Saugumas ir identitetas transatlantinėje saugumo bendrijoje

Abstract

Prieš penkiasdešimt metų Karlas Deutschas iškėlė idėją, kad valstybės gali formuoti bendrijas, grindžiamas ne tik materialiniu išskaičiavimu, tačiau vienijamas identiteto ir pasitikėjimo. Tai nebuvo lengvai priimta pasaulyje, kuriame vyrauja realistinis požiūris į tarptautinius santykius, tačiau saugumo bendrijos savo egzistenciją laipsniškai įtvirtino praktiniais pavyzdžiais. Transatlantinė saugumo bendrija, kurios susikūrimo ir funkcionavimo galimybę nagrinėjo Karlas Deutschas, įrodė, kad valstybių tarpusavio santykiai neturi būti vertinami vien tik per saugumo dilemų ir ekonominio išskaičiavimo prizmę. Kolektyvinis identitetas ir tarpusavio pasitikėjimas kuria saugumo bendriją, kurioje taikių permainų viltys yra patikimos ir tvirtos. Tačiau ar vien tik taikių permainų viltys sudaro saugumo bendriją? Kaip Transatlantinė saugumo bendrija reaguoja į moderniojo pasaulio iššūkius, kaip jos funkcionavimui atsiliepia skirtingai JAV ir Europoje suvokiamos grėsmės? Straipsnyje analizuojama naujųjų saugumo grėsmių įtaka transatlantiniam identitetui ir tai, kokius pokyčius išgyvena Transatlantinė saugumo bendrija, susidūrusi su jomis.

The concept of security community goes back to Karl Deutsch, who distinguished between “amalgamated” and “pluralistic” security communities. In an amalgamated security community, such as the US, two or more states formally merge into an expanded state. On the other hand, a pluralistic security community retains the legal independence of separate states, but integrates them to the point that the units entertain “dependable expectations of peaceful change”. A pluralistic security community develops when its members possess a compatibility of core values derived from common institutions and mutual responsiveness – a matter of mutual identity and loyalty, and a “we-feeling” among states. The Transatlantic Security Community was born right after the WWII when Western countries formed a collective identity against a commonly perceived threat – Soviet Union. Transatlantic Security Community was a symbol of Western values, traditions and identity. The end of Cold War changed the context within which the Community now had to operate. The loss of a clear and present danger didn’t affect the transatlantic partnership much – or it seemed so. The core Atlantic powers appeared to be drawing much closer together and facing the future with a great deal of confidence, but the Kosovo intervention proved it to be wrong. The fact that the operation was run and largely conduced by Americans made USA think of Europeans as of allies who not only had limited technical means but whose leaders had to adapt to a public opinion that was far from supportive of fighting an engagement that had not been sanctioned by the UN. The gap between America and Europe widened even more after the attacks of September 11. American unilateralism and militarism was considered as a sign of maladroitness in complex international issues by Europeans, and the Europe just lacked ‘hard’ power and political will in the opinion of Americans. The transatlantic relationship is currently going through a period as formative as the immediate post-war years. The new collective identity and values must be formed in order that Transatlantic Security Community survives.