Security Sector Governance: Turkey and Europe - DCAF

Askeri harcamalar›n çoklu¤u ülke içi ya da
d›fl› anlaflmazl›klara veya savafllara neden
olmasa bile yine de sorunludur. Çünkü
halihaz›rda hakim olan (geleneksel) güvenlik
anlay›fl› askeri tehditleri gündemin tepesine
oturttu¤undan, bu anlay›fl›n flekillendirdi¤i
uygulamalar insan güvenli¤ini sa¤lamak bir
yana onu tehdit eden bir hal de
alabilmektedir. Di¤er bir deyiflle, güvenlik
politikalar›n›n as›l amac›n›n insanlar›n
güvenli¤ini sa¤lamak oldu¤u, devletin, onun
güvenlik kurum ve uygulamalar›n›n bunun
için oluflturuldu¤u unutulabilmektedir.
“Yeni güvenlik” yaklafl›m›n› savunanlar›n
“dar” ve yetersiz olarak nitelendirdi¤i
geleneksel güvenlik anlay›fl› ve bu
anlay›fl›n flekillendirdi¤i uygulamalar, bu
unutkanl›¤›n pahal› birer örne¤idir.
Güvenlik anlay›fl›n›n topyekûn yeniden
düflünülmesini savunan “yeni güvenlik”
yaklafl›m› ayn› zamanda, güvenli¤in asl›nda
ne için, daha do¤rusu kimin için
sa¤lanmas›n›n gerekli oldu¤unu hat›rlama ve
hat›rlatma çabas›d›r.
“Yeni güvenlik” yaklafl›m›n›n düflünsel
temelleri So¤uk Savafl y›llar›nda at›lm›fl ve
ilk uygulamalar (Ostpolitik örne¤inde oldu¤u
gibi)** yine bu dönemde görülmeye bafllanm›fl
olsa da, bu yaklafl›m›n kabul görmeye
bafllamas› için seksenli y›llar› ve Sovyet lider
Mihail Gorbaçov’un iktidara gelmesini
beklemek gerekir. Gorbaçov’un “yeni
düflünce” ad›n› verdi¤i yaklafl›m›n güvenlik
boyutu, Do¤u ve Bat› blo¤unu oluflturan
devletlerin karfl›l›kl› benimseyecekleri güven
artt›r›c› önlemler ile güvensizlik sarmal›n›
k›rmay› içeriyordu. Y›llardan beri bu konuda
yaz›p çizen akademisyen ve bar›fl
aktivistlerinin gelifltirdi¤i “ortak güvenlik”
kavram›ndan ilham alan Gorbaçov’un 39 bu
yaklafl›m› semeresini verdi; Avrupa’da ellili
y›llardan beri süren gerilim afl›ld›.
** Ostpolitik, Bat› Almanya’n›n, 1970’li y›llar›n bafllar›nda uygulad›¤›, Do¤u Bloku ve
özellikle Do¤u Almanya ile do¤rudan görüflmeler yaparak So¤uk Savafl›n yaratt›¤›
gerginlikleri aflma siyasetidir. (Ed.n.)
39 Risse-Kappen, Thomas, 1994, ‘Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions,
domestic structure and the end of the Cold War,’ International Organization, cilt
48, say› 2, Bahar, s. 185-214; Kaldor, Mary, 1995, ‘Who killed the Cold War?’ The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, cilt 51, say› 4, s. 57-60.
people, but may also turn into threats against
human security. In other words, it may be
forgotten that the main aim of security
policies is to provide security for people, and
that the state and its security institutions and
practices are tools formed in this regard. The
traditional security concept that is deemed
“narrow” and insufficient by those
advocating new security approach and
practices shaped by the traditional approach
are examples of this forgetfulness with high
costs. The new security approach that argues
for a total rethinking of the security concept
is also an effort to remember and remind us
of whose security we should be concerned
with.
Although the intellectual basis of the new
security approach goes back to the Cold War
era, and the first practices are witnessed
during this period (as can be seen in the
example of Ostpolitik),** a wider acceptance of
the approach was not possible until the
eighties, when the Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev came to power. The security
dimension of the approach that Gorbachev
named “new thinking” aimed at breaking the
spiral of insecurity through Eastern and
Western blocks’ mutual adoption of
confidence raising measures. Gorbachev’s
approach, inspired by the common security
concept developed by peace researchers and
activists who worked on the subject for
years39 bore fruit; the tension that had been
present in Europe since the fifties was
overcome.
After 1989, the dissolution of first the Eastern
Block, and then the Soviet Union increased
the hopes pertaining to the protection of
world security, albeit in its narrow sense.
** Ostpolitik, is the politics pursued by West Germany in the beginning of 1970s by
holding meetings with the Eastern Block and especially with East Germany in order
to overcome tensions created by the Cold War. (Ed. note)
39 Risse-Kappen, Thomas, 1994, ‘Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions,
domestic structure and the end of the Cold War,’ International Organization, vol.
48, no. 2, Spring, pp. 185-214; Kaldor, Mary, 1995, ‘Who killed the Cold War?’ The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 57-60.
47