Oktay BİNGÖL
Assoc. Prof. Dr. İstanbul Arel University,
Department of IR
Abstract
In this paper, the changes in the global security architecture are examined. It is designed in three chapters: the security architecture of the Cold War period, the evolving global security environment by focusing on its pillars and regulating principles; and the challenges for Turkey. It is argued that the present international system is non-polar. The distribution of power capacities supports this argument. In global politics, power is diffused, actors increased and are diversified, and subjects are expanded. In this type of international security architecture, states face several challenges to find and implement appropriate
policies and strategies. Turkey has experienced such difficulty in its foreign policy too. Turkey’s domestic economic, political and social problems complicate its position.
Introduction
International security architecture was designed and put into practice as a result of the world wars which took place within nearly 30 years between 1914-1945, and the political, social, economic and military crises/developments which emerged during and after such wars. In spite of significant changes until today, this architecture has still continued. However, the changes in the global security architecture pose challenges and provide windows of opportunities for all state and non-state actors of international politics. In the following chapters, firstly the security architecture of the Cold War period is examined in order to reveal very founding components of the present order. In the second part, the evolving global security environment is discussed by focusing on its pillars and regulating principles. The last chapter discusses the challenges for Turkey.
International Security Architecture of 1945-1990 Period
The four pillars of the security architecture which aroused after World War II are polarity, institutions, regimes and customs. The type of polarity prevailed after the World War II was in fact a radically modified form of the one with changing actors, which emerged before and continued during the war. In the late 1930’s when approaching to the World War II, the prevailing multipolar system of nineteenth century had transformed into bipolarity because of the formation of two major alliances, in the leadership of Germany-Japan and England-France. When the War started in 1939, the Soviet Union which stayed out of two poles and was in search of ad hoc alliances for its own survival, necessarily found itself among the Allies because of the German attacks on 22 June 1941.(1) Hence, the bipolarity emerged and lasted until the end of the War.
The victors of the World War II were the USA, which was not seriously affected by the war and the Soviet Union, which suffered heavy losses. The USA, after the landings on Sicily in July 1943 and Normandy in June 1944, invaded the significant part of the Europe; and the Soviet Union, counter-attacking Germany as of 1943, firstly repelled occupation forces and then entered Eastern Europe. As it became clear that Germany would lose the War, a cutthroat land rush between the USA and the Soviet Union in the Europe started. The Soviets reached the western Poland and Hungary in January 1945 whereas
The victors of the World War II were the USA, which was not seriously affected by the war and the Soviet Union, which suffered heavy losses. The USA, after the landings on Sicily in July 1943 and Normandy in June 1944, invaded the significant part of the Europe; and the Soviet Union, counter-attacking Germany as of 1943, firstly repelled occupation forces and then entered Eastern Europe. As it became clear that Germany would lose the War, a cutthroat land rush between the USA and the Soviet Union in the Europe started. The Soviets reached the western Poland and Hungary in January 1945 whereas
the US troops crossed the Rhine river in March 1945. In April 1945, Soviet Soldiers surrounded Berlin. Germany unconditionally surrendered to Western
Allies on 7 May 1945 in Reims and to the Soviets on 9 May in Berlin.(2) There occurred a similar race in the Far East as well: just after the USA had detonated nuclear bombs which killed hundreds thousands civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the War in Pacific ended. On September 2, Japan officially surrendered. (3) The nuclear bombs were, on the one hand, the revenge of the Japanese attacks and the losses which the USA had undergone in Pearl Harbor, and on the other hand the signal of the coming global competition.
(Continued in the attached article)...
(1) Gerhard L. Weinberg, “22 June 1941: The German View“,War in Historyvol.3, no. 2 (1996): 225-33. www.jstor.org/stable/26004550.
(2) Andrew Glass, “Nazi Germany surrenders, May 7, 1945“, Politicio, 05.07.2018. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/07/nazi-germany-surrenders-may-7-1945-568948
(3) Richard B. Frank, “Ending the Pacific War: Harry Truman and the Decision To Drop the Bomb“, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 28.4. 2009. https://www.fpri.org/article/2009/04/ending-the-pacific-war-harry-truman-and-the-decision-to-drop-the-bomb/
Link to the Related Book > NEW WORLD ARCHITECTURE OF ECONOMY AND SECURITY
_jpeg_2025_22_12_b3702079-4965-4132-8c28-6f30c62c1513.jpeg "Defense, Security, and Intelligence Revolution: Technopolitics and Demopolitics")
