Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 1

Central Asian Policy of US After the Cold War: Expectations and Realities

Soğuk Savaş Sonrasında ABD'nin Orta Asya Politikası: Beklentiler ve Gerçeklikler

Pages
207–235
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Nevertheless, US engagement of Central Asia is effected by some factors and these factors are also heavily influenced by Russia and China’s policies executed towards the region and the domestic structure of Central Asian countries.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the Cold War era Central Asia hadn’t esteemed as an important region by US foreign policy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the early 1990s the region attracted attention for its nuclear capacity left over from Soviet Union, in the mid-1990s for the rediscovery of Caspian energy resources and in the late 1990s for democracy issues and human rights abuses.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Nevertheless, US engagement of Central Asia is effected by some factors and these factors are also heavily influenced by Russia and China’s policies executed towards the region and the domestic structure of Central Asian countries.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the Cold War era Central Asia hadn’t esteemed as an important region by US foreign policy. Even though US started to engage to Central Asia with the collapse of USSR, the region still wasn’t evaluated as a region having vital interests like Middle East. In the early 1990s the region attracted attention for its nuclear capacity left over from Soviet Union, in the mid-1990s for the rediscovery of Caspian energy resources and in the late 1990s for democracy issues and human rights abuses. But after the 9/11 attacks, Central Asia’s strategic significance started to increase due to the fight against international terrorism and American military bases were founded in the region. Thus, the security factor gained importance in the 2000’s in Central Asian policy of US which was basically emerged as the protection of American economic interests and gaining and maintaining safe access to Caspian energy resources in the 1990s. Nevertheless, US engagement of Central Asia is effected by some factors and these factors are also heavily influenced by Russia and China’s policies executed towards the region and the domestic structure of Central Asian countries.

Özet

Orta Asya Soğuk Savaş döneminde Amerikan dış politikası açısından hayati öneme sahip bir bölge olarak addedilmemişti. SSCB’nin dağılmasının ardındansa, Orta Asya’ya yönelik Amerikan angajmanı başlamakla beraber, bölge ilk dönemde Washington açısından Orta Doğu gibi hayati çıkarların bulunduğu stratejik bir bölge olarak değerlendirilmemişti. 11 Eylül saldırıları öncesinde bölge, Amerikan karar vericileri açısından 1990’ların ilk yarısında SSCB’den arta kalan nükleer kapasiteler nedeniyle, 1990’ların ortalarında özellikle Hazar havzasındaki enerji kaynaklarının yeniden keşfedilmesiyle ve 1990’ların sonundaysa demokrasi ve insan hakları ihlalleri gibi konularla dikkati çekmişti. Ancak 11 Eylül saldırıları sonrasında yürütülen uluslararası terörizmle savaş doğrultusunda Orta Asya’nın stratejik önemi giderek artmaya başlamış ve bölgede Amerikan askeri üsleri kurulmuştur. Bir diğer ifadeyle 1990’lı yıllarda temel olarak Amerikan ticari çıkarlarının korunması ve enerji güvenliğinin sağlanması şeklinde ortaya çıkan ABD’nin Orta Asya politikası, 2000’li yıllara gelindiğinde güvenlik unsurunun daha ön planda olduğu bir içerik kazanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

PİRİNÇÇİ, F. (2022). Central Asian Policy of US After the Cold War: Expectations and Realities. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 63 - Sayı: 1, 207–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/443184

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. ARI, Tayyar (2007),
  2. Irak, İran, ABD ve Petrol (İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2. Baskı). BARRY, Tom (edt.) (13 December 2004), “Toward a New Grand Strategy for U.S. Foreign Policy,” IRC Strategic Dialogue, 3. BEEHNER, Lionel (26 July 2005), “U.S. Military Bases in Central Asia,” Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/asia.html, (e.t. 06/04/2006). Brookings Roundtable (12 November 2002), “United States Foreign Policy in the States of Central Asia,” http://www.brookings.org/comm/events/hill20021112.htm#TRANSCRIPT, (e.t. 28/10/2003).
  3. BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew (2005), Büyük Satranç Tahtası: Amerika’nın Küresel Üstünlüğü ve Bunun Stratejik Gereklilikleri (İstanbul: İnkılâp Yayınevi) (Çev.: Y. Türedi). BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew (2000a), “Living with China,” National Interest, 59: 5-21.
  4. BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew (2000b), “Living with Russia,” National Interest, 61: 5-12.
  5. BUSH, George W (2001), “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,” www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html (e.t. 28/03/2006).
  6. CHAN, John (30 July 2005), “Russia and China Call for Closure of US Bases in Central Asia,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/base-j30.shtml, (e.t. 02/04/2006).
  7. DONGFENG, Ren (2003), “The Central Asia Policies of China, Russia and the USA, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Process: A View from China,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/ CentralAsiaSCO.pdf (e.t. 01/04/2006).
  8. ERHAN, Çağrı (2003), “ABD'nin Orta Asya Politikası ve 11 Eylül Sonrası Yeni Açılımları,” Stradigma(Sayı 9): 1-21.
  9. GELB, Bernard A. (2005), Caspian Oil and Gas: Production and Prospects, Congressional Research Service, Issue Brief for Congress. GUOLİANG, Gu (2003), “Redefine Cooperative Security, Not Preemption,” The Washington Quarterly, 26/2: 135–145.
  10. HERSH, Seymour M. (9 July 2001), “The Price of Oil: What was Mobil up in Kazakhstan and Russia?,” The New Yorker: 48-65. http://www.inogate.org/html/countries/kazakhstan.htm#V, (e.t. 02/04/2006).
  11. IKENBERRY, G. John (2001), “Getting Hegemony Right,” National Interest, 63: 17-24.
  12. International Crisis Group (2004), Repression and Regression in Turkmenistan: A New International Strategy, Crisis Group Asia Report Asia Report, No. 85. International Crisis Group (2005), Kyrgyzstan: After the Revolution, Crisis Group Asia Report No 97. JANNUZI, Frank (2001), “Discussion of ‘US Global Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era’ ” Journal of Contemporary China, 10/27: 3