واکاوی نظری رفتار نظامیان در سیاست خارجی معاصر

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دکترای سیاست تطبیقی و مدرس دانشگاه - مونیخ آلمان و پژوهشگر دوره پسادکتری

چکیده

نیروی نظامی به‌عنوان یکی از قدرتمندترین سازمان‌های اجتماعی، یکی از شناسه‌های اصلی سیاست جهانی است. ماهیّت آنارشیک سیستم بین‌الملل، ضمن رشد احساس ناامنی و تعلیق امنیت کشورها، نظامیان را به یکی از صاحب‌منصبان سیاست خارجی بدل کرد. کاربرد نیروی نظامی در رهیافت سنتی، ابزار ملّی سیاست‌گذاری تلقّی می‌شود. این نگاه پادگانی مولود جدایی‌ناپذیری اندیشه استراتژیک از تفکّر سیاسی است. اما انقلاب روشنفکری در روابط بین‌الملل از اواسط دهه ۱۹۸۰، ظهور رهیافت‌های انتقادی و معرفت‌شناختی نوین، رشد گفتمان‌های نوین درباره دولت‌های ورشکسته، جنگ‌های نوین و رشد بحث‌های امنیتی‌سازی به‌مثابه برآیند انقلاب پساتجربی باعث غفلت از نقش نظامیان در سیاست خارجی معاصر گردید. ملهم از این امر، پرسش اصلی نگاشته جاری این است که با توجه به تحولات مستحدث در دوران معاصر، پیوند بین نظامیان و سیاست خارجی با چه تغییری مواجه شد؟ طبق فرضیه پژوهش، گرچه جدایی بین نظامیان و سیاست خارجی یکی از ارکان سیاست مدرن است، اما چنین شکافی لزوماً ماهوی و راهبردی نیست، بلکه حاکی از تغییر هویت و نقش نظامیان در دوران معاصر است. در بیان دیگر، دیپلماسی دفاعی به‌مثابه سیستم ضدّ بحران، به تقویت نقش نظامیان در سیاست خارجی جهت ترفیع موقعیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها می‌انجامد. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که دیپلماسی دفاعی با تلاش برای توزیع و تکثیر امنیت ایجابی، بستری برای گذار به سوی جوامع پسامنازعه مهیّا می‌کند. چنین فرضیه‌ای با روش تحلیلی و استمداد از شیوه اسنادی- کتابخانه‌ای به آزمون گذاشته می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Theoretical Analysis of Military Forces’ Behavior in the Contemporary Foreign Policy

نویسنده [English]

  • Vahid Zolfaghari
Ph.D. in Comparative Politics - Munich- Germany, and Post-doc researcher.
چکیده [English]

As one of the powerful social entities, military forces are one of the main characteristics of the global politics. Both with increasing the feelings of insecurity and suspending the security of countries, the anarchic nature of international system has turned the military forces as one of the main foreign policy makers. They are treated as the national instrument of policy making in traditional approach. Such perspective results from the inseparability of strategic thought with political one. However, the intellectual revolution in the international relations during the mid-80s, rising critical and new epistemological approaches, prevailing the new approaches about the failed states, new wars and rising debates about securitization has led to ignoring the role and influences of military forces in the contemporary foreign policy. Accordingly, the main question of this paper is according to the happened developments, how the relationship between military forces and foreign policy changed? Although the separation of military forces and foreign policy is one of the main elements of the modern politics, but this is not strategic cleavage and imply the changing role and identity of military forces in contemporary era. In other words, defensive diplomacy as an anti-crisis system will amplify the influence of military forces in the foreign policy to promote the international status of the states. So, the findings of this paper show that defensive diplomacy will provide a suitable environment to move towards post-conflict societies by propagating the positive security. This hypothesis will be tested by analytical and library-based method.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Military Forces
  • Foreign Policy
  • Security
  • strategic thought
  • defensive diplomacy
  • Acemoglu, D., Ticchi, D., and Vindigni, A. (2010). A Theory of Military Dictatorships. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2(1), 1–42.
  • Aguero, F. (1997). Toward Civilian Supermacy in South America. In Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-Han Chu and Hung-Mao Tien (eds.). Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies. New York: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Ball, A. R., and Guy-Peters, B. (2000). Modern Politics and Government. London: Macmillan Press.
  • Baumann, Rainer and Gunther Hellmann (2001). Germany and the Use of Military Force: Total War, the Culture of Restraint, and the Quest for Normality. German Politics, 10(1), 1–32.
  • Berghahn, V. R. (2006). Europe in the Era of Two World Wars: From Militarism and Genocide to Civil Society, 1900-1950. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Bland, D. L. (1999). A Unified Theory of Civil-Military Relations. Armed Forces and Society, 26, 7–26.
  • Brooks, R. A. (2008). Shaping Strategy: The Civil-Military Politics of Strategic Assessment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clausewitz, C. V. (1974). On War: Notes of 10 July 1827. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Cottey, A. and Forster, A. (2004). Reshaping Defense Diplomacy: New Role for Military Cooperation Assistance. New York: International Institute of Strategic Studies.
  • Dodd, T., and Oakes, M. (1998). The Strategic Defence Review. Research Paper 91.
  • Drab, L. (2018). Defence Diplomacy: An Important Tool for the Implementation of Foreign Policy and Security of the State. Security and Defence Quarterly, 20(3), 57–81.
  • Edeh, Herbert C., and Ugwueze, M. I. (2014). Military and Politics: Understanding the Theoretical Underpinnings of Military Incursion in the Third World Politics. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 2047–2058.
  • Feaver, P. (2003). Armed Servants. New York: Harvard University Press.
  • Galtung, J. (1971). A Structural Theory of Imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 81–98.
  • Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Griffith, S. B. (1963). Sun Tzu: The Art of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Huntington, S. P. (1957). The Soldier and the State. New York: Harvard University Press.
  • Jafari, Aliakbar and Zolfaghari, Vahid (2017). Clash of Interests and Middle East Security. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 8(25), 57-98.
  • Janowitz, M. (1960). The Professional Solider: A Social and Political Portrait. London: Free Press.
  • Levy, J. S. (1989). The Causes of War. In Philip E. Tetlock (ed.). Behavior, Society and Nuclear War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Loveman, B. (1989). The Politics of Antipolitics. London: University of Nebraska Press.
  • Mabee, Bryan. and Vucetic, S. (2017). Varieties of Militarism: Towards a Typology. Security Dialogue, 49(1-2), 96–108.
  • Mann, M. (1987). The Roots and Contradictions of Modern Militarism. New Left Review, 1(162), 35–50.
  • Mann, M. (1996). Authoritarian and Liberal Militarism: A Contribution from Comparative and Historical Sociology. In S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski (eds.). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Meernik, J. D. (2018). The Political Use of Military Force in US Foreign Policy. London: Routledge.
  • Moshirzadeh, H. (2018). Threat Perceptions and Security Dilemma in the Middle East. Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs, 9(27), 5-33.
  • O'Donnell, Guillermo and Schmitter, Philippe. (1986). Transition from Authoritarian Rule. New York: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Onder, M. (2010). What Accounts for Military Interventions in Politics: A Cross-National Comparison. Available at; <http://www.eakademi.org/incele.asp?konu=WHAT%20ACCOUNTS%20FOR%20MILITARY%20INTERVENTIONS%20IN.
  • Owens, M. T. (2010). Civil-Military Relations. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626. 013. 123.
  • Pajtinka, E. (2016). Military Diplomacy and Its Present Functions. International & National Studies, 20, 179–194.
  • Schiff, R. L. (2009). The Military and Domestic Politics: A Concordance Theory of Civil-Military Relations. London: Routledge.
  • Schmidt, B. C. (2007). Competing Realist Conceptions of Power. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 523–549.
  • Shaw, M. (2013). Twenty-first century militarism: A historical-sociological framework. In A. Stavrianakis, J. Selby (eds.). Militarism and International Relations: Political Economy, Security, Theory. London: Routledge
  • Singh, B. and Seng Tan, S. (2011). From Boots to Brouges: The Rise of Defence Diplomacy in Southeast Asia. London: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
  • Smith, A. (1999). Testing Theories of Strategic Choice: The Example of Crisis Escalation. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1254–1283.
  • Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambitions. London: Cornell University Press.
  • Stepan, A. (1988). Rethinking Military Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Swistek, G. (2012). The Nexus between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy in Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy. Connections, 11(2), 79–86.
  • U.S. Army Center for Military History. (1990). Dwight David Eisenhower: The Centennial. London: Government Printing Office.
  • Wallerstein, I. (1988). The Modern World System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the World Capitalist System, 1730-1840. London: Academic Press.
  • Walt, S. M. (1995). Alliance Formation and the Balance of Power. International Security, 9(4), 3–43.
  • Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. London: Addison-Wesley.
  • Welch, C. E. (1993). Civil-Military Relations. In T. Dupuy (ed.). International Military and Defence Encyclopedia. London: Brassey's.
  • Willard, M. J. E. (2006). Military Diplomacy: An Essential Tool of Foreign Policy at the Theater Strategic Level. School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
  • Zakaria, F. (1992). Realism and Domestic Politics. International Security, 17(1), 177–198.