study emphasizes the new approach described in the recently announced Strategic Compass. This study, which uses document/text analysis, one of the qualitative data collection methods included in the qualitative research method, finally reveals that the new understanding announced by the Strategic Compass can advance the EU's idea of developing an independent security and defense policy in cooperation with the USA and NATO.
Keywords:

European Union, CSDP, Global Strategy, Strategic Compass, European Integration,

PDF

___

  • A strategic compass for security and defence (2022). Erişim tarihi: 11.05.2022 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/strategic-compass-security-and-defence-1¬-_en.
  • Antoniades, A. (2008). Social Europe and/or global Europe? Globalization and flexicurity as debates on the future of Europe. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 327-346. doi:10.1080/09557570802253492.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. (2015). Avrupa Birliği kurumlarının Türkiye söylemlerinde bir güvenlik topluluğu olarak Avrupa. Marmara Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 23(2), 99-122.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. ve Marrone, A. (2018). PESCO and security cooperation between the EU and Turkey. Global Turkey in Europe Working Paper 19, 1-7.
  • Barbé, E. ve Morillas, P. (2019). The EU global strategy: the dynamics of a more politicized and politically integrated foreign policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(6), 753-770. doi:10.1080/09557571.2019.1588227.
  • Besch, S. (2019).The European Commission in EU defence industrial policy. Carnegie Europe, 1-7.
  • Bickerton, J. C. (2010). Functionality in EU foreign policy: towards a new research agenda? Journal of European Integration, 32(2), 213-227. doi:10.1080/07036330903486045.
  • Birdişli, F. (2020). Uluslararası güvenliğin tarihsel gelişimi ve post-modern güvenlik dönemi. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, UGK Özel Sayısı, 235-260. doi:10.28956/gbd.696034.
  • Biscop, S. (2016). All or nothing? The EU global strategy and defence policy after the Brexit. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 431-445. doi:10.1080/13523260.2016.1238120.
  • Calleo, P. D. (2008). How Europe could save the world. World Policy Journal, 25(3), 3-12.
  • Csornai, Z. (2017). Evaluating the effects of Brexit on the EU’s common security and defence policy. KKI Policy Brief, 14, 1-12.
  • Diedrichs, U. (2005). The development of the European security and defense policy and its implications for NATO: cooperation and competition. Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 3(1), 55-70. doi:10.1080/14794010508656817.
  • Drath, V. (2007). The new atlanticism: broadening horizons. American Foreign Policy Interests, 29(6), 401-409. doi:10.1080/10803920701776970.
  • Duke, S. (2008). The future of EU-NATO relations: a case of mutual irrelevance through competition. Journal of European Integration, 30(1), 27-43. doi:10.1080/07036330801959457.
  • Duke, S. (2019). The competing logics of EU security and defence. Survival, Global Politics and Strategy, 61(2), 123-142. doi:10.1080/00396338.2019.1589092.
  • Duna, D. (2010). Defining the European Union as a global security actor. Eurolimes, 10, 19-33.
  • Dyson, T. (2008). Convergence and divergence in post-cold war British, French, and German military reforms: between international structure and executive autonomy. Security Studies, 17(4), 725-774. doi:10.1080/09636410802507990.
  • Eriksen, E. O. (2006). The EU-a cosmopolitan polity? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 252-269. doi:10.1080/13501760500451683.
  • European Council conclusions, 28 June 2016 (2016). Erişim tarihi: 11.05.2022 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/28/euco-conclusions.
  • Fiott, D. (2017). The CARD on the EU defence table. European Union Institute for Security Studies, 1-2.
  • Fischer, C. T. (2006). An American looks at the European Union. European Law Journal, 12(2), 226-278. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00317.x.
  • Hemmer, C. (2010). Balancing, bonding, and balking: the European Union, the United States, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Mediterranean Quarterly, 21(2), 47-60.
  • Hyde-Price, A. (2006). Normative power Europe: a realist critique. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 217-234. doi:10.1080/13501760500451634.
  • Irondelle, B. ve Merand, F. (2010). France’s return to NATO: the death knell for ESDP? European Security, 19(1), 29-43. doi:10.1080/09662839.2010.499362.
  • Jones, G. S. (2006). The rise of a European defense. Political Science Quarterly, 121(2), 241-267.
  • Kanet, E. R. (2008). Still Mars, still Venus? The United States, Europe, and the future of the transatlantic relationship. International Politics, 45(3), 231-235. doi:10.1057/ip.2008.1.
  • Keyman, E. F. (2006). Küreselleşme, uluslararası ilişkiler ve hegemonya. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 3(9), 1-20.
  • Koppa, M. E. (2019). The relationship between CSDP and NATO after Brexit and the EU global strategy. FEPS Studies, 1-29.
  • Layne, C. (2006). The unipolar illusion revisited, the coming end of the United States’ unipolar moment. International Security, 31(2), 7-41. doi:10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.7.
  • Leuprecht, C. (2019). New opportunities in common security and defence policy: joining PESCO. Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 11(3), 76-96. doi:10.30722/anzjes.vol11.iss3.15109.
  • Mahncke, D. (2009). The United States, Germany and France: balancing transatlantic relations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(1), 79-93. doi:10.1111%2Fj.1467-856x.2008.00356.x.
  • Mälksoo, M. (2016). From the ESS to the EU global strategy: external policy, internal purpose. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 374-388. doi:10.1080/13523260.2016.1238245.
  • Maull, W. H. (2005). Europe and the new balance of global order, International Affairs, 81(4), 775-799. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00484.x.
  • Menon, A. ve Sedelmeier, U. (2010). Instruments and intentionality: civilian crisis management and enlargement conditionality in EU security policy. West European Politics, 33(1), 75-92. doi:10.1080/01402380903354106.
  • Merand, F. (2010). Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense. Security Studies, 19(2), 342-374. doi:10.1080/09636411003795780.
  • Narramore, T. (2008). China and Europe: engagement, multipolarity and strategy. The Pacific Review, 21(1), 87-108. doi:10.1080/09512740701868930.
  • Oswald, F. (2006). Soft balancing between friends: transforming transatlantic relations. Debatte, 14(2), 145-160. doi:10.1080/09651560600841502.
  • Poettering, H. (2007). Europe as a global player, a parliamentary perspective, Harvard International Review, 29(1), 26-29.
  • Posen, R. B. (2006). European Union security and defense policy: response to unipolarity. Security Studies, 15(2), 149-186. doi:10.1080/09636410600829356.
  • Press-Barnathan, G. (2006). Managing the hegemon: NATO under unipolarity. Security Studies, 15(2), 271-309. doi:10.1080/09636410600829554.
  • Rapnouil, M. L. (2009). A European view on the future of multilateralism. The Washington Quarterly, 32(3), 181-196. doi:10.1080/01636600903025614.
  • Rumelili, B. (2018). Breaking with Europe’s pasts: memory, reconciliation, and ontological (in) security. European Security, 27(3), 280-295. doi:10.1080/09662839.2018.1497979.
  • Schroeder C. U. (2009). Strategy by stealth? The development of EU internal and external security strategies, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10(4), 486-505. doi:10.1080/15705850903314783.
  • Shambaugh, D. (2005). The new strategic triangle: US and European reactions to China’s rise. Washington Quarterly, 28(3), 5-25. doi:10.1162/0163660054026470.
  • Tardy, T. (2018). Does European defence really matter? Fortunes and misfortunes of the common security and defence policy. European Security, 27(2), 119-137. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2018.1454434.
  • Toje, A. (2008). The European Union as a small power, or conceptualizing Europe’s strategic actorness. Journal of European Integration, 30(2) 199-215. doi:10.1080/07036330802005425.
  • Tocci, N. (2016). The making of the EU global strategy. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 461-472. doi:10.1080/13523260.2016.1232559.
  • Tocci, N. (2017). From the European security strategy to the EU global strategy: explaining the journey. International Politics, 54, 487-502. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0045-9.
  • Tocci, N. (2018). Towards a European security and defence union: was 2017 a watershed? JCMS, 56, 131-141. doi:10.1111/jcms.12752.
  • Torun, Z. (2018). Explaining the EU’s security and defence policy: the need for three-level analysis. Ulisa: Uluslararası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 1-16.
  • Wang, S. (2009). The making of new ‘space’: cases of transatlantic astropolitics. Geopolitics, 14(3), 433-461. doi:10.1080/14650040802693820.
  • Wivel, A. (2008). Balancing against threats or bandwagoning with power? Europe and the transatlantic relationship after the cold war. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 289-305. doi:10.1080/09557570802253419.
  • Questions and answers: a background for the strategic compass (2022). Erişim tarihi: 11.05.2022 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/questions-and-answers-background-strategic-compass¬_en
Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2147-2912
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2012
  • Yayıncı: JANDARMA VE SAHİL GÜVENLİK AKADEMİSİ
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Orta Asya'nın Yapay Zeka Jeopolitiği: Rusya ve Çin Örnekleri

Övgü KALKAN KÜÇÜKSOLAK, Tuba FIRAT

AB’NİN BAĞIMSIZ BİR GÜVENLİK ve SAVUNMA POLİTİKASI GELİŞTİRME DÜŞÜNCESİ ve STRATEJİK PUSULA

Gökhan AKŞEMSETTİNOĞLU

Trafik Güvenliği Kapsamında Farklı Bir Model: Risk Dengeleme Teorisi

Tuncay ÇORAK

İşletmelerin Maruz Kaldığı Siber Suçların Boyutu

Cem EROĞLU

Hindistan'ın Savaş Doktrini: Riskleri ve Fırsatları Yeniden Değerlendirmek

Ferhat Çağrı ARAS, Ekber KANDEMİR