Security Sector Governance: Turkey and Europe - DCAF

güvenlik ve insan haklar› birbirine karfl›t
de¤il, karfl›l›kl› olarak birbirini tamamlayan
de¤erler olarak da görülebilir. Nitekim
liberal toplum sözleflmesi gelene¤ine
bak›ld›¤›nda, devletin varl›k nedeni olarak
güvenli¤in sa¤lanmas› ve haklar›n
korunmas› hedefinin öne ç›kt›¤›n› görürüz.
John Locke’a göre, insanlar do¤al
durumlar›nda son derece özgür ve mutlu
olduklar› halde, güvenlik eksikli¤inden
dolay›, haklar› ve özgürlükleri güvenceye
alacak bir ayg›t›, yani devleti yaratm›fllard›r.
Ayr›ca, güvenlik ve özgürlü¤ün ayn› de¤erde
olmad›¤›n› da belirtmek gerekir. Güvenlik
son kertede bir araçt›r; hak ve özgürlükleri
güvenceye alman›n bir arac›d›r. 2
Buradaki sorun, düzen ve güvenlik gibi son
derece esnek kavramlar›n kötüye
kullan›larak, özgürlüklerin keyfi bir flekilde
s›n›rland›r›lmas›ndad›r. Özellikle ola¤anüstü
durumlarda, insanlar›n düzen ve güvenlik
kayg›lar›, özgürlükleri koruma düflüncesinin
önüne geçmektedir. Dengenin s›kça
vurguland›¤› ve özgürlükler aleyhine
bozuldu¤u dönemler, gerçek ya da sanal bir
düflman›n alg›land›¤› ve onunla mücadele
stratejilerinin gelifltirildi¤i “zor zamanlar”d›r.
Arthur Miller, 17. yüzy›lda Amerika’n›n
Salem köyünde yaflanan cad› av›n› anlatt›¤›
Cad› Kazan› adl› yap›t›nda, özgürlük ve
düzen aras›ndaki denge ihtiyac›na de¤inir ve
der ki:
“Münferit bir zulüm karfl›s›nda mazlumlara
sadece ac›nabilir, böylesi bir durumda bizlere
de ac›naca¤› gibi. Ama hiçbir bask› olmaks›z›n
da toplumsal bir hayat kurulamaz. Düzen
ile özgürlük aras›nda bir denge bulmak
zorunday›z.” 3
çeliflen ve uzun vadede kendi yenilgisini haz›rlayan bir ifltir.” Annan, Kofi, 2002,
‘Addressing Security Council, Secretary-General Endorses Three-Pronged Counter-
Terrorism Strategy’, Bas›n Bildirisi [Press Release],
.
2 Güvenlik-özgürlük dengesi fikrinin araç-amaç iliflkisi düzleminde bir
de¤erlendirmesi için bkz. Dinh, Viet, 2003, ‘We Have to Rethink Privacy
Protection’, Human Rights and Terrorism, Netherlands Helsinki Committee,
Lahey, s. 75.
3 Miller, Arthur, 1962, Cad› Kazan›, çev. S. Eyübo¤lu ve V. Günyol, Milli E¤itim
Bas›mevi, ‹stanbul, s. 8. Al›nt›n›n ilk cümlesi orijinal metinden yeniden
çevrilmifltir: bkz. Miller, Arthur, 1968, The Crucible, Penguin Books, Middlesex , s.
16.
Therefore, security and human rights can be
perceived as two values complementing each
other rather than conflicting with one other.
Indeed, when we look into the tradition of
liberal social contract theory, we see that the
raison d’être of the state is the provision of
security and protection of rights. According
to John Locke, although free and happy in
state of nature, human beings established the
state, a device for securing rights and liberties
due to the lack of security. Also, it should be
indicated that security and liberties do not
have the same value. In the final analysis,
security is a tool for guaranteeing rights and
liberties. 2
Here, the problem is the abuse of concepts
like order and security—concepts that are
very flexible by nature—for the arbitrary
limitation of liberties. Especially in
extraordinary situations, people’s concerns
about order and security overrule the idea of
the protection of liberties. Periods in which
the balance between security and liberties is
often referred to and in which this balance is
tipped to the disadvantage of liberties are
“hard times” where the existence of a real or
virtual enemy is perceived and strategies
against it are developed. In the play The
Crucible about a witch hunt in the town of
Salem in 17 th-century America, Arthur
Miller talks about the need for a balance
between liberty and order and says:
“When one rises above the individual villainy
displayed, one can only pity them all, just as we
shall be pitied someday. It is still impossible for
man to organize his social life without
repressions, and the balance has yet to be struck
between order and freedom.” 3
‘Addressing Security Council, Secretary-General Endorses Three-Pronged Counter-
Terrorism Strategy’, Press Release,
.
2 For an analysis of security-liberty balance with regards to the relationship
between means and ends, see Dinh, Viet, 2003, ‘We Have to Rethink Privacy
Protection’, Human Rights and Terrorism, Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The
Hague, pp. 75.
3 Miller, Arthur, 1962, Cad› Kazan›, trans. S. Eyübo¤lu and V. Günyol, Milli E¤itim
Bas›mevi, ‹stanbul, pp. 8. First sentence of the quotation has been re-translated
from the original text: see, Miller, Arthur, 1968, The Crucible, Penguin Books,
Middlesex, pp. 16.
27